2002 AModelofoftenMixedStereotypeCon
- (Fiske et al., 2002) ⇒ Susan T. Fiske, Amy J.C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu. (2002). “A Model of (often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition..” In: Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(6). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Subject Headings: Stereotype Content Model, Competent, Trustworthy.
Notes
Cited By
Quotes
Abstract
Stereotype research emphasizes systematic processes over seemingly arbitrary contents, but content also may prove systematic. On the basis of stereotypes' intergroup functions, the stereotype content model hypothesizes that (1) 2 primary dimensions are competence and warmth, (2) frequent mixed clusters combine high warmth with low competence (paternalistic) or high competence with low warmth (envious), and (3) distinct emotions (pity, envy, admiration, contempt) differentiate the 4 competence-warmth combinations. Stereotypically, (4) status predicts high competence, and competition predicts low warmth. Nine varied samples rated gender, ethnicity, race, class, age, and disability out-groups. Contrary to antipathy models, 2 dimensions mattered, and many stereotypes were mixed, either pitying (low competence, high warmth subordinates) or envying (high competence, low warmth competitors).
Introduction
Not all stereotypes are alike. Some stereotyped groups are disrespected as incapable and useless (e.g., elderly people), whereas others are respected for excessive, threatening competence (e.g., Asians). Some stereotyped groups are liked as sweet and harmless (e.g., housewives), whereas others are disliked as cold and inhuman (e.g., rich people). Surely, such differences matter.
However, social psychology of late has eschewed the study of stereotype content, focusing instead on stereotyping processes (for reviews, see Brown, 1995; Fiske, 1998; Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Schadron, 1994; Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). And for good reason. Stereotyping processes respond to systematic principles that generalize across different specific instances of stereotypes, so the processes invite social–psychological investigation, because they are presumably stable over time, place, and out-group. If the contents of stereotypes come and go with the winds of social pressures, then no single stereotype remains stable and predictable from theoretical principles.
Alternatively, if stereotypes do come and go with the winds of social pressures, maybe we can understand those wind patterns and, thus, some origins of stereotype content. In short, perhaps we need a model that predicts the intergroup weather: Stereotype content may respond to systematic principles, just as stereotyping processes do.
If stereotype content responds to principles, then the first principle must identify common dimensions of content. Following Allport (1954), social psychologists have typically viewed only unflattering stereotypes as indicating prejudice, where prejudice is a uniform antipathy or contempt toward an out-group across a variety of dimensions. Flattering stereotypes have presumably targeted in-groups or, when they target out-groups, have presumably indicated compunction stemming from modern egalitarian ideals.
We argue instead that stereotypes are captured by two dimensions (warmth and competence) and that subjectively positive stereotypes on one dimension do not contradict prejudice but often are functionally consistent with unflattering stereotypes on the other dimension. Moreover, we argue that two variables long identified as important in intergroup relations — status and competition — predict dimensions of stereotypes. We suggest that for subordinate, noncompetitive groups (e.g., elderly people), the positive stereotype of warmth acts jointly with the negative stereotype of low competence to maintain the advantage of more privileged groups. For high-status, competitive out-groups (e.g., Asians), the positive stereotype of their competence justifies the overall system but acts jointly with the negative stereotype of low warmth to justify the in-group’s resentment of them.
Finally, we argue that different combinations of stereotypic warmth and competence result in unique intergroup emotions — prejudices — directed toward various kinds of groups in society. Pity targets the warm but not competent subordinates; envy targets the competent but not warm competitors; contempt is reserved for out-groups deemed neither warm nor competent.
…
References
;
| Author | volume | Date Value | title | type | journal | titleUrl | doi | note | year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 AModelofoftenMixedStereotypeCon | Jun Xu Peter Glick Susan T. Fiske Amy J.C. Cuddy | A Model of (often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition. | 2002 |