People judge compared groups as opposites on warmth and competence.

Evidence

A compensation effect emerges in social comparisons: If one individual or group is high in one dimension, then a second individual or group in comparison is presumed to be high in the other dimension (Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt, & Kashima, 2005; Kervyn, Yzerbyt, & Judd, 2010). This produces the SCM signature: predominantly ambivalent stereotypes. If rich people seem cold but competent, then working-class people seem warm but incompetent. This trade-off holds only for these two dimensions, not just any two social comparisons. Perceivers differentiate two social targets in a comparative context on the two fundamental dimensions of social judgment by contrasting them inversely. — Susan T. Fiske, Stereotype Content, 46

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Directly extends the essay on trees/grafting only loosely, but more relevantly parallels class-signaling dynamics in the immodesty moral-panics essay; the rich-cold/competent vs poor-warm/incompetent ambivalence echoes how dress moral panics trade warmth for status.
• XREF: connects to: 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

Related

• Americans across regions and ages agree which outgroups read as competent versus warm. (similarity 0.85)
• Groups are judged on perceived warmth and competence, which drive distinct emotions toward them (similarity 0.84)
• High-competence groups are judged significantly lower in warmth, yielding mixed stereotypes. (similarity 0.83)
• Warmth and competence judgments predict distinct emotional reactions to groups (similarity 0.83)
• High-competence low-warmth groups are reliably rated low on warmth. (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived warmth and competence of groups derive from their social structure and interdependence. (similarity 0.82)
• Outgroup prejudice reduces to two basic judgments, warmth and competence (similarity 0.82)
• Groups seen as competing with the ingroup are stereotyped as low in warmth (similarity 0.82)
• Mixed warmth-and-competence stereotypes ideologically justify existing social hierarchies. (similarity 0.81)
• Positive and negative stereotype dimensions combine strategically to justify group hierarchies (similarity 0.81)
• Warmth and competence form the two fundamental dimensions of social perception. (similarity 0.81)
• Mixed stereotypes combine high competence with low warmth or vice versa (similarity 0.81)
• Mixed stereotypes feel unproblematic because the two dimensions are separable (similarity 0.81)
• Stereotypes map onto warmth and competence, which predict specific emotional responses. (similarity 0.80)
• Perceived social status predicts competence stereotypes while competition predicts perceived coldness (similarity 0.80)