The warmth dimension bundles sociality with morality but remains purely prosocial.

Evidence

The warmth scale includes elements of both sociality (good-natured, warm, tolerant) and morality (sincere), but all are prosocial traits. On the other dimension, we defined competence as task competence, in keeping with the person perception and small groups literatures. Moreover, undergraduates’ own ratings of the adjectives went into the factor analyses that determined which traits entered the scales. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 161

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies that SCM warmth = prosocial intent (combining good-natured/sociality with sincere/morality), which is consequential for why envied groups rate low: they are seen as lacking prosocial warmth specifically.
• XREF: connects to: Warmth and competence form the two fundamental dimensions of social perception. — Susan T. Fiske, Stereotype Content: Warmth and…, 3; Warmth judgments blend sociability and morality, while competence blends capability and agency. — Susan T. Fiske, Stereotype Content: Warmth and…, 17; Groups are judged on perceived warmth and competence, which drive distinct emotions toward them — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2272 (+1 more)

Related

• Warmth judgments blend sociability and morality, while competence blends capability and agency. (similarity 0.87)
• Warmth and competence form the two fundamental dimensions of social perception. (similarity 0.87)
• Stereotypes map onto warmth and competence, which predict specific emotional responses. (similarity 0.83)
• Groups are judged on perceived warmth and competence, which drive distinct emotions toward them (similarity 0.83)
• Perceived warmth and competence of groups derive from their social structure and interdependence. (similarity 0.82)
• Warmth and competence dimensions were prefigured in earlier research. (similarity 0.82)
• High-competence low-warmth groups are reliably rated low on warmth. (similarity 0.81)
• Groups seen as competing with the ingroup are stereotyped as low in warmth (similarity 0.81)
• Warmth and competence judgments predict distinct emotional reactions to groups (similarity 0.81)
• People judge compared groups as opposites on warmth and competence. (similarity 0.80)
• High-competence groups are judged significantly lower in warmth, yielding mixed stereotypes. (similarity 0.80)
• Social perception reduces to agentic and communal attribute dimensions (similarity 0.80)
• Prejudice splits into perceived warmth and competence dimensions (similarity 0.79)
• Americans across regions and ages agree which outgroups read as competent versus warm. (similarity 0.79)
• Stereotype dimensions derive from perceivers’ need to gauge others’ intent and capability. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Warmth judgments blend sociability and morality, while competence blends capability and agency. #expands (0.95) — Susan T. Fiske, Stereotype Content, 17
• Warmth and competence form the two fundamental dimensions of social perception. #qualifies (0.90) — Susan T. Fiske, Stereotype Content, 3
• Groups are judged on perceived warmth and competence, which drive distinct emotions toward them #expands (0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2272
• Moral character and trustworthiness are only weakly correlated #complicates (0.72)