Social perception reduces to agentic and communal attribute dimensions

Evidence

To define the third type of stereotype accuracy, however, we must focus on content, and in particular on the valence of the attribute in question. Although we agree with Allport (and Campbell) that many attribute dimensions can be defined in positively valenced or negatively valenced terms (e.g., stingy versus thrifty), it is nevertheless the case that there exists broad agreement about the valence of certain fundamental attributes. In particular, two fundamental and broad dimensions seem to underlie social perception, both at the individual (Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968) and group (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) levels, and there is widespread agreement about the valence of these dimensions. People and groups seems to differ in the degree to which they are seen to possess positively valued agentic attributes (with the positive pole of the dimension including attributes such as motivated, intelligent, organized, capable; and the negative pole including attributes such as lazy, slow, disorganized) and communal attributes (with the positive pole including attributes such as warm, friendly, supportive; and the negative pole including attributes such as hostile, uncaring, and cold). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 861

To define the third type of stereotype accuracy, however, we must focus on content, and in particular on the valence of the attribute in question. Although we agree with Allport (and Campbell) that many attribute dimensions can be defined in positively valenced or negatively valenced terms (e.g., stingy versus thrifty), it is nevertheless the case that there exists broad agreement about the valence of certain fundamental attributes. In particular, two fundamental and broad dimensions seem to underlie social perception, both at the individual (Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968) and group (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) levels, and there is widespread agreement about the valence of these dimensions. People and groups seems to differ in the degree to which they are seen to possess positively valued agentic attributes (with the positive pole of the dimension including attributes such as motivated, intelligent, organized, capable; and the negative pole including attributes such as lazy, slow, disorganized) and communal attributes (with the positive pole including attributes such as warm, friendly, supportive; and the negative pole including attributes such as hostile, uncaring, and cold). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 861

Categorization

• XREF: This is the classic warmth/competence framework from Fiske’s stereotype content model, and echoes the Big Two of person perception (communion/agency). — connects to: Perceiving someone as an agent shifts how we categorize a paired neutral person — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting: Divergent…, 121
• DEFINE: Distills two-dimension structure (agency/communion, warm/capable) shared across person and group perception.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 861; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 861