Nicolas Puga
Professor Corner
UNIV 112
1 July 2016
McCauley’s Misguided Conclusions
In “Are stereotypes exaggerated? A sampling of racial, gender, academic, occupational,
and political stereotypes”, Clark R. McCauley discusses the exaggeration hypothesis of
stereotypes. McCauley examines two versions of the exaggeration theory; one that claims the
cause of exaggeration is due to perceptual contrast, and another that claims it is due to
confirmation bias in information processing. He presents evidence in support of and against
exaggeration theory and concludes that the evidence does not strongly support consistent
exaggeration of group stereotypes. Based on evidence that does not show consistent
exaggeration, McCauley wrongly concludes that confirmation bias is neither a powerful nor
common mechanism of stereotype exaggeration.
McCauley’s essay begins by explaining how confirmation bias, relates to the stereotype
exaggeration hypothesis. Confirmation bias occurs when we remember data that fits our
expectations more than data that does not fit our expectations. He explains that “The implication
of an expectancy-confirmation bias for stereotyping is that in relation to members of a
stereotyped group who do not fit our expectations, we will notice and recall better the members
of the group who have the stereotyped characteristics. The result should be that we exaggerate
the homogeneity within the stereotyped group and underestimate the degree to which stereotype
characteristics occur outside the stereotyped group (Judd & Park, 1993, p. 112)” (219). One
study cited by McCauley had student “hawks” and “doves” of the Vietnam War write statements
that they thought the other would endorse. McCauley details the results: “Hawks rejected as too
extreme 16 of 40 statements written by doves and 11 of 40 statements written by hawks; doves
rejected as too extreme 9 of 40 statements written by hawks and 8 of 40 statements written by
doves” (222). McCauley says the study recognized the information processing version of the
exaggeration hypothesis as a possible explanation for this data (222). However, in his conclusion
section, McCauley asserts that this data shows no exaggeration of “hawk estimates of typical
dove opinions”, implying that exaggeration in this study was inconsistent (239). This is a
misguided conclusion; 20% of hawk statements about doves were rejected as they were
exaggerations. Nearly a quarter of all statements were rejected for being exaggerated. The
subjects of this study were campus students; the most vocal opinions on campus can sometimes
be the most extreme, and confirmation bias is definitely a possible mechanism for these
stereotype exaggerations.
Another study that McCauley cites as evidence against consistent exaggeration asked
white Americans to estimate the percentage difference in different characteristics between black
Americans and all Americans. The estimates were compared to data collected by the U.S.
Census. The study included characteristics “completed highschool”, “illegitimate”, “unemployed
as of last month”, “family on welfare”, “victim of violent crime”, and “female head of family”.
The study found an underestimation in most categories when compared to the U.S. Census (227).
In his conclusion, McCauley argues that this study shows no exaggeration of differences between
groups, therefor “neither of these [perceptual-contrast or information processing] cognitive
mechanisms can be very strong” (240). The evidence in this study does show underestimation of
differences between groups, but does not negate the validity of confirmation bias as a mechanism
of stereotype exaggeration. In the hawks and doves study, campus students often saw activists
rallying on their campuses; these strong voices may leave a stronger impression on a bystander,
making one exaggerate the opinions of the group of advocates. In this study, the characteristics
that were included were not something that are necessarily leaving lasting impressions on the
people surveyed.
McCauley’s essay explored evidence in support of and against the exaggeration
hypothesis. He specifically focused on two versions of this hypothesis: One attributes
exaggeration to perceptual contrast between groups, and the other attributes it to confirmation
bias in information processing. McCauley claims the evidence shows a lack of consistent
exaggeration between group differences, and that information processing is neither a powerful
nor a common mechanism for exaggeration since “exaggeration should again be a powerful and
consistent result in perception of any two groups with real differences” (240). Upon further
examination of key data, the strongest evidence showing lack of exaggeration of difference also
seems to be areas of less exposure to the issues at hand. This exposure is necessary for
confirmation bias to occur. McCauley’s assertion that the data shows inconsistent exaggeration is
correct, but it would be audacious to conclude this means information processing is not a
common or powerful mechanism for exaggeration.
Confirmation Bias: A Comic
This comic shows an example of how confirmation bias might occur. The man in the
comic has come across a Vietnam War protest. The protestors are mostly non-hippies, but there
are also a couple of hippies there, as one would expect. Since the man expected hippies at the
protest, they are what he mostly remembers of the protestors. This leads him to exaggerate the
stereotype that most war protestors are hippies. This is the same mechanism of stereotype
exaggeration that was seen in the Hawk and Dove study.