Outgroup prejudice reduces to two basic judgments, warmth and competence

Evidence

Hence, arguably, people want to know a first basic fact about other groups: Friend or foe? From this determination of intent follows the inference that the other group is friendly, warm, sincere (if not competing), or unfriendly, not warm, insincere (if competing). The second basic fact about the other group is: Able or unable? From this determination of capability follows the inference that the other group is competent, intelligent, skillful, or not. The inference of competence stems from the other group’s status in society. A two-dimensional warmth by competence space distinguishes among a wide variety of outgroups (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Moreover, it holds up across at least a dozen cultures tested so far (Cuddy, Fiske, Kwan, Glick, et al., under review). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 322

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to stereotype content model (SCM) literature; envious vs. paternalistic prejudice subtypes follow from warmth/competence mix. — 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; Americans across regions and ages agree which outgroups read as competent versus warm. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 238; Enviable outgroups historically split from pitied ones along warmth and competence. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 19
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: which outgroups occupy which quadrants (e.g., elderly = warm/incompetent, rich = cold/competent), and where status vs. competition drive the two dimensions.