Perceived status drives competence judgments while perceived competition strips warmth from envied outgroups

Evidence

We suggest that cultural stereotypes result from the social structural relations between groups in two primary ways. Specifically, the social structural hypothesis proposes, first, that outgroups are perceived as more competent to the extent that they are perceived as powerful and high status or as less competent to the extent that they are perceived as powerless and low status. The perceived link between a group’s societal outcomes and its perceived competence serves several functions. This link may represent a form of correspondence bias, namely, that people’s behavior (in this case, their position) reflects their traits (D. T. Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Or it might reflect just-world thinking, namely, that people get what they deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978). At the level of groups, it justifies the system (Jost & Banaji, 1994) and legitimates power–prestige rankings (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980; Ridgeway & Berger, 1986). … In contrast, competitive out-groups frustrate, tantalize, and annoy, so they are viewed as having negative intent. Out-group goals presumably interfere with in-group goals, so they are not warm. A primary source of negative affect toward out-groups results from perceived incompatibility of their goals with in-group goals (Fiske & Ruscher, 1993). If out-groups are successful, they receive grudging respect for their envied control over resources but never are liked as warm. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 42

On the basis of stereotypes’ intergroup functions, the stereotype content model hypothesizes that (a) 2 primary dimensions are competence and warmth, (b) frequent mixed clusters combine high warmth with low competence (paternalistic) or high competence with low warmth (envious), and (c) distinct emotions (pity, envy, admiration, contempt) differentiate the 4 competence– warmth combinations. Stereotypically, (d) status predicts high competence, and competition predicts low warmth. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 3

Again (see Table 10), perceived status was highly correlated with perceived competence, group-level r(22) .98, p .001; individual-level r(147) .88, p .001. And, again, perceived competition correlated with perceived lack of warmth, group-level r(22) w.64, p .001; individual-level r(147) .31, p .01. Note that the individual-level results are stronger than in Study 1, and Study 1s anomalous competition–competence correlation is eliminated, presumably by more careful scale construction. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 202

Categorization

• XREF: Directly answers the reading purpose: this is the mechanism by which high-competence outgroups become envy/resentment targets rather than admired ones. Connects to system justification theory (Jost & Banaji) cited here. — connects to: Only low-status groups evoke pure low-low derogation, not envied high-status groups. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 124; Perceived competence in envied outgroups fuels resentment-driven prejudice rather than reducing it. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 302; Envied high-status groups are blamed for their position via perceived control over success. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 258 (+15 more)
• DEFINE: This lays out the four-cell SCM framework and its two causal predictors — the envy cell (high competence, low warmth) driven by competition is where scapegoating of powerful minorities begins.
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 42; Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 3; Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 202

Related

• Perceived social status predicts competence stereotypes while competition predicts perceived coldness (similarity 0.92)
• Envied out-groups draw low-warmth stereotypes that rationalize their exclusion (similarity 0.87)
• Perceived high status and power directly produce perceived outgroup competence. (similarity 0.86)
• Outgroup prejudice reduces to two basic judgments, warmth and competence (similarity 0.86)
• Perceived competence in envied outgroups fuels resentment-driven prejudice rather than reducing it. (similarity 0.86)
• Stereotypes do not sour-grape away envied outgroup competence but justify their high status. (similarity 0.85)
• Group status and competition determine which stereotype each outgroup receives (similarity 0.85)
• Susan T. Fiske et al. — A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow From Perceived Status and Competition (similarity 0.85)
• Groups are judged on perceived warmth and competence, which drive distinct emotions toward them (similarity 0.84)
• Envied outgroups provoke prejudice precisely because competence implies control over competitive threat. (similarity 0.84)
• Mixed stereotypes combine high competence with low warmth or vice versa (similarity 0.84)
• Warmth and competence judgments predict distinct emotional reactions to groups (similarity 0.84)
• Envied high-status groups are blamed for their position via perceived control over success. (similarity 0.84)
• Specific stereotype combinations elicit distinct prejudiced emotions toward out-groups. (similarity 0.83)
• Groups seen as competing with the ingroup are stereotyped as low in warmth (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Warmth and competence judgments predict distinct emotional reactions to groups #expands (0.85) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2272
• Group status and competition determine which stereotype each outgroup receives #corroborates (0.85) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2365
• Groups are judged on perceived warmth and competence, which drive distinct emotions toward them #expands (0.85) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2272
• Group status and competition determine which traits get projected onto which groups #corroborates (0.85)
• Perceived competition and competence together trigger envy or contempt #corroborates (0.82)
• Perceived group power and competition, not negative traits, determine stereotyping and scapegoating #corroborates (0.82) — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice, 196
• Groups respond to perceived competition through outgroup derogation, ingroup enhancement, and status-quo-preserving discrimination #expands (0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1509
• Prejudice splits into perceived warmth and competence dimensions #expands (0.80) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 288
• Perceived warmth and competence of groups derive from their social structure and interdependence. #complicates (0.78) — Susan T. Fiske, Stereotype Content, 18
• Outgroups are universally mapped on warmth and competence dimensions #expands (0.78)
• Warmth and competence form the two fundamental dimensions of social perception. #expands (0.75) — Susan T. Fiske, Stereotype Content, 3
• Outgroup prejudice reduces to two basic judgments, warmth and competence #expands (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 322
• Ideologies and situations jointly trigger perceived group competition, requiring an outgroup #qualifies (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1497
• Perceived competition matters more than objective competition #qualifies (0.75)
• Men but not women increase in-group contributions when cues signal out-group competition #exemplifies (0.72) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1207