Group status and competition determine which stereotype each outgroup receives

Evidence

The key variables determining stereotypes of particular groups are the relative statuses of the groups and the extent to which their relationships are cooperative or competitive. For example, some minority groups are economically, politically, and/or academically successful, but are perceived by the majority or dominant group as competitors for resources (e.g., Asians and Jews). Such groups – seen as competent yet hostile – are said to be the targets of envious prejudice. They will be feared and mistrusted, and viewed as dishonest, sinister, and selfish. Other minority groups might not be perceived as threatening, but also not be seen as competent. Those groups, the targets of paternalistic prejudice, are more likely to be stereotyped as being warm and childlike (e.g., traditional women). Finally, contemptuous prejudice is reserved for minority groups perceived to be lower in status than the majority but also a drain on resources. They will be both hated and disrespected, and possibly stereotyped as savages (e.g., African Americans). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2365

The key variables determining stereotypes of particular groups are the relative statuses of the groups and the extent to which their relationships are cooperative or competitive. For example, some minority groups are economically, politically, and/or academically successful, but are perceived by the majority or dominant group as competitors for resources (e.g., Asians and Jews). Such groups – seen as competent yet hostile – are said to be the targets of envious prejudice. They will be feared and mistrusted, and viewed as dishonest, sinister, and selfish. Other minority groups might not be perceived as threatening, but also not be seen as competent. Those groups, the targets of paternalistic prejudice, are more likely to be stereotyped as being warm and childlike (e.g., traditional women). Finally, contemptuous prejudice is reserved for minority groups perceived to be lower in status than the majority but also a drain on resources. They will be both hated and disrespected, and possibly stereotyped as savages (e.g., African Americans). Overall, the main point is that as a result of the relationships between groups in a given society, certain groups will be magnets for the projection of specific stereotypical traits and not others. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2365

And onto whom will these undesired traits be projected? As discussed at length by Fiske, Glick, and their colleagues (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Glick, ch. 15 this volume), not all groups are equally susceptible to being slandered with a given unfavorable trait. The key variables determining stereotypes of particular groups are the relative statuses of the groups and the extent to which their relationships are cooperative or competitive. For example, some minority groups are economically, politically, and/or academically successful, but are perceived by the majority or dominant group as competitors for resources (e.g., Asians and Jews). Such groups – seen as competent yet hostile – are said to be the targets of envious prejudice. They will be feared and mistrusted, and viewed as dishonest, sinister, and selfish. Other minority groups might not be perceived as threatening, but also not be seen as competent. Those groups, the targets of paternalistic prejudice, are more likely to be stereotyped as being warm and childlike (e.g., traditional women). Finally, contemptuous prejudice is reserved for minority groups perceived to be lower in status than the majority but also a drain on resources. They will be both hated and disrespected, and possibly stereotyped as savages (e.g., African Americans). Overall, the main point is that as a result of the relationships between groups in a given society, certain groups will be magnets for the projection of specific stereotypical traits and not others. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2365

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the three-fold typology: envious, paternalistic, and contemptuous prejudice.
• XREF: This three-way prejudice typology echoes the stereotype content model; connects to any material on intergroup relations or stereotype formation. — connects to: Perceived status drives competence judgments while perceived competition strips warmth from envied outgroups — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 42; Perceived social status predicts competence stereotypes while competition predicts perceived coldness — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 140; the MOC “The Wound of the Label: When Knowing Someone Becomes a Way of Erasing Them”
• ADDENDUM: Connects to the piece on complaints about immodesty going way back — societies stereotype outgroups with distinct traits based on relationship type.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2365; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2365