People protect stereotypes by carving out subtypes for exceptions
Evidence
When people confront individuals whose character disputes their outgroup stereotypes, they readily admit the individual exceptions only to “re-fence” the stereotype (Allport, 1954/1979, p. 23): People create small subtypes to contain the exceptions, thereby protecting their overall categories (for references, see Fiske, 1998). Subtypes are cognitively convenient because they allow people to retain their comfortable categories. And they are socially convenient because they justify the status quo. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 304
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- XREF: Subtyping explains the ‘one good friend who’s X’ phenomenon; connects to Allport’s re-fencing metaphor.
- SEED: Subtyping as a mechanism by which token representation fails to change attitudes is a strong essay angle on diversity initiatives.
Related
- Individuals who contradict stereotypes get subtyped so the overall stereotype survives intact (similarity 0.88)
- Disconfirming individuals are set aside as subtypes that protect the group stereotype (similarity 0.88)
- People resist stereotype change by fencing off disconfirming individuals as exceptions. (similarity 0.87)
- Subtyping protects stereotypes by exempting counter-evidence as exceptions. (similarity 0.83)
- Selective evidence use lets people maintain the illusion of being objective while holding prejudice (similarity 0.81)
- Subgroups increase perceived variability and weaken stereotypes, while subtypes preserve them (similarity 0.81)
- Motivated observers replace subtype exceptions with genuine subgroup variety within categories (similarity 0.80)
- Subgrouping a group reduces stereotyping while subtyping preserves it. (similarity 0.79)
- Motivated observ ers perceive within-group variety while unmotivated ones rely on subtypes (similarity 0.78)