The underlying theory held about a group shapes how its members are interpreted

Evidence

How people respond to the members of a particular group is determined in part by the intuitive theory that the person holds. For instance, people who subscribe to the intuitive theory that Blacks lack the ability and/ or motivation to achieve (a view often associated with political conservatism) and those who believe that discrimination limits Blacks’ economic progress (a view associated with liberalism) process and interpret information about Blacks in fundamentally different ways (Wittenbrink, Gist, & Hilton, 1997). Thus, some stereotypes go beyond the mere description of groups in terms of commonly associated traits to explain the origins of those traits in such a way that the group’s social position is seen as justified or unjustified. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1384

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

Related

• Underlying causal theories about groups guide how stereotype-relevant information is interpreted. (similarity 0.95)
• Lay theories about group origins shape how information is processed and judged (similarity 0.90)
• Group stereotypes activate differently depending on the context viewed (similarity 0.83)
• Stereotypes often rationalize preexisting emotions toward outgroups (similarity 0.82)
• Prejudiced individuals misattribute their dislike to group attributes rather than vice versa. (similarity 0.80)
• Perceiving groups as natural kinds with essences drives sweeping stereotype generalization (similarity 0.80)
• Stereotypes cohere through intuitive theories, not shared attributes (similarity 0.80)
• Historically stigmatized group membership makes race-bias a chronically accessible frame for interpreting experiences (similarity 0.79)
• Individual and intergroup theories of prejudice may share underlying motivational mechanisms. (similarity 0.79)
• Stereotypes form, stabilize, and change through communication, not just individual cognition. (similarity 0.79)
• Perceived trait differences rationalize group advantage (similarity 0.78)
• Shared information dominates group discussions, amplifying consensus stereotypes (similarity 0.78)
• General outgroup knowledge is weak, but individuating knowledge reduces bias (similarity 0.78)
• Even accurate group stereotypes are wrongly applied to individuals. (similarity 0.78)