User:Csteinle/sandbox

In social psychology, the stereotype content model (SCM) is a theory that all group stereotypes and interpersonal impressions form along two dimensions: (1) warmth and (2) competence. The theory is based on the notion that people are evolutionarily predisposed to first assess strangers intent harm or help them (i.e. warmth dimension) and second to judge the stranger’s capacity to act on that perceived intention (competence dimension). Social groups and individuals that compete for resources (e.g., college admissions space, fresh well water, etc.) with the in-group or self are treated with hostility or disdain. These groups and individuals fall along the low end of the warmth spectrum.  While, social groups and individuals with high social status (e.g., economically or educationally successful) are considered competent, and are found at the high end of the competence dimension's spectrum.  Thus, lack of competition predicts perceived warmth and high status predicts perceived competence. The model was first proposed by social psychologist Susan Fiske and her colleagues Amy Cuddy, Peter Glick and Jun Xu.

Dimensions

Warmth

Appraisals of warmth are more likely to shape interpersonal and intergroup relations and behavior than appraisals of competence. Warmth is, therefore, the primary dimension in the SCM. Assessments of an out-group or individual's potential threat level predicts the group or person's place along the warmth dimension's high/low spectrum. From an evolutionary perspective warmth is primary because having a keen understanding of a person’s competency is not as relevant if you already know that they are not trying to harm you. Early versions of the SCM predicted that intergroup or interpersonal competition drove ratings of warmth (low competition --> high warmth, high competition --> low warmth).. In 2015, Kervyn, Fiske, and Yzerbyt expanded SCM's original definition of threat also include to symbolic threats, based on Kinder and Sears (1981) Symbolic Racism theory, which steam from in-group fears over perceived threats to their culture or values. In the same paper, Kervyn, Fiske, and Yzerbyt also broadened their concept of warmth and defined it as an umbrella term which includes both sociability and morality. This reconceptualization of warmth responded to earlier work by Leach, Ellemers, and Barreto (2007) who argued that warmth conflates two variables (1) sociability, which describes attributes such as cooperation and kindness, and (2) morality, describing an internal ethical sense. They proposed an alternative three dimension model, which retained competence and divides warmth into morality and sociability. Their plea for the importance of morality in intergroup perception was also echoed by Brambilla et al. (2011) and Brambilla et al. (2012). In addition to broadening the definition of warmth Kervyn, Fiske, and Yzerbyt also countered that early theoretical definitions of warmth included adjectives related to morality despite the fact that morality measures were not included when warmth was later operationalized during empirical tests.

Competence

Perceptions of status predict people's appraisals of competence. Those groups or individuals who appear "high in status" are judged as more competent than those with low status. The competence dimension definition and prediction on the bases of status has been robust in the literature, and as such, has not faced the same criticism as the warmth dimension. Durante et al (2013) cross-cultural review of the literature reported an average correlation between status and warmth of r = .9 (range = .74–.99, all p’s < .001). 

Historical Background

Prejudice has been deconstructed and debated by social psychologists for over eight decades.  Early stereotype research, exemplified by the work of Gordon Allport (1954), concentrated on negative stereotypes within a binary in-group/out-group model. In contrast to prior “us” vs. “them” approaches, the SCM's 2x2 framework created new room for mixed out-group orientations i.e. groups stereotyped to be low warmth / high competence and low competence high warmth. The multiple out-group categories accounted for a wider variety of out-group directed treatment than prior work.

The SCM broke from former research literature with a mixed stereotype approach that formalized multiple out-group categories. However, the model's dimensions - warmth and competence - have a long history in psychology literature. In particular, Rosenberg, Nelson, and Vivekananthan's 1968 theory of social judgments, which included social (good/bad) and intellectual (good/bad), was an early version of the warmth competence dimensions. Fiske et al. (2002), also credited their decision to adopt a duel warmth/competence model to an earlier study from Bogdan Wojciszke’s laboratory, which found that warmth and competence accounted for 82% of the variance in social perceptions of daily behaviors. In addition to warmth and competency’s evolutionary rationale, Fiske et al. (2002) based modeled warmth and competence on earlier research evidence for duel dimension social impression models. researchers selected the traits because, according to a study from Bogdan Wojciszke’s laboratory, they were shown to account for 82% of the variance in social perceptions of daily behaviors (Fiske et al., 2006)

Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS) Map

To further develop their theory that there is a causal link between affect (emotion), cognition (stereotypes), and action tendencies (behavior), Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick (2002) incorporated common behavior tendencies along the lines of the four out-group categories (See Figure 1). The researchers refer to the integrated behavioral and stereotype content model framework as the behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes (BIAS) map. The BIAS map’s behavioral action tendencies include active/passive and harm/facilitation. The active/passive spectrum distinguishes behaviors that are either intentionally directed at the out-group (active) or behaviors that affect the out-group but do not require noticeable effort (passive). The second behavior spectrum, harm/facilitation, is included in the BIAS Map to differentiate out-groups that the in-group is positioned to either assist or to harm. Each stereotype group quadrant is assigned two behavioral tendencies. Thus, common cultural stereotypes dictate if a social group will either be on the receiving end of cooperative behavior (active or passive) or be subjected to harmful behavior (active or passive).

Causal Model

Social structure --> emotion --> stereotype --> behavior

Fiske, S. T., & Bearns, C. (2014). Stereotyping: Processes and content. In E. Borgida & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 1: Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 457-508). Washington DC: APA.

Caprariello, P. A., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2009).  Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model. Group Processes and Intergroup Behavior, 12, 147–155.

Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Bounded empathy: Neural responses to outgroup targets’ (mis)fortunes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3791-3803.

North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Driven to exclude: How core social motives explain social exclusion. In C. N. DeWall (ed.), The Oxford handbook of social exclusion (pp. 31-42). New York: Oxford University Press.

The BIAS Map Quadrants

(High) Warmth / (High) Competence:

The ingroup, i.e., the group to which an observer personally belongs, close allies, and societal reference groups (e.g., cultural default groups such as the middle class, heterosexuals) tend to be rated as high on both dimensions. However, there are differences between ingroup perceptions between Western and Eastern cultures, with only Western cultures displaying this in-group favoritism.

(High) Warmth / (Low) Competence:

According to stereotype surveys conducted in the U.S., some commonly pitied out-groups include the elderly and mentally disabled (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2006). Out-groups that are pitied are within the in-group’s moral framework, but are often isolated from society.

As an example, the elderly, who are pitied, will either receive passive harm, often in the form of isolation in nursing homes, or active facilitation displayed through elderly charities or community service.

Fiske, S. T. (2012). Managing ambivalent prejudices: The smart-but-cold, and the warm-but-dumb stereotypes. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 639 (1), 32-48.

The Elderly

North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Act your (old) age: Prescriptive, ageist biases over succession, identity, and consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39 (6), 720-734.

North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). A prescriptive intergenerational-tension ageism scale: Succession, Identity, and Consumption (SIC).  Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 706-713.

North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Subtyping ageism: Policy issues in succession and consumption. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7, 36-57.

North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2015). Modern attitudes toward older adults in the aging world: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 141(5), 993-1021.

(Low) Warmth / (High) Competence:

Out groups that are seen as lacking warmth and possessing high competency will evoke envy. Wealthy Americans, the Asian American community, and Jewish community are often stereotyped under the high competency/low warmth out-group category.

Asian Americans Fiske et al 1999

(Low) Warmth / (Low) Competence:  

Out-groups that are appraised with low warmth and low competency are subject to the greatest amount of hostility. Groups that are subjected to the low/low category commonly include the homeless and welfare recipients.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631-648. 2006 SPSSI Gordon Allport Award, honorable mention.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Competence and warmth as universal trait dimensions of interpersonal and intergroup perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61-149). New York: Academic.

Harris, L. T., Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2008). Envy, as predicted by the stereotype content model: A volatile ambivalence. In R. Smith (Ed.), Envy: Theory and research (pp.131-147). New York: Oxford.

Talaska, C. A., Fiske, S. T., & Chaiken, S. (2008). Legitimating racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of the racial attitude-behavior literature shows that emotions, not beliefs, best predict discrimination. Social Justice Research: Social Power in Action, 21, 263-296.

Dehumanization

van den Bos, W., McClure, S. M., Harris, L. T., Fiske, S. T., & Cohen, J. D. (2007). Dissociating affective evaluation and social cognitive processes in ventral medial prefrontal cortex. Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 337-346.

Fiske, S. T. (2009). From de-humanization and objectification, to rehumanization: Neuroimaging studies on the building blocks of empathy.  Values, empathy, and fairness across social barriers. S. Atran, A. Navarro, K. Ochsner, A. Tobeña, & O. Vilarroya (Eds.) Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 31-34.

Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske,  S. T. (2011). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540-551.

Disgust and Utilization

Harris, L. T.,  & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuro-imaging responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological Science, 17, 847-853.

Fiske, S. T. (2009). From de-humanization and objectification, to rehumanization: Neuroimaging studies on the building blocks of empathy.  Values, empathy, and fairness across social barriers. S. Atran, A. Navarro, K. Ochsner, A. Tobeña, & O. Vilarroya (Eds.) Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 31-34.

Cikara, M., Farnsworth, R. A., Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). On the wrong side of the trolley track: Neural correlates of relative social valuation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 404-413. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq011.

Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Bounded empathy: Neural responses to outgroup targets’ (mis)fortunes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3791-3803.

Fiske, S. T. (2013). Varieties of (de)humanization: Divided by competition and status. In S. Gervais (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 60, pp. 53-71. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Fiske, S. T. (2015). Dehumanization. In A. Toga (Ed.), Brain mapping: An encyclopedic reference (pp. 201-203).  Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Dehumanized perception: A psychological means to facilitate atrocities, torture, and genocide? Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, Topical Issue on Torture. 21 (3), 175-181.

Interpersonal Impression Formation

Russell, A. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2008). It’s all relative: Social position and interpersonal perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1193-1201.

Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5^th ed., pp. 941-982).  New York: Wiley.

Fiske, S. T., Dupree, C. H., Nicolas, G., & Swencionis, J. K. (in press). Status, power, and intergroup relations: The personal is the societal. Current Opinion in Psychology.

Warmth and Competence Interactions

Warmth and Competence as Distinct Dimensions

Warmth and competence are conceptually orthogonal, i.e. non overlapping, and correspondingly a high rating in one dimension can be companied with either a low or high definition in the other dimension without triggering cognitive dissidence. Warmth and competence also function separately within an individual's ego defense mechanism. A 2009 study by Collange, Fiske and Sanitioso found that when participants' own competence was threatened they were more likely to degrade (or diminish) their perceptions of target group members who had (high)competence (low)warmth stereotypes. This study supports the claim that ego defense mechanisms are dimension specific; if a person experiences a threat to their level of competence they will reduced their rating of others stereotyped to be highly competent, but will not downgrade their perception of those groups stereotyped to be high on warmth.

The Warmth/Competence Trade Off

Despite conceptual independence, appraisals of warmth and competence are not fully independent. A 2005 experimental study by Judd et al. reported a trade off between high and low assessments of warmth and competence when directly comparing the relative attributed of two social groups. When the study's participants read a profile about one group, which described them as high in one dimension (e.g. warmth) the study subjects increased their appraisal of the comparison group along the alternative dimension (e.g. competence) Thus there is a tendency toward ambivalent stereotypes when comparing social groups relative warmth and competence.

Social Implication: Maintaining Social Inequality

Additional research has found that

Durante, F., Fiske, S. T., Kervyn, N., Cuddy, A. J. C., Akande, A., Adetoun, B. E., Adewuyi, M. F., Tserere, M. M., Al Ramiah, A., Mastor, K. A., Barlow, F. K., Bonn, G., Tafarodi, R. W., Bosak, J., Cairns, E., Doherty, S., Capozza, D., Chandran, A., Chryssochoou1, X., Iatridis, T., Contreras, J. M., Costa-Lopes, R., González, R., Lewis, J. I., Tushabe, G., Leyens, J-Ph., Mayorga, R., Rouhana, N. N., Smith Castro, V., Perez, R., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., Morales Marente, E., Palacios Gálvez, M., Sibley, C. G., Asbrock, F., & Storari, C. C. (2013). Nations’ income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: How societies mind the gap. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 726–746.    

However, ideological orientations that predispose people to be low in a belief in a just world (BJW) or have a low social dominance orientation (SDO) moderates against a tendency to over inflate competence assessments of high status persons or groups.fb

Consequences of Omitting a Dimension

Additional studies have found that omitting information on a person or group's warmth or competence does not People assessed as high in one dimension are more likely to be given a low appraisal in the other dimension. This is not true of all groups.

Descriptive Omissions

Social Implication: Implied Negative Stereotypes

Bergsieker, H. B., Leslie, L. M., Constantine, V. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Stereotyping by omission: Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1214-1238.

Kervyn, N., Bergsieker, H. B., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). The innuendo effect: Hearing the positive but inferring the negative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 77–85.

Holoien, D. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Downplaying positive impressions: Compensation between warmth and competence in impression management. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 33-41.

SCM's Definition of Emotion

Talaska, C. A., Fiske, S. T., & Chaiken, S. (2008). Legitimating racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of the racial attitude-behavior literature shows that emotions, not beliefs, best predict discrimination. Social Justice Research: Social Power in Action, 21, 263-296.

Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). “What did you say, and who do you think you are?” How power differences affect emotional reactions to prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 477-492.

Neuro-imaging studies

Fiske, S. T. (2007). On prejudice and the brain. Daedalus (winter), 156-159.

Fiske, S. T. (2012). Journey to the edges: Social structures and neural maps of intergroup processes. Landmark article. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51 (1), 1-12.

Ames, D. L., Fiske, S. T., & Todorov, A. T. (2011). Impression formation: A focus on others’ intents. In J. Decety & J. Cacioppo (Eds.), The handbook of social neuroscience (pp.  419-433). Oxford University Press.

Specific Group Stereotypes in the Model

US

Gender

Fiske, S. T. (2010). Venus and Mars, or down to Earth: Stereotypes and realities of gender differences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (6), 688-692.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35 (3), 530-535.

Native Americans

Burkley, E., Durante, F., Fiske, S. T., Burkley, M., & Andrade, A. (in press). Structure and content of Native American stereotypic subgroups: Not just (ig)noble. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.

Immigrant Groups

Lee, T. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Not an outgroup, but not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 751-768.

Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2011). Xenophobia and how to fight it: Immigrants as the quintessential “other.” In S. Wiley, G. Philogène, & T. A. Revenson (Eds.), Social categories in everyday experience (pp. 151-164). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Facsist Germany

Durante, F., Volpato, C., & Fiske, S.T. (2010). Using the Stereotype Content Model to examine group depictions in Fascism: An archival approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 465-483.

Cross-Cultural studies

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social perception: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77-83.

Fiske, S. T., & Durante, F. (2016). Stereotype content across cultures: Variations on a few themes. In M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Handbook of Advances in Culture and Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 209-258).  New York: Oxford University Press.

Specific Non-Human Subject Stereotypes in the Model

Animals

Sevillano, V., & Fiske, S. T. (in press). Warmth and competence in animals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

Corporations

Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: Warmth and competence map brand perception, Target Article, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 166-176. Talk version won Best Paper Award, 2^nd International Colloquium on Consumer-Brand Relationships, March 2011.

Social Implications

Inequality: Fundamental Attribution Error Belief in Meritocracy

Fiske, S. T., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2006). Stereotype content across cultures as a function of group status. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison processes and levels of analysis (pp. 249-263). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). “What did you say, and who do you think you are?” How power differences affect emotional reactions to prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 477-492.

Russell, A. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). Power and social perception. In A. P. Guinote & T. K. Vescio (Eds.), The social psychology of power (pp. 231-250). New York: Guilford.

Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social psychology and the Great Recession: Comment on bridging the gap. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy.

Dehumanization

Disgust and Utilization

Harris, L. T.,  & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuro-imaging responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological Science, 17, 847-853.

Fiske, S. T. (2009). From de-humanization and objectification, to rehumanization: Neuroimaging studies on the building blocks of empathy.  Values, empathy, and fairness across social barriers. S. Atran, A. Navarro, K. Ochsner, A. Tobeña, & O. Vilarroya (Eds.) Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 31-34.

Cikara, M., Farnsworth, R. A., Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). On the wrong side of the trolley track: Neural correlates of relative social valuation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 404-413. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq011.

Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Bounded empathy: Neural responses to outgroup targets’ (mis)fortunes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3791-3803.

Fiske, S. T. (2013). Varieties of (de)humanization: Divided by competition and status. In S. Gervais (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 60, pp. 53-71. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Fiske, S. T. (2015). Dehumanization. In A. Toga (Ed.), Brain mapping: An encyclopedic reference (pp. 201-203).  Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Genocide

Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Dehumanized perception: A psychological means to facilitate atrocities, torture, and genocide? Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, Topical Issue on Torture. 21 (3), 175-181.

Workplace Implications

Interpersonal relationships between bosses and subordinates.

Fiske, S. T., & Borgida, E. (2011). Best practices: How to evaluate psychological science for use by organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 253-275.

Racism

Fiske, S. T. (2011). Role of power in racism. In K. M. Dowding (Ed.), Encyclopedia of power. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dupree, C. H., & Fiske, S. T. (under review). Self-presentation of warmth and competence toward white and black interaction partners.

Dupree, C. H., Obioha, O. A., & Fiske, S. T. (under review). Race-status associations predict Blacks’ and Whites’ occupational preferences for self and others

Health Care

Dovidio, J. F., & Fiske, S. T. (2012).  Under the radar: How unexamined biases can contribute to healthcare disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 102 (5), 945-952.

Anti American Sentiment

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T., with Abrams, D., Dardenne, B., Ferreira, M. C., Gonzalez, R.,  Hachfeld, C., Huang, L., Hutchison, P., Kim, H-J., Manganelli, A. M., Masser, B., Mucchi-Faina, A., Okiebisu, S., Pek, J. C. X., Rouhana, N., Saiz, J. L., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Volpato, C., Yamamoto, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2006). Anti-American sentiment and America’s perceived intent to dominate: An 11-nation study. Special Issue, In the Era of 9/11: Social Psychology and Security. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 363-373.