1.) READ THE FOLLOWING EXPERIMENT BELOW!!!!!

Psychologists have long known the importance of first impressions. Adults and children both appear to quickly and automatically form judgments of those they meet (Eggleston et al., 2020; Harris & Garris, 2008; Thierry & Mondloch, 2021; Thierry et al., 2021). The present experiment is a computer-based version of a classic study that showed how distinctive or rare events can influence the way we perceive others (Hamilton & Gifford, 2000, Study 1). Jackson (2000) provided a succinct explanation of the significance of this research:

People pay special attention to and remember distinctive or rare events or events that occur together with relative ease (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976; Hamilton & Sherman, 1996; Matthews, 1996). The result may be formation of so-called illusory correlations in which a person may draw an inference that the two events regularly occur together when this is not actually the case (Garcia-Marques & Hamilton, 1996). This cognitive process can influence the development of stereotypes. For example, it partly explains why many White Americans overestimate the rate at which African Americans engage in criminal activity (both are distinct or rare events; Jackson, 2000).

Design

The current experiment is faithful to the original (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976) in its primary details. Participants read about people who belong to either a majority or minority group, with twice the number of majority members (n=26) as minority members (n=13). The information conveyed about each of the people describes a desirable or an undesirable behavior. The ratio of desirable to undesirable behaviors is 9:4 in both groups; that is, for majority group members, 18 instances are positive and 9 are negative, whereas for minority group members, 9 instances are positive and 4 are negative. Because both minority members and undesirable behaviors are rare events, participants should form illusory correlations and judge the minority members less favorably than majority group members. This outcome can arise even though the proportion of good to bad instances is the same in both groups.

Method

The stimulus materials are 39 photographs of male and female adults differing in age and race. The task for participants is to learn something about the people whose faces make up the task stimuli. They do so by clicking on each face in the 39-face set. When a face is clicked, a text balloon pops up with information about the person. The 39 statements are given in Appendix A. The information designates the person as either an Alpha or a Beta and describes a positive or a negative act (e.g., "I planted seedlings in the park" versus "I have crude table manners") or attribute of the person (e.g., "honest" versus "lazy"). The pairing of the face with information about the face is structured so that there are 26 Alphas to 13 Betas and that there are 18 positive and 9 negative acts by Alphas and 9 positive and 4 negative acts by Betas. The information produced by a mouse click remains on the screen until the mouse is released. This permits people to read and process the information at their own pace. Once the mouse is released, the face is greyed out, and the information about the face cannot be re-displayed.

Once all 39 faces are clicked, a set of 7-pt Likert scales appear on the screen. Participants indicate their impressions of Alphas and Betas using these rating scales. The ratings are made for the three positive attributes (popular, honest, and helpful) and three negative attributes (lazy, unhappy, and irresponsible). Scores from these separate scales are available in the data output along with a composite measure of the ratings on positive attributes and negative attributes. A final dependent measure is the participant's rating of the percent of negative behaviors revealed in the statements made by the Alphas and Betas.

Positive and negative attribute ratings (on a 7-pt Likert scale) for Alphas and Betas are calculated as both composite scores and as six separate ratings (three for positive attributes of popular, honest, and helpful; three for negative attributes of lazy, unhappy, and irresponsible). In addition, participants provide estimates of the proportion of negative statements about the Alphas and Betas.

With respect to data analysis, one can conduct a repeated measures 2x2 ANOVA on the composite scores to determine if there is a difference between group membership (Alpha versus Beta) and/or attribute valence (positive versus negative). Planned comparison t-tests can be used to compare the composite positive rating for Alphas (ASumofPositive) to the composite positive rating for Betas (BSumofPositive); the same can be done for the composite negative rating for Alphas (ASumofNegative) and the composite negative rating for Betas (BSumofNegative). If Alphas are found to have higher composite positive ratings and Betas are found to have higher composite negative ratings, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that illusory correlation contributes to stereotype formation.

A one-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by planned comparisons of Alphas and Betas on each of the six attributes will reveal whether there were differences between the ratings of Alphas and Betas on the six attributes. If Alphas are found to be rated more highly on positive attributes and Betas more highly on negative attributes, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that illusory correlation contributes to stereotype formation.

The second measure of interest is the estimates participants made for the percent of negative statements that the members of the Alpha and Beta groups made about themselves. These are labeled 'ApercentofNegative' and 'BPercentofNegative' in the data. A repeated measures t-test will test for a difference in the participants' estimations of the proportion of negative statements that were made by the Alphas and Betas. A significant difference reflecting higher estimates for Betas (the minority group) is consistent with the illusory correlation phenomenon that is hypothesized to contribute to stereotype formation.

In addition, since we know that the actual percent of negative statements is 31% for both groups (8 out of 26 for Alphas and 4 out of 13 for Betas), a one-sample t-test will show if the participants rated the percent of negative statements made as more or less frequent than in actuality (31%). The result of these tests will indicate whether participants tend to overestimate the proportion of negative statements due, perhaps, to greater salience for negative than positive statements.

Applications/Extensions

This study allows participants to experience the formation of initial impressions and the roles minority/majority status and positive/negative attributes play in that formation process. Further comparisons can be made to the Implicit Association Test study also available here in the Online Psychology Laboratory.

Researchers have investigated not only the impact of first impressions on others but also whether people recognize the impression they make on others. Very often, people are aware of this (Carlson et al., 2010). In addition, studies have shown that some people are easier to read than others, which has an impact on how they are judged (Kerr et al., 2020). Further, researchers have used speed dating scenarios to study first impressions, showing that positive first impressions increase romantic attraction, but awareness of distinct characteristics of the other person can decrease romantic attraction (Gazzard Kerr et al., 2020). Fortunately, sometimes first impressions can be overcome (Steele & Smithwick, 1989), although sometimes first impressions can be hard to change (Harris & Garris, 2008).

2.) FORM A HYPOTHESIS THAT CAN BE MEASURED THROUGH THE EXPERIMENT!

3.)Form a brief preliminary abstract. This preliminary abstract should summarize the topic, methods, and hypothesis of the experiment above.