reviews research and theory on the “development in children and stereotype formation ‘has developed largely independently from another, Tnimportant ways. Toward this end, the authors hav Gifferences in the ways that stereotypes form in these two © He the Ways Chat Seo andamental cognitive abilities that Suppor categorization nt differences in how the processes operate and in the ‘appear to possess many of the same fun stereotype formation, there are importat important roles cial motives play among adults a tat oc ao ie enny correlation, and category accentuation. The authors ba Be iore rebut imegration af these research topics would offer a rich source of progres ‘on the concepts of essentialism, illusory corre! understanding stereotyping. social cognitive un ‘among adults. the two areas of research may inform ong itive underpinnings of both Ithough research on t ie tried to draw attention to both similar ‘ontexts. Although children and ad 's. In addressing these issues, focus will be Key Words: stereotype development, stereotype formation, essentialism, illusory correlation ‘category accentuation Stereotypes are the knowledge, beliefs, and expectations we hold about human groups (e.g Hamilton & Sherman, 1994; Hamilton & Trolier 1986). The purpose of this chapter is to describe how stereotypes are formed. Toward this end, we describe both the development of stercotypes in children and the formation of novel stercotypes among adults. Given the social cognitive focus of this book, the primary cognitive processes that underlie stereotype forma tion.! An important foundational principle of the ‘social cognitive approach is that stereotypes serve | the same essential functions as other categorical knowledge in structuring and simplifying the vase | _quantities of things and people we encounter so that understand and navigate the world more port, 1954; Lippmann, 1922; fe, the cognitive processes that support ate assumed to be largely the sis will be on the we same as those that contribute co the foam all categorical knowledge sufficient to produce stercorypic knowledg the absence of important sociomotivationall These basic pro that encourage stereotyping, However, there also are important di between stereotypes and other kinds of cal knowledge. Otherwise, there would Bem son to study stereotypes as a specialized knowledge. Most obviously, because # sdb refer to categories of people, they ate and socially relevant in ways that most are not P Consequently, stereotype influenced not only by motives of amis and efficiency but also by socia desire to enhance feclings of self-worth Spencer, 1997; Katz, 1960; Lippmatls & Turner, 1986) and to explain social order (e.g., Allport, 19545of re als OF OUP tha ae ‘content of those ‘ovhich we'nll af emttmleoptiees There ee ae Presentation will be to understand the development of base cognitive process that under the evol- ‘ion of social categories in children, which allow for the development of sterenypes as children attach meaning to thee categories. I is, ofcourse, she act Development in Childe pst ofthe empirical nd theoretical work thx | psychologists have done regarding “sterent development” has tricd co identify the tmexe errant factors that bring about the development “pfstercorypes in adults. OF course, to study seer development in adults, itis necessary to inves tigate such development for novel groups. Adults E ay have welldevoped cress of al the Gimportant” social groups, such as gender, race, age = ahi and slgon. Ths, racers ply e ent adult participants with information abou Bi tess of Group A snd Grou Balke o : | what dot overestimarors are like, or what the mem Be fer of some hypothetical organization are like. By Geploring the factors (c.g, group size, relations to - | Ba ytolenown groups) thar mora | the impressions that form ofthese groups, rescarch es can draw conclusions about how stereotype | develop in terms of strength, valence, extremity | malleability, and. | Far less has been written in social psycholo; Gutlets regarding the development of stereotype i young children—although, as we shall. sec there are important exceptions. Importantly, even n of When social psychologists address the question of $ are age-related changes in stereotype development, the nin rarely refer to the general cognitive development lit 1088 ffature in order to gain an understanding of how the child’ development « fization skills might inform us about whether th “oncepts young child may or may not be capable of ¢ ping stereotypes of social groups, about how these Biereotypes might change as the child ages, or about how these stereotypes held by children mi i be Similar to or different from the stercotypes | Alls. The goal of this section will be co invert knowledge of the development of the child's cogni- fiveskills and cognitive processes zi knowl S0cial psychological aspects of child dev Shed light on the social cognitive processes nV NE if age-relared changes in stereotype development, IDilyby exploring stereotype developmen in YN uestions about or ant q celopment t0 rolved \swer iriporta SHERMAN, SHERMAN, of categorization that is estemtial for the develope ‘ment oF steeotypes. Much of this work has been done by cognitive developmental psychologists. The second part of this section will discuss te theory that has directly investigated specific stereo types and their development in children. Much of this work has been done by social sch and hologists How Children Think and How They Acquire Words, Concepts, and Categories ASSOCIATIONIST VERSUS THEORY-BASED As the young child acquires words and concxpts, does the process involve the learning of observed 1 play? A related question is whethe nung the young child of abstract thought. The it is more likely that young children can. think in thought as they learn about social categories. Of these questions often present false cither-or dicho ‘omies. For example, Waxman and Gelman (2009) ‘onclude thaca childs thinking and knowledge are ssec! on both perceptual and conceptual content that such knowledge is derived from more than. simple sensory input, that itis both associationist and theory-based, and that it is abstract as well as What is the vy-based processes play a significant role in concepts? Waxman and evidence that abstract and theor the child’ development of © Gelman (2009) demonstrate that the young chilis PERCY, SODERBERG | 549child and that are deiven aq Ho gh concep oF ¥erY 10S . capacities a8 by the soil Be Gipbrane thar the childs cone er che early capacity for Hheoagh ‘include an Sr abstract chinking that mls td he youns Tunderstanding of 2 co knowles of Be theory about the bebaviok oe eT sng cme anc... developer 4 ea st and inevitable, often regardless of whether pa _ same cate “jects: These capacities oan ec ite pers ciel tach oF ON Co ‘i ing, that er sreroryperelcrne capacity seat thinking ein pe eal in eood invlss becom ace ana ven Prcesng, Research segs tha a ee eee eo DEVELOPMENT S Benth i and a Facs that mah ems become clear in recent yeas a aa ere iuions Naha, pays seniiea vole in shaping, human hag 7 Although Whorf’s (1956) 3m ee + of heir primary caregiver Weitan, Slater, 8 Pascalis, 2002) or fa0os of a famil- Bacal group (Bar-Haiow Ziv, Lamy: & Hodes: 2006; Kelly eval, 2005). Surprising) even infants arc capable of developing representations of proto typi faces (de Haan, Johnson, Maures Perret B01). Thus, face processing in infants shows Be peri race preferences. Such capacities involving Gheaction would cersainly facilitate the devclop enc ofscreorypes ac cal” a8: ally, Platten, Herik, Fonagy, and Fearon 8 masculine (eg € eeys are desc {2010 he cin te, dolpmen Meola: henepand jagged. In languages 10 Way Fiphleel cognitive xpaiiis in young cider whey? is feminine (eg, Spanish. Keys acwould be extremely important forthedevelop- as golden and intricate These kinds of ey hood. at amentof stereotypes: Fis a eee even effects likely develop during child! infantsunderstand pressions (Lappiinen Language plays an important role in cto Fo ar fand experience: form of the linguistic relativity principle (angag 4 severely limits thougil Jk form ofthe pit erccived entitatvie Shipley’s research (2000) shows thar entrenchmen docs characterize children’s acquisition and use of ‘category Knowledge. She outlines the processes inyolved in children's acquisition of an entrenched category. Interestingly, when a category could be characterized as entrenched, Shipley (2000) foxnd thar children were more likely to transfer behaviors rather than appearance from member to mem mat looks like a camel, children as young as 3 years will identify i 1. Shipley concludes thar behavioral proper Thus, ifan animal acts like a tig fesare entrenched more than physical appearance properties and are chus more I keh o transfer from member ro member and to beinvolved in inductive inferences about category members. "Ths i impo tant for stereotyping in that stereotypes of groups mere physical aribuces. In what we believe isthe only research to invest gateentitativity perceptionsinchildren, Sviydrcnka, Sani, and Bennett (2010) asked whether children could discriminate different group types wich $54 | STEREOTYPE DEVELOPMENT AND pony, respec parti aske they were a 7 ries. Like adul categories | th cw ped ely Th 10 Pee 1 illest $04 gn ipa hy did sorting edi ol cp opine four a ecgories, and loose ange se vay saw the different group tye tion to the this ee ‘ind peinciples theo evelop. although Sind processes disc they are relevant of proper groups ‘ Peay ay 2 iat levels of enttativity Wich ini Stereotypes in C i roupshaviog the highest Perceived ga pO CHILDREN 1 we tions the lowest. Some ofa GROUPS? IF 50, and loose associa * ofthe The answe: speci for children to dcrelog geal children do. hol it would be easy in aia ruups. A numb hese groups. For exam erouP tirschfeld, 1995 With regard to races, MeGlothl for perceiv eat -chensivep search and theory that focuses directly 004 ; reotypas stereotype: «children are like! hold ind Tomellé Steteotypes in children. In addition, 1983 to ideas about social psychological pm hese are involved bili dren, Howe a ed in stereotype development 3 We will also address the question of how ne ability o feotypes are similar to or different from MO) lit thec chi types held by ."90 CHILDREN HAVE SPECIFIC Stenng OTYPES of GROUPS? IF SO, HOW DO THEY 11. HEY LEARN THEME “heanswer to the Fis question is fot Gilden do. hold stereotypes of yan” 9 aps: A number of researchers hve vo Bitetabiren form stereotypes an Bippepbie chilren’juhgmnenr leit clear thae these ste about the ati utes of individual group members (Aboud, 1954 Hirschfld, 1995a, 1996; Rods 8 Gelman, 200% With regard t0 negative tate ofthe pe etablshment of he : - : ca peace aaa i p eee ieeccncrrcosey prior | more comple 2 eal fa ilcoind : i and ar ite salien important in mo ae depen Silden, Biglr 1 n conclude tha : learn th eieroie: hort, th nti drawn 3 P an and thee hn th aaleee agen up Once cesin attates are form i ences. ae le TYPES THAT CHIL ‘0 : OF DIFFERENT 50 sttie ated with ¢ SNLIKELIHOOD, staeNGrH, ange uch an Ssorerns AND OTHER reotypes of math ab ha ‘reotyping in children, " a sin : . Ree eictildecs tes of theres 2 ; in very young childn tai lov hildren, H. Wile iattoer ne & Mo eng ath ability. per a SC a le ge ns in gil —_ Gender Jacobs, La Je (Fredichs & HOTYeE In &, Osgood, Eocles, & portantly, and i npindicated above, there has = reney i reports of when young ‘eerorypes of their math a sili Cadinu, and Tomaseteo (2011) Ample math stereotypes existe Jong before the emergence of srereotypes. Their research verif such embryonic implicit stereo ails, but not boys, using the LA’ stereotypes were seen for young Tevel, where girls in face fol th been son Ritls develo es. Recend investig, ated whether explicitly measured fied the ex istence of Yes for first-grade T. However, no such sirls at the expl Q explicit at they were stron . gerat math than boys. A subsequent aun ; that the math performance of these young eu t aegitively affected by stereorype threat menipus tions. Whereas gender is a strong catepory y children ages 3 t0 6 years although th more flexible in older children Hand, may not be as important a category for yous, thildren. According to some theorists, + thought about by children ir the extent that gender is (Aboud, 2003; Kirch Furby, 1971). Rhodesand Gelman (2009) sup this conclusion in a number of studies that designed to examine children’s essent about animal cate and race. They told c aged 4-6 y Avisitor from another planet, wheve they do things Idren differently from earch, was going to cell chem things. The children had to decide whether the starements Wete wrong or whether they may be right. ‘Ihe vi tor showed the children two objects from different Categories (¢.p., dog and cat; table and chair; black td white women; black male and black female) | The visitor then showed the children a third object that actually matched one of tie examples of the Pai at a basic level. In some cases, the visitor from the other planet said that the new object marched the exemplar char did not fit waat children as pect from their learned cat aiblack Bat Was said to match a pink pig rather ea 4 White goat; a black boy was said ro match a white ories (e.g. P gender Galdi, din very y roung gies SHERMAN, SHERMAN (Berndt 8 etn Tylor, 1996. Sia (2007) reported neater languages ut no peopl fend Rhodes and 1986; Rhodes & Gelman, 2008 ji, and Spell that preschoolers used gender and OF Face, toy make inferences about toys, and activities, Gelman (2009) conclude that underlie developmental tl processes acquisition of race and tereotyping of these cat the fender categories and the ries. Such a conclusi nes, and would not have been present during th key epochs in which humans ause inter voby, & Kurzban, 200: arch agre with this conclusion about fundamental differences in children between racial and ge ries an retcotyping. Hirschfeld (1996; sce al W 2001) has argued that race is seen in essentialis cerms even by very young children. He proposes tha children have essentialized, domain-specific, sophis ticated, theory-like reasoning about race that par lels, but is distinct from and 1 ed from, the understanding of biological categories. Hirschfeld 1995b) chus believes that young children have biologically grounded understanding of firschfeld (1995b) employed. several uniqui nethodologies in his work. In one method, chil dren aged 3 to 7 years were shown triads of people One was an aduie of a particular race, occupation, and body build. The other wo were children, each of whom shared two of the three properties with the adult. Thus, a black, stocky, adult policeman migh be paired with a white, stocky, child "policemart and a black, stocky, child “doctor.” Participant chil dren were asked which was the child of the adult oor were asked which of the children isa picture of SODERBERG PERCY 387‘stable and inherited property “types in children is more comp! about the childs essentialist, biologi- “aally grounded view of race might be questioned. “Hirschfeld (1996) is unique in exploring the phe ‘nomenon of hypodescent in young children, che ‘association of individuals of mixed-race ancestry Beh i one drop rule). Because Hirschfeld believes that think- Jing about social categories in strongly essentialist ‘ways is central to exhibiting judgments chat show hnypodescent, he asks whether some races have greater innate essential potential than others. First, Hirschfeld finds thar older children and adults believe that mixed-race individuals have black facial features and that mixed-race individuals inherit th ‘category identity of the minority parent. However, ‘younger children, especially black children or white ehildren who go to an integrated school, expect that ‘mixed-race individuals have intermediate racial fea- ftires: Rather than strong judgments showing hypo- descent, young children scem to think that other @hildren will resemble their mother more than ‘thee father, Whereas fifth graders and adults used Hace stauis significantly to predict the featurcs of a ‘mibed-race child, second graders used resemblance Ho'mother more, regardless of whether the mother _ Was the white or the black parent, [n addition, with Parents, fifth graders tend 10 choose 4 a5 the likely offspring, whereas second! p fifth greders do not show that fe @ black and a ea eke think as a “i en ial, a they expect thae te at the —— for animals “concluded again cat children have on erin, FORMAT IO, K Pie ee ee ecal race. Thus: tHe ce for children. f invexpeeration of cent, Neves chang . - Cn yt a orgy for very young children, al ’ aeslite and Correll (2010) have spre an importanc paper that addres eg MJon of whether there are prion ee i wat children possess and thus di gots per tha they hold ofthese Kinzler etal. (2010) reviewed the literature to this isue for gender, race, age, and fy froups, and chey addressed the question fom points of view of social psychology, develope paychology; and evolutionary psychology. Tyg, Glide that categorization and preferences bas gg gender emerge before categorization and preeng based on race. However, Kinzler et al. (2010) ay report a number of findings that suppor prog and categorization for race and age as well asgenda For example, face processing is tuned to dimension, of both race and gender in infants (Bar-Haim, Zi Lamy, & Hodes, 2006; Quinn, Yahr, Kuhn, She & Pascalis, 2002). Infants even develop represents tions of prototypical faces (DeHaan et aly 200i) Kinzler ec al. (2010) also added a fourth eto, language, that scems to have a distinct priority ia eat in categorization. Newborns show a distinct prt ence to hear speech in their own language (Melt et al, 1988). Children also show preferenos ft toys and foods offered by their native language speakers (Kinzler, Dupoux, & Spelke, 2007; Shits Kinzler, McKee, & Spelke, 2009). ‘These sts in far, howed that preferences based om lang are stronger than preferences based on race. Asi the case of gender, category may have eval., 2003). language as a privileged 6 an evolutionary basis (Cost aes STEREOTYPES DIFFER FROM ADULTS? IN WHAT WAYS? : mW have seen that young children have he ects for the development of sophisti 'esand concepts, for theory-based thi you tall "What ea adules in tion than the mo q dren, dog young ch older chi Thatis, 3 tive infer category. bers of a posit children social gn these ob ype of tend to and adu Taylor, In adi indueti rather d (Gelma 2000), Alth alive at also. me may di ‘ain wa Heyms were 4 BaisTE Priorities las gender dimensions Haim, Zi thn, Slate representa al., 2001 priority in et prefer- e (Mehler language Shutts, studies, language As in d social smides 20M -cogni- icated inking a, otaoatny tt pa vallow for the devel i Btu oe shire i terms Of strength, conga 34 These and and muta ets the inse of simiarny re held by differences, One important way. in which she fies and concepts of children differ 1 m those of operti adults is that children scem to generale gcfoss more members of a catcpory. he Hollander, Gelman, and Star (2003) and adults either generic questo . hildten ‘What can you tell me about dogs?”) or Awhae can you teli me abou the two questions equally. In other we dren, dogs equal all dogs. Shipley (2000) found folder children or adults for behavioral strong stereotypes in young children. If all mem possibility, several researchers have reported and adults (Berndt & Heller, 1986; Biernat, 1991 Taylor, 1996; Taylor, R & Gelman, 200 In addition, young children tend to make more Inductive inferences about traits and dispositions rather than perceptucl resemblances, chan ¢ (Gelman & Heymar, 19 Heyman & Gelmai 2000) ; Although children seem more willing © 8¢ alize attributes across category members, they ar r 1 instances (whi also more willing to accept nove ‘may differ from existing cates ota tain ways) as members of the category. For € Heyman and Gelman (2000) found thar he Were more prone than adults © sive cous ein ‘osc ‘his diference Prone ws held The fact means tha and that children were ore as esvemtial, whereas adults viewed! rics in more mianeed ways. Agains ‘ongeses thar young childven maybe "tronger stereotypes than adult that children aecepe novel instances nembers more readily than do adults he generale the lkelhowd a new object ato ation gradient of children of making the sare response to ‘xisting category members) ae broader than the generalization gradient of adult ais children tend to smoosh” their cate Te would he interesting rms of judgments and percep tions, children ae generally more likely chan ade ‘to show assimilation effects and les likely to shox effec Finally, although w eer th Summary of Stereotype Development in Children SODERBERG | $59ongoing debare ax to the primacy and (OF these different stereotypes, with some siegesting thar gender sereorypes av PATE strong, and others disagreeing. Socal influene parents (mothers, in particular, developins 27 from explicit abel 2 iment of these stereotypes. Al nificant similarities berween alu the ways in which they think about carogores 270 ‘ develop and exPPS reorypes tha they ae likely co deve ; there also are important differences. In general cil dren tend to hold stronger stercorpes mre members of that they apply their stereos Cognitive Processes in the Acquisition of Novel Group Stereotypes among Adults Sadler, & Judd, 2002). This is undoubted and contrasted see key factor in this : two groups differ or nee. In th ease, people may perceive differences differences berween the groups are cxapyersnnd Mfetmtion of sereorypes We wil to of these two contexts in turn 560 | Svereotype Development in the Ab re piferences: Mlusory Cor na kernel of nceived rela a valid differen thy val ions are tl a oe discussion Campbell, 196i ae assim, & McCaul - 5007: Lee. cy se Cami : hs Pie elcrant to note—the sega tom les ultimately perceived * orci reenrype emanatcs, Under a nie inheres inthe ovetitiatll Hike possibility that the group differnt pa a group difference allengcs of identify hich ‘to ‘measure destepping these i LaPiere, 1936; 1 & E able accu 1981; Hamil Plaks, 200. ae (Chapman, 19 - 7 work voday and includ ‘ed correlation between sch the term could A Sher or stronger tai ‘vell as the perception snecxistent, Kes thelat vexistent relationship y correlation’ td his subtecioncorrelation” today, and ups in his subsection, ord (197 Hanon, 1981) who frst sad the grove jet of applying the notion of ilkisory n othe learning of group cha echantism by which stercoryp, ahsenceofan actual group difference Tis deans see also lbreaking ortelation tetistics, asa posit ble ‘could form in the groups were encountered, and group characrerneee Jeamed, over the course of an experiment. In ihe typical paradigm, participants were presen aseries of sentences describing members of jiy-and minority group (c.g., “John, a member of Group A, is rarely late for work"). Acer ch presen tation of numerous such sencences describing mem fers of both groups, participants made judgments about the groups’ characte-istics and guessed thy group membership of novel targets based on theit behaviors. This work examined the possible role of ilhy sory correlation in stercotype development through manipulation of the stimulus sentence content. The ratio of desirable to undesirable target behavic was the same for the majority and minority group: shereas the size of thi each kind of behavior overall re systematically Yatied. For example, in one study (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976; Study 2), pzrticipants encountered Iwiceas many members of a majority group (24) a imembers ofa minority group (12). Undesirable and desirable target behaviors had the same ratio within tach group—twice as many undesirable behaviors @ desirable ones (16 and 8 for the majority group ahd 8 and 4 in the minority group. respectively) and this undesirable behaviors (24) were relatively common, and desirable behaviors (12) wer tively rare Subsequ tion about th feted behaviors of unidentifie aked fo guess the group membership of Hldgments demonstrated that desirable De" (the less common type of beh rere a Tbe attributed to the minority gro? Indesirable behaviors (the more comm” nt to the presentation of this inform: soup members, participants encou" grou J rargets and we ch. Their of n type behavion) atte, ‘were more likely to be the inal group Likewise, alt sings the ooops re atl that he snot gro war pnt Hh tha the aot gop. Ty ic 10 perceive a difference hetween eric neon of bdo stabi ht Iie with the salle rp characteristic with of mon character- ler group and the more common the larger group. The trait ratings were reversed when the major: behaviors were desirable and the minority were undesirable. In this case, desicable behaviors were more likely to be attributed to the majority group, and the minority g =a the two » groups ity t grOUp was seen int a less positive light (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976; Study 1). ‘The importance of this work should not be understated because it constituted the first direct demonstra ompletcly equivalent. In addition, these any group conflic with the participants and could not be explained by cial learning, ego justification, oF sociofunctional accounts of stereotyping (see below). Instead, the processes throuigh which people learn to associate McConnell, Sherman, & Hamilton, 19 , ersely, in terms of enhanced memory for the mo quently encountered pairing ( iin f he majority group and the 81). Other accounts have argued that the percep tion of a group difference in s illusory at all, and that it is the absolute subtrac ive difference between the types of behavior per: behaviors minus formed by gtoups (j.e., common bel rare behaviors; constituting a greater difference for ps) rather than majority gtoups than minority groups) 4 (McGarty, Haslam the proportion that is encoded (Me i Turner, & Oakes, 1993; Smith, 1991) Stil ochet Jhich results in overestimation information loss, whic PEROY, SODERBERG | 56 RMAN, SHERMAN) ?“recruiting attentional ae te the mechaninm for illusory corel ae (Sherman et al, 2009) will be discuss ved detail below. Each of these explanat expitial support, suggting that tip dexernined ‘Stereotype Development in the Presence of Group Differences: Accentuation We now um to the development of stere08YP™ ‘among groups that actually difer on one of MOF 18 BFOUP ‘ differences ons has ei fhe eect is mul dimensions. In this case, there are real Ihrween the groups, bt those differences are 9557 tuated dhrough a number of psychological Pro ‘esses, These accentuation processes help ro provide dear distinctions among categories and maximize their predictive power (cg:, Queller et al. 2006). Research on this topic was instigated by Tajfe!> pio rceting research on “mere cates which showed chat the division 0 into discrete categories leads to exag tions of feacures of scimali in the ewo cat. particularly ar che category boundaries. In che cl yy bounda sic example, the placemert of a cate between lines of varying length caused the lines in the “long” category to be jude lines in the “short” c ed as short than when no category boundary (Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963). Categorization may cx {erate both perceived differences between categories and perceived similarities within categories (c Queller et al., 2006). An imporcant feature of this Work is that accentuation occurs only for feavurcs that are correlated with th classification. ‘Thus, simple categorization isnot sufficient 10 pro produc that covary with the category di y category distinction. ‘Thu in the casi line study (Iajfel & Wilkes 196 Uabeled Category A and the long lines were label Category B. Howerer, when the carer Pee were sandomly assigned to lines no systematic difference between the | Hines i Categories A and B, no accesses observed, th Foca the accennaton of bereen-atcgry 4 erences (¢4., Comeille & Judd, 1999, 53° dd, 1999, Kiser ton Krueger & Rothbart, 1990; Quelle oy” and within-ategory similares (cy, Kr, 0) Bs Krueger & 562 STEREOTYPE DEVEL on, TN: com sy MecGary Pet, Sy have been demo vocal OUP COED lp atone re been sow (0 conten hts Fin, rec on on fy co be forted agg a ro chin tc cg anes for whier Fences are small (Ford g rae te dee a M992). Teal 192). Teice the predictive Power of sa to one of the OO BFOUps, Taig larity within grOUps incre groups enh egorizatio inductive P pong meee eee indies of 2 $0? a6 aie hac rem amember holds forall group mene i ch he simil ee A ied in Tajfel’s original re ceptions of ind mbe group men This effect is ful labels (c ilues, such as numbers or the presen fa key feature), perce Erbe al i whole, may still be accentuated. F differences and within-category similarities m or rer rca & Rothbart, 1990; Krueger, Rothbart, & eT otis nan Integrating Ilusory Correlation and Category Accentuation Research on illusor anda dently and, as_w vise i been ex 1 explained by diffe ia explained by Kruschk's er va sory learning (1996, 2001, 2, : ‘ ssumes tha : : People learn about frequent cat Pefore they learn about. inf in simple reason that, k ocean hat, by definition, frequen eat members are m, nore encou ection aie mane Once the features of the fi the unle soda ies feat ies feat quent tos? bpetweet eroups ffect —_Ip FAREE EALEROFES 15 £0 Foers atten them from iy learned Frequent category. Fenner (es bechamel with he eee evn i Un Fenn shared by let Pategorys FE Ignored 26 attention ig we fhe unlearned and already Yared category, isi shifting mechanism caus = et ct * “ween the infrequent oe soociation be ch quent category. and is eases the w Bean ince theme pene ae a : Kemah Bee Netty. 1980). The rong? mac than berween the equent category and ory features in judgment catext 8 ories and their fi ‘ erieet! minority ce ry important prediction Bape, Empirical evidence in support ofthis pre Hoan and the attentional processes underlying the fect were reported by Sherman ct al. (2009). In siairion, because of the strong association fearures ofthe frequ tof the infrequent group. par these attentional an Thus, Grethanisms can account for hypodescent, th Mion of any individual of mixed-race ances with the minority or social sect Iaberstadt, Sherman, and Sherman m imstared hypodescent effects and ed the Mrentional processes described above. In one stu oI rt is juds mbiguous Ch Chinese participants judge Metite morphed faces co be white, whereas wh judged the same mbiguous Chinese Teanother study, using all white faces, ambiguo faces were more likely ro be judes : face than as a majority face This basic model of cacy: ‘ning can accou! forboth illusory correlavior 2 ion effects with the same mecha ding illusory correlation, accordix > ntion U a ee terity group is learned before the mindll Beiiectuse majority group members ar° Te i 1 behavio prevalent among the stimul a Heemore Frequent than postive bch ate : iinpression formed of the majority 2 srming impre Bieeative one, Subsequently, in formine Sions of the minority group, MT) chat tive behaviors (the om ining Pena hese istinguish ic from the majority BP enon, Positive features receive particulan'y © i Thus, tng he minority Fm he majority 0p pereivers fac acento on pniive minor Sy behaviors and form a more favorable impression ofthat grup Sherman tal 2009) provide tron support for this account ofiisony coreladon Rardin eategory accenoation, the prices of dintngishing two categories are very stu in the attention theory model and a decribed i tion shifting processes are certainly consistent with and may direcely contribute to the findings that people attend most carefully to category members who heighten berween-eategory differences and sight in judgments, and remember thos 1, 1989 Krueger & Rothba he category dis nuribute to the biased perception of individual 1 & Wilk ‘ore essentialized view : ERMAN) PERCY, SODERS ~‘oF majority groupe (Gelman, 204 this posi rch formation amore adil ects she ee of ok core See acon ae sive of ys) suPPOM has largely ee! (esses that lead 10 the accenation OF ac i these appr biel Jf distinet process ™ he dev Motivational Factors in Steres Formation one another, an ma multiple purposes. Ind he _overdetermined nature of stereotypes is one reason why they ar prevalent and dificult to char hough th three broad functions are not incompatible, the do offer distinct insights into the kinds of g roUps about which stereotypes will develop and the kinds oF traits thac will form the bases ofthese stereoryp of social categ cn stereotype app cifically on stereorype formation 564 | sveREOTYPE DEVELO? foe favre GI mye environ pes ° for one unique Given Are Eff rauich impress jcient fae tn of Ag snamy (Allport. 1954; tip fe eeo sn 00), i this SENSE; ster eae he Sime reasons a8 all gf he vast quantities oF ggg we it is impossible £0 foe F stereotypes form all che things ang Py we encoun ge of a CACCZOFY 28 inerchanpah to reat mem "tree on the world, and thus pajee® he burden be used to predict and undey -y ¥ SF cheny beyenell iene “bership. In this way, stereo f jh information gath oa in this he purpose o pines nitive efficiency shoul i A wi nap. differences mpreh ion efficiency function Way of another. Our discussion of st type deve I knowledge, including stereotyP™ foe oF sao plays sii i sereorypes, ci "es about how cn SF Sorld: Among yong eto the Fs ime, me re eyping sch asthe de we cxplain or defend the 1 "Although young ch mt feelings of slo eee intergroup compas Seegoris ae ilhdefined ree Although hildeni PUsting those fee Siventare tetas -srategys particularly to the extent that rere) es are illdefined and understood at yore ‘Aithough children are undoubtedly sree gout why diferent Kinds of prs ae gs they may be less likely to feel strong than do adults, who are active participant in society abed roles. In any ease, we are sy Fe not aware of any Fe eeh tha has expicly examined these sociom ‘atonal concerns among, children? ‘Asexplained carlicr, in order to stuly stereorype ; formation among adults, it is necessary to con. Gone participants with novel, “blank” groups with ‘which they have no prior experience. Although ach groups are ideal for examining the operator ofbasic cognitive processes in stereotype formation they strip away motivations te enhance self-esteem rexplainidefend the social scructure. Indeed, the feearch we have described on adult stereotype for imation having to do with cu Gadillusory correlation is specifically geared toward he pursuit of knowledge and understanding how Sucture promotes the formacion of stercotypes in the absence of social motive COGNITIVE EFFICIENCY AND STEREOTYPE ABSTRACTION Sherman's (1996) rescarch similarly minimized Beil motivational components in order to examine the course of stereotype formati roup know! lgeaccumulates. This research showed that in Be aises of learning about a social group: jude BREE tie group are based on information about Beeler group members because too few Hm plats have been encountered to support the forma: However fionofan abstract stereotype of the grouP- With sufficient experience with group mM saacws Mand accouris oftheir attribute), Pet btm ahstract representations of th pee Beectyplcal of che group. Once Ome Btions may be retrieved indepen ant udgments Fup exemplars to make je features of the group. 0 ‘teny: Fst by eapting pattems of vanessa environment, information that is learned from Past experiences can be brought to bear on a wide variety of novel people and experiences. Thus, 4 novel group members behavior ay be understood (or misunderstood) i ight of the abstract stereo- types that have been formed about that person's group. Based on abstract stereotypes, group mem bers’ behavior alo can be predicted in novel seus tions and into the fuure, This is what Bruner (1957) referred co as “going beyond” the information given (p. 129), and this predictive power is an important factor in the development of abstract stereotypes. The second reason that the development of abstractions is efficient has to do with the need for streamlined representations and cognitive processes. In the absence of such abstractions would be inhibited comprehension and. predict extal by the levels of temporal, spatial, and ec detail preserved among known individual gx offering reliability, the development of abstrac ions is procedurally efficent. Although br ‘ple individual group members and summa vin abstract stereotypes that can be easily activa id applied, Indeed, the retrieval ancl application of . o, Jens Howard, & ¢., Rothbart, Ful 8; Sherman & Bessenoff PERCEIVED GROUP COHERENCE AS A SOURCE OF EFFICIENCY jistinct re inerease the perceived coherenceand uniform ff social groups should © sesreo the likelihood of stereotype formation, Ons a moderators the extent to which social rE sre viewed in essential rerms. Categories igh ei ne underlying o share som in essentialism are seen £0 ; i once that ves Hse to the perelvaieessizes = seancansvenrnaanant PaNCY. SOPERBEES 565Tsan Bais 2006). Categories high in esenitinm Be Ty explanatory power than cacgores I” iam, owing to these sharaceristics shared underlying exence means that knowin behavior or attitudes of one group you to more accurately predict the behavi tudes of the group as a whole. Addon, the inalerabity of dhe GE membership means that if person hi of the eategory, then they arc and will rake judgments about the person if a person believes stable over time. Thu category is high in essentalism, this comes with the assumption that there is high within-catcgory si" larity and that the eategory is highly distinct from ther categories. As described when reviewing th literature on stercorype development in children perceptions of group erence are a si research shows that perceptions of group essen increase the likelihood and extent of stercorype f mation among adults. For example, Hoffman a Hurst (1990) showed that people formed stronger stereotypes when groups performing different social roles were described as belonging to separate s 0 distinct subcultutes ofa single species. Likewise Yaerbye and Buidin (1998) showed that, when two groups were described as being generically different described as different in nonessent ‘ Asinithehidden, the are perceived as entitativ perceived as entitati formation. Encitaivty is the degree to which mem bers of a group are seen as being a coher 1 unit (Campbell, 1958), and judgments of entitat ity are affected by a number of variables, such 4 SOUP size, spatial proximity, amount of incera tion between gioup members, similarity of vx ‘members, and the perception of common goals ss Outcomes among group members (Cam ‘i amp Lickel et al., 2000, bell, 1958; ). Because members of groups are seen as mor titative as sharing similar goals another and ig similar goals to seater extent than are Ups, perccivers shou generalize fiom one group at members of nonentitative g be more likely w y ber to another mem, 566 | srbneoryer DeveLommuny The high sem use of larity between category members because OFT” always be @ ee "see oe that should be setdesont rt ; dene ho apace el ta ay of nove iy ao. generalize from attra none hel, che rest OF the prog i group pose rntitativity and steret tL Fe Cece envy an ec Cravford Sherma and fat found that, when novel sr crformed by pe 2), who re (2002) Tas high (0s: low) in enticayi nil cansferred ris fom sap tall other Rroup meni differences related to pers described pants more her of the g Individual “Pong so influence stereoryge > coherence al group Levy, Stroessner, any ty theorists (Who bel tl le fo tion. For nd chat (1998) foun Traits are fixed and unchangeah peop | OU tha [theorists (who believe that peop) ope Stereotypes Promote a Sense of Self Wo A second functional framework ppmann, 1922). Ear roaches i Specifically, stereot a conflict : J and rooted in unce a ives (c.g, Billig, 19 a ble outlers and a ; ; ifs are projections that justf ia these powerl. roups pr : 0 from intra br i Early. theories fi hac a otyping is limited p ; pa duals with unresolved. psychological pf cms (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levi & Sanford, 1950). M been 1 fd as (and shown to be) a morege motive that promot pBcally healthy people when the sens atened (e.g., Fein 8 Spencer, 1 * AND Forma. Should be comparis ‘Eviden scereoryPe Maas (19 correlation Soe oft dese The atl .of cither the major ; abe jority Participants belon, 9 gr0ups, rather than form iene. generally viewed their oe Is, regardless of how the grou illusory group Ups were paradigm that has been applied most f jeily ro examine this morive in the formation af Ppaplimpressions is the minimal group panadign Be testicirancs learn fap iofammeaningless group (eg. “overestima. fps) andan equally meaningless outgroup is made bln (eg, “underestimators"). Participants do no Bry members ofthe two groups, do not inter, Bieter ofthe groups, and have no expec Bers OF finire interactions with members of the ips Following group assignment, participants d et tes malce a variety of judgments abour the | __groupsand/orareasked to distribute resources. the is groups: Based solely on this differentiation, people E form more positive perceptions of the ingroup than c the outgroup (Brewer & Brown, 1998; DiDonato, 1 Wilrich, 8 Krueger, 2011; Gaertner & Insko, 2000; : Miller, Maner, & Becker, 20 0; Paladino & Castelli, 2008; Rubini, Moscatelli. Tajfel ex al., 1971). They bers more positively on desirable trait dimensions (Blanz, Mummendey, & Otten, 1995), and they form abstract positive impressions of ingroups and Ghoti negative impressions of outgroups more Tedly than negative impressions of ingroups and | (Positive impressions of outgroups (Sherman, Klein Laskey, &¢ Wer, 1998). Finally, they show enhanced ‘memory of positive ingroup behaviors and negative “Bilgroup behaviors (Howard & Rothbart, 1980) fin the ingroup, & Palmonari, 200: evaluate i roup mem- the presence of the sel intergroup distinctionsmay serveego en! iotives (fut a review, sce Abrams & Hore, That is, once participants a identity, they are motivated 10 view that iden ly (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Given Panu ofthe groups) the only means are assigned stereotyping phenomena, they all suggest that the ‘groups most likely to be stereotyped are those that SHERMAN, SHERMAN, PERCY, SODERBERG number of influential theories and research. pro grams that will be described below. Although these theories encompass a broad range of motives and fulfil distinct and important roles within a soci- 0) particularly if those oles imply a threat to the ingroup. They also share che expectation that stereo types will form along dimensions thac explain and justify these social roles ROLE THEORY One of the most prominent sociofunetional the- ries is role theory (e-g.s Eagly, 1987). According to roletheory, stereo groups occu pesformtoexplainwhy particular articular social roles, Thus, women may be stereotyped as communal because, histori they have filled the role of primary caregiver to children (eg., Eagly & Steffen, 1984). Similarly, stereotypes of black people as lazy or Jewish people as grcedy reflect historical roles forced upon mem bets of these groups. Once developed, of course, ste- reotypes do not merely characterize group members bur also prescribe what sorts of roles are fitting and acceptable, In their ingenious study, Hoffman and Hurst (1990) provided information to participants about two novel groups, the Orinthians and the ‘Ackmians. Participants were found to infer disposi tional qualities from the groups’ societal roles, such that masculine roles led to inferences such as “ambi whereas feminine roles led to tious” and “assertive,” inferences that targets were “affectionate” and “emo~ tional,” even though the personalities of members of the ewo groups did not differ. A related process of misattribution that can lead to unfounded ste reotypes is the tendency to confuse observable with inferred group differences (see Campbell, 1967: Rothbart, 1981). For example, it may be that, for a variety of reasons, children who have recently immi= initially have more difficulty grated toa new co in school than their native-born peets (i, a mete surable group difference in grads berween the (wo populations of children). Such observed differences 5671 safety may be stereotyped ag ro physical id, whereas groups pam antes nan fi a en 0 i can sometimes lead ro unfounded Ife ae ses to introduce rere cs iffrences thre disgust (€-8- Cottrell ge iy confse with he measurable OP Yn Devos inate in evolutionary id i Bee a tn eens tht lets te wy or disease) are particulary pelt al inj e ee pe ceenben). As nich a tens: Moreover sinatons tht ig Stale (1992) epermenly demonsatsl | This pe dca gy rife agra. In oe chat eflctsthe natu o her group (Group B; 10/25). However, Group : mong groups pDYanagrams waalve than Group B. tn fat, chy. Fiske and colle jcargued A Nevertheless, partcganc judged Group Ato (eg c f es compe rercotyp develcp eh fi a. Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif. 1 pients) ar vt 7 rif, 19615 Stephan, and More recent variations ofthis bi wes SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION ‘Pes of groups that are likely wo be ster ns mphasizes that s, the specific tats that ae likely wy be ial rok *otypes do not simp those included and. structural a € stercotypes. A number of it groups by eres argued from an evolu pemctennsbave ail pasty chem in tions to ourgroups. including secant lines tio fall the specific teats posed by ses Banaji, oy ge shteftiman & Hurst, 199 Or example, groups perccved ay i Mac ae : Has immedi *s highlighted the 1 $68 | stersoryes y Hees ame eo e pou # s lazy use the bbecat wake sease | processestool for such justificato, imay develop 4 stereotype 1} is lazy, not because of any de Teeween groups for this, the pereeption of the proup . For example, hat a low-starng monsteable di The purpose of this chapter was to review research on both stereotype development amon ait, ba ral ther children and stereotype Ips ro Such To our knowledge, chs i the frst time these two her. We have draw attention ro both similarities and _ make es can also lead to the formation Gentry steFeOkyPCS (Kay & Jou. 2005). Pireoypes (> "poor but happy”) are theo sPemanwate not from actual differences hee wus, but rather from the need = = olve'the might expect th stereotype formati Fesion created By intergroup inequalities, Thus,” i ar a i ne may develop the perception thar poor p woven, aRRGuT EMILE: aT LOTR ceaa tle are lazy (serving to justify and explain ee een Fighe) but also happy (serving to allevin Bi anxiety about the distributior ffonstoform in the service ofthe social system can measuring stereotyping among, children and ‘he particularly conflictual for members of ne 2 end to endorse similar negative in fost etal, 2004). In this manner, ne ond ides cheteateare tetas Se Minfounded) stercotypes not only may form £ ie eeen aati se oups but also may even be held by mem role Cae i i ifstigmatized groups themselves oS edb att Summary EF func aL (Glearly, motivations play a crsical role in tereo- research on stereotype de , formation. They influence which groups ar and st formation an frstercotypes, wha esses chrough which stereotype form. tereotype in th : ore robust 1+ would To date, the vast majority of research on stereotyy : tions to those related to efficient comprehen: fd prediction ofthe social world. In part, this isa Notes ; gsuk of the diminished importance of : shes Bndsocial motives among children and of the 0 i A ss Sy of using novel, blank groups to study ster vn ype formation among, at ‘a Bedllent examples of research o2 stereotype fe \ : Bria fave examined the role of noncognitive i : , Intnesinstereorype foxmacion and itis lest OY 2) ee Be orc aremorinposiblesn study. Clea suc (udu Ss Bald be one importancdirtion Fo Beech, both in che developrient of stereour ea Bmipnechildren and in stereotype formation ANON hey ay st Bile Another important goal for fur 58" sr i thal wl should be ro invegrate research on ditt 2 eee f libral components of stereotyping: includint 5 nt : active influences of simul ome Of the joint and inte ously relevant motives.sc Co Dts rand | Oe importa sxe mote lore deepen among een 8 Bran nicer on cone ap reer ode wb 2 eed cto f References ; oe ir ; ity Rephig ad vd ; $70 | srennoryee viveapes alc ea a — a5. ‘oo my 1 pace 6. [racial ari ema attitude bl 1 ther ; 5 Be Te Cindy AJ fien mined) ste a z F th ih respective i ‘ 1 i GLB & Stangor, ©. (199 7 pln form aes tL al Frei, J-A. 8 02) Childe 5 3 le Belch from cithood th met, Ly Ink "0 rd " 5 en threar-based col y and So Gelman, $. A. (2003) ae Cin, 34.2 = Genin, $A. (2008). Leasning from ocers: Chil He ales onderstani athe inter » on of concep mee sanity #4 ian, S.A, Bloom, P (2000). Young chil in i : ping 1” Gopniton, 76, 91-10: ers and GGlinan, S, Ay, & Heynan, D. (1999) Cantor Holl 7 pl n chil ret esture-believes: The effects © ve erage inferences about socicl categor a Cognit” 489-493,yous 8 Speke. ang et OT cognition. Praceing inal dessiive amt Tanguage of 2 a ln 1 eal mash the disnesi d de der ros ra cheough - wd, Park, B. (1993) Definition an appinen, J “ Keil, FC. Smith nb) 8c L mal c Implicat K. A, Hubbard, J. A. ; ies Js D.C Ip cont : 572 | srereoryerio ithe ero of eeritieee end a aot LB Mle, 8. 984) eli 078 : im oye Mam 1Shei. M,, Haney. 0. a a = | «nae = os ; IT ‘ana Guin’ : A. Rhode ab “ ' 7 ie vies . S74 | sveacorvee vevetopy,,.