Stereotypes exaggerate a real core of group differences into caricatures

Evidence

In thinking about where perceived groups differences come from, Allport argued that there exists a core of actual group differences which become magnified by prejudice so that the resulting stereotypic beliefs about outgroups are more extreme, negative, and overgeneralized than warranted by the data. He gave the example of mutual perceptions by the Russians and the Americans during the Cold War. Each group started with an observed difference rooted in reality, but these perceptions became negative caricatures of what the groups were actually like. The prejudiced person then comes to invoke group differences as a justification for his or her prejudiced attitude (see also Jost & Hamilton, ch. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 835 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

In thinking about where perceived groups differences come from, Allport argued that there exists a core of actual group differences which become magnified by prejudice so that the resulting stereotypic beliefs about outgroups are more extreme, negative, and overgeneralized than warranted by the data. He gave the example of mutual perceptions by the Russians and the Americans during the Cold War. Each group started with an observed difference rooted in reality, but these perceptions became negative caricatures of what the groups were actually like. The prejudiced person then comes to invoke group differences as a justification for his or her prejudiced attitude (see also Jost & Hamilton, ch. 13 this volume). According to Allport, “Difference alone does not make for hostility … and yet the prejudiced person almost always claims that some alleged difference is the cause of his attitude” (1954/1979, p. 87). Trying to alter the stereotype content is like treating the symptom rather than the root cause. Allport suggested that although beliefs can be challenged, typically “they have the slippery propensity of accommodating themselves somehow to the negative attitude which is much harder to change” (p. 13). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 835 (#expands, via linked claim)

Insofar as stereotypes arise in order to justify some system of social arrangements, they may arise out of false as well as “true” consciousness; the justification used may bear no relation to actual characteristics of the group. This was the case in the experiments conducted by Hoffman and Hurst (1990), who showed that stereotypes about childraisers and city workers develop not from observed differences in attributes or behaviors, but from a rationalization of the division of social roles. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2954 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Stereotypes exaggerate a genuine kernel of actual group difference — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 835; Stereotypes are real group differences magnified into negative caricatures by prejudice. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 835; Seeing groups as more different than they are is stereotypic inaccuracy — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 856 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Stereotypes exaggerate a genuine kernel of actual group difference #corroborates (0.99) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 835
• Stereotypes are real group differences magnified into negative caricatures by prejudice. #expands (0.96) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 835
• Stereotypes can arise from role rationalization, not observed group differences #complicates (0.82) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2954