Judging stereotype accuracy presupposes defining group membership boundaries that are vague

Evidence

To assess the actual distributions of groups on some attribute dimension, as portrayed in figure 8.1, we would need to draw representative samples from both groups and then accurately assess the location of each sampled individual on the attribute dimension. This is difficult from two points of view: sampling and measurement. Socially significant groups that figure in stereotyping and prejudice are often vaguely and imprecisely defined. If we are to sample individuals to assess their actual location along an attribute dimension, how do we define the population of all group members from which we should representatively sample? For instance, how do we define ethnic group membership in the United States? Drawing a random sample clearly depends on defining who is in the population and who is not. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 867

Categorization

• XREF: The problem of undefined population boundaries parallels the author’s methods work on how researchers define categories, and echoes the reader’s interest in measurement validity. — connects to: the MOC “The Wound of the Label: When Knowing Someone Becomes a Way of Erasing Them”