Hiliard and Liben

• Who conducted the experimental study on social category salience and stereotypes in children?

  Hilliard and Liben
• What was the main objective of Hilliard and Liben's study?

  To determine how social category salience affects stereotypes and inter-group behavior in children
• How many children participated in the study conducted by Hilliard and Liben?

  57 children
• What age range did the participants in the study fall into?

  From 3 years 1 month to 5 years 6 months
• What design did the study use to assess the children's gender attitudes?

  A pre-test/post-test design
• What does the POAT-AM test measure?

  Children's gender flexibility
• How did the POAT-AM test assess children's gender attitudes?

  By showing pictures of activities and asking who should perform them
• How many items were included in the POAT-AM test, and what types were they?

  22 culturally masculine, 20 culturally feminine, and 24 neutral items
• What does a lower number of "both" responses in the POAT-AM test indicate?

  A higher number of gender stereotypes
• What was the second measure taken in the study?

  Observing children's play with same-sex vs opposite-sex peers
• How were the schools allocated in the study?

  Randomly allocated to one of two conditions
• What characterized the high salience condition in the study?

  Children were made aware of their gender through various methods
• What specific actions were taken in the high salience condition?

  Children lined up by sex and teachers used gender-specific language
• What was the role of the low salience condition in the study?

  It served as the control group with no behavioral changes instructed
• What was the policy regarding gendered language in both preschools?

  To avoid gendered language
• How long did the study last?

  Two weeks
• What was observed in the pre-test results regarding "both" responses?

  Both groups had a similar number of "both" responses
• What was the effect of high gender salience on the children's responses after two weeks?

  There was a significant decrease in the number of "both" responses
• How did play with opposite-gender peers change in the low salience condition?

  There was no significant change
• What was the outcome for children in the high salience condition after two weeks?

  Increased gender stereotypes and decreased play with other-sex peers
• What was included in the debriefing program after the study?

  To counteract possible increases in stereotyping and help children understand prejudice
• What type of study was conducted by Hilliard and Liben?

  An experimental study
• What does it mean that the study is a field experiment?

  It was conducted in the children's natural environment
• What are the implications of high ecological validity in this study?

  Findings can be generalized to real-world settings
• What is a limitation of the study regarding internal validity?

  The environment cannot be strictly controlled
• What is a potential issue with the sampling method used in the study?

  It suffers from sampling bias due to socioeconomic factors
• Why might the findings of the study be difficult to generalize?

  Participants were likely middle to upper-class children with similar values
• What does the study indicate about the cause-and-effect relationship?

  It indicates a cause-and-effect relationship but cannot measure salience
• What ethical concerns are raised by the study?

  There may be undue harm to children that cannot be reversed
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study conducted by Hilliard and Liben?

  Strengths:

  • High ecological validity
  • Experimental design allows for cause-and-effect conclusions

  
  

  Weaknesses:

  • Low internal validity due to uncontrolled environment
  • Sampling bias from socioeconomic factors
  • Ethical concerns regarding potential harm to children