Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Introduction: social comparison processes and levels of analysis
- Part 1 Cognition: comparison processes within and between individuals
- Part 2 Intergroup relations: comparison processes within and between groups
- Part 3 Culture: comparison processes within and across cultures
- 11 Stereotype content across cultures as a function of group status
- 12 The cultural norm of individualism and group status: implications for social comparisons
- 13 Ambivalent sexism, power distance, and gender inequality across cultures
- 14 Social comparisons across cultures I: Gender stereotypes in high and low power distance cultures
- 15 Social comparisons across cultures II: Change and stability in self-views – experimental evidence
- Author index
- Subject index
- References
11 - Stereotype content across cultures as a function of group status
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2009
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Introduction: social comparison processes and levels of analysis
- Part 1 Cognition: comparison processes within and between individuals
- Part 2 Intergroup relations: comparison processes within and between groups
- Part 3 Culture: comparison processes within and across cultures
- 11 Stereotype content across cultures as a function of group status
- 12 The cultural norm of individualism and group status: implications for social comparisons
- 13 Ambivalent sexism, power distance, and gender inequality across cultures
- 14 Social comparisons across cultures I: Gender stereotypes in high and low power distance cultures
- 15 Social comparisons across cultures II: Change and stability in self-views – experimental evidence
- Author index
- Subject index
- References
Summary
People want to know where they stand. Groups care deeply about where other groups stand. When a new group immigrates in significant numbers, people first ask whether they come with friendly or hostile intent. Do they come to cooperate, participate, and assimilate, or do they come to exploit, compete, and steal? Naturally, people want to know who may help or harm them. However, immediately after determining who is friend and who is foe, people want to know whether the other is capable of enacting those intentions. A fundamental question is the group's perceived status and from it follows their perceived capability to enact their intent, for good or ill.
To an extraordinary degree, people assume that groups of high status deserve it. As we will see, people all over the world agree that rich people, professionals, employers, and entrepreneurial immigrants achieve their high status with traits reflecting intelligence, competence, capability, and skill. Conversely, people all agree that others who are poor, homeless, drug addicted, or unemployed likewise deserve it because they are stupid, incompetent, incapable, and unskilled.
As our data will indicate, the strength of this effect is huge. In the senior author's career spanning decades, she has never observed correlations of these magnitudes. Why should people be so convinced that those with high status are endowed with superior competence and those of lower status are denied the same traits? This chapter explores the evidence and the reasons for this status endowment effect.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Social Comparison and Social PsychologyUnderstanding Cognition, Intergroup Relations, and Culture, pp. 249 - 263Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005
References
, , and (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1994). Self-protection and the culture of honor: Explaining Southern violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , and (2001). An attribution-value model of prejudice: Anti-fat attitudes in six nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., and Glick, P. (2005). The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Manuscript under review.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-Ph., Bond, M. H., et al. (2004). Is stereotyping culture-bound? A cross-cultural comparison of stereotyping principles reveals systematic similarities and differences. Manuscript under review.
, , and (1990). Stereotyping physical attractiveness: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 21, 158–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaertner, S. L. and Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In and (eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
and (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glick, P. and Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies: Differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice. In (ed.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 278–306). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, , , , , , et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , , , and et al. (2004). Men are bad but bold (and women are wonderful but weak): hostile as well as benevolent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2001). Level of prejudice in relation to knowledge of cultural stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 150–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 16, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1985). How work roles influence perception: Structural-cognitive processes and organizational behavior. American Sociological Review, 50, 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2003). Political conservatism as motivated cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996). Personal beliefs and cultural stereotypes about racial characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 536–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1978). Self-induced dependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 886–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, L., Constantine, V., Fiske, S., Dunham, Y., and Banaji, M. (2005). The Princeton quartet: Changing public and private stereotype content. Manuscript under review.
and (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
and (1994). Social and geographical factors in the explanation of the content of European nationality stereotypes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). A psychometric and cross-national examination of a belief in a just-world scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1396–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1987). Ten years of research on the false consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961–978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2004). Resistant versus acquiescent responses to ingroup inferiority as a function of social dominance orientation in the USA and Italy. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1997). Competence and morality dimensions of national and ethnic stereotypes: A study in six eastern-European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 703–723.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). Effects of changes in GNP and perceived group characteristics on national and ethnic stereotypes in central and eastern Europe. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1689–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999). In-group favouritism and the reflection of realistic dimensions of difference between national states in Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1986). Expectations, legitimating, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51, 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. x, pp. 174–221). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
and (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2000). Physical attractiveness stereotyping in cross-cultural perspective: Similarities and differences between Americans and Taiwanese. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31, 557–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31, 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , and (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1997). What is beautiful is culturally good: The physical attractiveness stereotype has different content in collectivistic cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 795–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojciszke, B., Baryla, W., and Mikiewicz, A. (2003). Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: Liking is based on self-interest, respect is based on status. Unpublished manuscript, Polish Academy of Science.
- 8
- Cited by