Paternalism and individualism regimes produce different dominant stereotypes of subordinates

Evidence

The specific configuration and character of the intergroup attitudes expressed by dominant groups is thus altered under different ideological regimes. The reshaping of stereotypes illustrates this point. Because paternalism builds on the reification of group differences, it calls for categorical stereotypes. Subordinates are stereotyped as having – and praised for exhibiting – positive, communal traits that are appropriate to their subservient position (such as being supportive, nurturing, loyal, compliant, deferential). The specificity of the embedded injunction is learned cruelly by individual subordinates who mistakenly manifest an abundance of agentic traits and are rewarded with dominants’ wrath (Eagly & Diekman, ch. 2 this volume; Rudman, ch. 7 this volume; Van Deburg, 1979, pp. 73–5). When the ideological regime shifts to dissent and individualism, dominants’ stereotypes about subordinates are gradually reshaped. The embedded message changes from “Vive la différence!” to “Too bad you aren’t more like us – try harder.” Negative attributions become more common, as restive subordinates must be reminded that they lack the agentic traits required to support their demands for equality, and, besides, complaining subordinates who fail to live up to the communal attributes demanded of them are no longer as likeable as they once were. What used to be a latent fear about loss of control (prompting watchful assertions about the emotional volatility or violence-propensity of subordinates) is sharpened and crystallized when subordinates have manifestly become less docile. At the same time, dominants simultaneously shed categorical attributions: rigid stereotypes are an embarrassment to a political defense that hinges on the assertion of individual rights. Dominants slip into a probabilistic style of attribution that is consistent with individualism. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 676

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: A genuinely dense model: ideology regimes shift not only attitude content but the very style of attribution (categorical vs probabilistic), predicting both the affectionate stereotype of docile subordinates and the contemptuous one for restive ones.
• XREF: Bears directly on the vault’s contact-theory thread — predicts when positive stereotyping (warmth without competence) survives vs. when it flips to hostility; dovetails with the benevolence-hostility ambivalent sexism model. — connects to: Paternalistic low-competence, high-warmth stereotypes predate modern egalitarian norms — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 34
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 676