Group attribution error: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:16, 30 April 2017

Revision as of 00:17, 30 April 2017

Line 2:

==Type I==

{{Clifford the big red dog has a giant red rocket between his legs, and it isn't going away :^) }} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRZbk7-7xfE

To demonstrate the first form of group attribution error, research participants are typically given case studies about individuals who are members of defined groups (such as members of a particular occupation, nationality, or ethnicity), and then take surveys to determine their views of the groups as a whole. Often the participants may be broken up into separate test groups, some of which are given statistics about the group that directly contradict what they were presented in the case study. Others may even be told directly that the individual in the case study was atypical for the group as a whole. Researchers use the surveys to determine to what extent the participants allowed their views of the individual in the case study to influence their views of the group as a whole and also take note of how effective the statistics were in deterring this group attribution error. Ruth Hamill, Richard E. Nisbett, and Timothy DeCamp Wilson were the first to study this form of group attribution error in detail in their 1980 paper ''Insensitivity to Sample Bias: Generalizing From Atypical Cases.'' In their study, the researchers provided participants with a case study about an individual welfare recipient. Half of the participants were given statistics showing that the individual was typical for a welfare recipient and had been on the program for the typical amount of time, while the other half of participants were given statistics showing that the welfare recipient had been on the program much longer than normal. The results of the study revealed that participants did indeed draw extremely negative opinions of all welfare recipients as a result of the case study. It was also found that the differences in statistics provided to the two groups had trivial to no effect on the level of group attribution error.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hamill |first1=Ruth |last2=Wilson |first2=Timothy D. |last3=Nisbett |first3=Richard E. |title=Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical cases |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |date=1980 |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=578–589 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.578 |url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/92179/InsensitivityToSampleBias.pdf |deadurl=bot: unknown |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160511145714/https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/92179/InsensitivityToSampleBias.pdf |archivedate=2016-05-11 |df= }}</ref>