Susan T. Fiske et al. — A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow From Perceived Status and Competition

70 published claims from this book.

• Abstract-level middle-cluster stereotypes mask sharp subtype splits within a group.
• Americans across regions and ages agree which outgroups read as competent versus warm.
• Black racial stereotypes in these samples depend entirely on social class, not race alone.
• Competent-but-cold groups form a stable stereotype cluster across samples.
• Cultural out-group stereotypes yield a two-by-two grid with only welfare recipients purely derogated.
• Deliberate thinking favors competence over warmth in categories.
• Descriptions of groups shift between abstract traits and concrete acts
• Different outgroups are either disrespected, envied, liked, or disliked
• Distinct structural relations produce qualitatively different forms of prejudice
• Enviable outgroups historically split from pitied ones along warmth and competence.
• Envied high-status groups are blamed for their position via perceived control over success.
• Envied out-groups draw low-warmth stereotypes that rationalize their exclusion
• Envied outgroups provoke prejudice precisely because competence implies control over competitive threat.
• Envious and paternalistic prejudices are psychologically consistent mixed feelings, not ambivalent ones.
• Envy inherently acknowledges the envied group’s good qualities as a source of distress.
• Even subordinate groups evaluate others from the dominant reference group’s standpoint
• Fascist propaganda mapped groups onto warmth and competence dimensions.
• Findings may depend on the particular groups researchers select.
• Groups holding cultural hegemony are seen as warm because they pose no competitive threat.
• High competence plus high warmth cluster describes in-groups not outgroups.
• High-competence groups are judged significantly lower in warmth, yielding mixed stereotypes.
• High-competence low-warmth groups are reliably rated low on warmth.
• High-competence low-warmth outgroups share a stereotype of being too competent
• High-entitativity groups trigger trait spillover across all members
• High-status groups could plausibly be stereotyped as undeserving rather than competent
• Income inequality shapes how societies stereotype groups into ambivalent versus all-good-slash-all-bad categories.
• Judgments of people reduce to two dimensions explaining most variance.
• Low-status groups elicit contempt but still receive less pure derogation than other outgroups.
• Low-warmth, low-competence groups draw moralized disgust for illegitimately consuming resources.
• Mixed stereotypes combine high competence with low warmth or vice versa
• Mixed stereotypes feel unproblematic because the two dimensions are separable
• Mixed warmth-and-competence stereotypes ideologically justify existing social hierarchies.
• Most out-groups elicit mixed prejudice, not pure antipathy
• Most prejudiced people experience torn, alternating rather than pure attitudes
• Northeastern college samples may bias stereotype findings toward a just-world worldview
• One’s own social position predicts which prejudice type one will exhibit.
• Only low-status groups evoke pure low-low derogation, not envied high-status groups.
• Out-group stereotypes split into stable competence-warmth clusters with half the groups showing mixed profiles
• Outgroups are universally mapped on warmth and competence dimensions
• Paternalistic low-competence, high-warmth stereotypes predate modern egalitarian norms
• Paternalistic prejudice combines assumed superiority with caretaking toward warm but incompetent groups.
• Paternalistic prejudice rewards warmth but exacts a competence cost
• Paternalized low-competence groups cluster high on warmth.
• People judge compared groups as opposites on warmth and competence.
• People smile and feel reward when misfortunes strike envied high-status groups.
• People strategically select which stereotype to apply based on self-interest
• Perceived competence in envied outgroups fuels resentment-driven prejudice rather than reducing it.
• Perceived high status and power directly produce perceived outgroup competence.
• Perceived social status predicts competence stereotypes while competition predicts perceived coldness
• Perceived status drives competence judgments while perceived competition strips warmth from envied outgroups
• Perceived warmth and competence of groups derive from their social structure and interdependence.
• Pity and envy are the two ambivalent emotions produced by the warmth-competence stereotype matrix.
• Positive and negative stereotype dimensions combine strategically to justify group hierarchies
• Racism against Africans and anti-Semitism follow distinct psychological dynamics rooted in status perceptions.
• Self-interest shifts which stereotype category gets applied
• Social cognition research neglected content models for a century.
• Specific stereotype combinations elicit distinct prejudiced emotions toward out-groups.
• Status and competition jointly explain divergent forms of prejudice
• Stereotype content about groups has remained stable across 70 years.
• Stereotype content reflects shared cultural views rather than individual contact.
• Stereotype dimensions derive from perceivers’ need to gauge others’ intent and capability.
• Stereotypes do not sour-grape away envied outgroup competence but justify their high status.
• Stereotypes legitimize existing social hierarchy even against people’s own interests
• The enviable high-warmth high-competence cluster reflects cultural reference groups more than rater in-groups.
• The warmth dimension bundles sociality with morality but remains purely prosocial.
• Warm stereotypes of subordinate groups function to keep them placated and deferential
• Warmth and competence dimensions were prefigured in earlier research.
• Warmth and competence form the two fundamental dimensions of social perception.
• Warmth judgments blend sociability and morality, while competence blends capability and agency.
• Warmth judgments come first because intent predicts behavior.