Group status and competition determine which traits get projected onto which groups

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

As noted above, some writers (Festinger, 1954; Kidder & Stewart, 1975) imply that strategy 2(c) is a dominant response to status differences between groups. The assumption is that intergroup comparability decreases as a direct function of perceived dissimilarity. If this were the whole story, then, somewhat paradoxically, the creation of a consensual status system would protect social identity from invidious comparisons. The causal sequence would be as follows: similar groups compare with each other; the outcome determines their relative prestige; the perceived status difference reduces their similarity and hence comparability; intergroup comparisons cease to be made; subjective superiority and inferiority decrease in salience; correspondingly, the groups’ respective self-esteems return to their original point. There may be occasions when this socialpsychological recipe for the maintenance of the status quo can be observed in something like its pure form. However, we shall argue presently that there are many status differences that do not reduce comparability. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2749 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: 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; Group status and competition determine which stereotype each outgroup receives — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2365; Descriptions of groups shift between abstract traits and concrete acts (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Group status and competition determine which stereotype each outgroup receives #corroborates (0.97) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2365
• Belief in zero-sum competition sustains group hierarchies #complicates (0.76)
• Status hierarchies reduce conflict by limiting meaningful comparisons between groups #complicates (0.73) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2749
• Status hierarchies can emerge purely from individuals’ belonging, distinctiveness, and esteem needs #complicates (0.71) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 855