Self-stereotyping

Last updated

In social psychology, self-stereotyping (or autostereotyping) is a process by which an individual integrates and internalizes commonly held characterizations (i.e. stereotypes or prototypes) of an in-group into their self-concept. [1] [2] It is described as part of social identity theory (SIT) [1] [3] and, more specifically, self-categorization theory (SCT). [4]

Contents

According to SIT, group membership is most likely to influence self-concept and self-esteem when the cognitive processes of identification and categorization interact. In other words, when an individual identifies strongly with a group and categorizes him or herself as a member of that group, group membership becomes integrated into the person’s identity. [1] [5] [6]

Description

Self-stereotyping has also been characterized as an overlap between how a person represents their ingroup and how they represent the self. [2] Prior to self-stereotyping, one experiences depersonalization, the process of shedding one's unique identity to merge it with the group identity of the in-group while simultaneously separating themselves from the out-group. [7] [8] Members of low-status groups have been found to be more prone to self-stereotyping than members of high-status groups. Research suggests that members of low-status groups attribute ingroup characteristics to the self via a deduction-to-the-self process. That is, they accept stereotypical characteristics (both positive and negative) of their ingroup as reflective of themselves. Latrofa and colleagues (2012) suggest self-stereotyping increases when low-status groups feel threatened and individuals within the group see more similarities between the group and themselves. [9] Low-status groups' responses to threatening events are influenced by the collective emotion of the group. [10] In contrast, it has been suggested that members of high-status groups tend to project their personal characteristics onto their ingroup using an induction-to-the-ingroup cognitive strategy. [2]

Positive and negative

Self-stereotyping can be characterized as negative and positive. Groups tend to be more accepting of positive stereotypes and ascribe it to themselves and their group, but reject negative stereotypes. [11] However, negative self-stereotyping is sometimes accepted by individuals when it protects the individual from failure and poor judgment being ascribed to the performance of the individual rather than the group. [12]

Implicit and explicit

Self-stereotyping can also occur both implicitly and explicitly. [13] Implicit self-stereotyping is when an individual unconsciously shifts their own beliefs to match that of their social group while explicit self-stereotyping is consciously shifting one’s behavioral traits to match their social group. [13]

Factors

Age

Self-stereotyping emerges in early adolescence then decreases in young adulthood. [14] It has been described as a form of depersonalization in which the self is viewed as a categorically interchangeable member of a salient ingroup. [2] [15] The growth of one’s social identity can directly relate to a decline in one's personal identity since conforming to group goals influences an individual's beliefs and behaviors. [16]

Gender

Self-stereotyping by gender is seen in children as early as five-years-old. [8] Research examining gender-based self-stereotyping has characterized female ingroups as low status and male ingroups as high status. This is because in modern society gender inequality still exists. [17] Women have been shown to self-stereotype more than men, yet self-stereotyping decreases in men when presented with gender equality information. [18] [19] Coleman and Hong (2008) have pointed out that when women believe gender differences are attributed to biology differences between men and women, negative self-stereotyping also increases. [20] Furthermore, implicit gender self-categorization has been identified as a key mechanism underlying the tendency of women to self-stereotype. [17] [8]

Environment

Self-stereotyping is not only limited to social group settings, it can also occur with environmental cues. [21] In other words, when an individual is exposed to something in their environment that is relevant to their low status identity, they may shift their own beliefs or behaviors to fit the low status identity. The effects of environmental factors on self stereotyping among low status groups has been studied in gay men. A study found that being in a gay space, such as a gay bookstore, tended to make gay men identify very strongly with positive traits that are stereotypically gay. [22] This pronounced self stereotyping trend was not found in the studied gay men in neutral spaces or heterosexual men. [22]

Culture

Research has shown that individualist cultures engage in more self-stereotyping because they rely more on interpersonal relationships, group cohesion, and in-group ties compared to collectivist cultures. [7]

Group dynamic

Some researchers have found that self-stereotyping is somewhat dependent upon an individual’s belief that he/she and the group are capable of change. [23] If the individual believes that the group's needs are different from their own, they may have to adapt his/her self-representation in order to maintain membership within the in-group. However, if other in-group members are flexible to change, an individual is more likely to maintain his/her self-image and avoid self-stereotyping. Individuals tend to adapt to group characteristics more readily if they see this change as an enhancement to the self. Therefore, the individual's perception of the group influences how much he or she is willing to sacrifice in order to be a member. [23]

Bisexuality

An essential aspect of self stereotyping in low status groups is the presence of a clear prototype. A study investigated the effect that self stereotyping had on bisexual people’s self esteem, identity uncertainty, mood, and stress. [24] This study found that self-stereotyping did not cause bisexual individuals to experience the same well-being boosts observed when other individuals in low status groups, including gay and lesbian people, engage in self-stereotyping. [24] These results may be attributed to the fact that bisexuality, due to being neither heterosexual nor homosexual, is an identity that lacks a distinct and clearly defined group; this absence of a clearly defined group means that there is no defined prototype. [24]

Health

Members of low status groups may experience prejudice, discrimination, and stress which may negatively impact their physical health. [7] Self-stereotyping has been linked to affecting the physical and emotional health of low status group members who engage in more negative self-stereotyping. River and Paradez (2014) found that negative self-stereotyping can have a negative effect on the self-esteem of low status individuals, therefore making them more likely to experience obesity. [25]

Implications

Social influence

Researchers have explored relationships between self-stereotyping and notable figures in low status groups. [26] Rivera and Benitez (2016) found that when members of low status groups strongly identify with their low status identity and are shown positive examples of role models in their group, they engage in less self-stereotyping. [26]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prejudice</span> Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.

In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others. Sexual objectification, the act of treating a person as a mere object of sexual desire, is a subset of objectification, as is self-objectification, the objectification of one's self. In Marxism, the objectification of social relationships is discussed as "reification".

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

Stereotype threat is a situational predicament in which people are or feel themselves to be at risk of conforming to stereotypes about their social group. It is theorized to be a contributing factor to long-standing racial and gender gaps in academic performance. Since its introduction into the academic literature, stereotype threat has become one of the most widely studied topics in the field of social psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black sheep</span> Idiom for oddness or disreputability

In the English language, black sheep is an idiom that describes a member of a group who is different from the rest, especially a family member who does not fit in. The term stems from sheep whose fleece is colored black rather than the more common white; these sheep stand out in the flock and their wool is worth less as it will not dye.

Laurie A. Rudman is a social psychology feminist professor as well as the Director of the Rutgers University Social Cognition Laboratory who has contributed a great deal of research to studies on implicit and explicit attitudes and stereotypes, stereotype maintenance processes, and the media's effects on attitudes, stereotypes, and behavior on the Feminism movement. She was awarded the 1994 Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize for her research examining the effects of sexist advertising on men's behavior toward female job applicants.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

The ultimate attribution error is a type of attribution error which describes how attributions of outgroup behavior are more negative than ingroup behavior. As a cognitive bias, the error results in negative outgroup behavior being more likely to be attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality, and the attribution of negative ingroup behavior to external factors such as luck or circumstance. The bias reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the outgroup and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes. The theory also extends to the bias that positive acts performed by ingroup members are more likely a result of their personality.

An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

Outgroup Favoritism is a social psychological construct intended to capture why some socially disadvantaged groups will express favorable attitudes toward social, cultural, or ethnic groups other than their own. Considered by many psychologists as part of a variety of system-justifying motives, outgroup favoritism has been widely researched as a potential explanation for why groups—particularly those disadvantaged by the normative social hierarchy—are motivated to support, maintain, and preserve the status quo. Specifically, outgroup favoritism provides a contrast to the idea of ingroup favoritism, which proposes that individuals exhibit a preference for members of their own group over members of the outgroup.

Social identity threat is a theory in social psychology derived from social identity theory to explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened as opposed to personal identity. This theory distinguishes between four distinct types of social identity threats: categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threats to the value of social identity, and acceptance threat. Each type is associated with particular social contexts that make the threats more or less likely to occur. This theory emphasizes how the level of commitment with the social identity shapes the nature of the threat experienced.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Forsyth, Donelson (2009). Group dynamics. New York: Wadsworth. pp. 77–78.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Latrofa, M.; Vaes, J.; Cadinu, M.; Carnaghi, A. (2010). "The cognitive representation of self-stereotyping". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36 (7): 911–922. doi:10.1177/0146167210373907. PMID   20519574. S2CID   20643385.
  3. ↑ Tajfel and Turner (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  4. ↑ Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). "Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories". British Journal of Social Psychology. 26 (4): 325–340. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00795.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ↑ Ortiz, Rebecca R.; Thompson, Bailey A. (2019-03-25). "Sorority see, sorority do: How social identity and media engagement relate to in-group stereotyping and self-stereotyping". Psychology of Popular Media Culture. 9 (3): 311–317. doi:10.1037/ppm0000236. ISSN   2160-4142. S2CID   203427740.
  6. ↑ van Veelen, Ruth; Otten, Sabine; Hansen, Nina (2013). "Social identification when an in-group identity is unclear: The role of self-anchoring and self-stereotyping: Identification with an unclear in-group". British Journal of Social Psychology. 52 (3): 543–562. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02110.x. hdl: 11370/d110a6be-c387-45a6-9168-2e659192aa1b . PMID   22679907.
  7. 1 2 3 Rubin, Mark; Milanov, Milen; Paolini, Stefania (2016). "Uncovering the diverse cultural bases of social identity: Ingroup ties predict self-stereotyping among individualists but not among collectivists: Ingroup ties and self-stereotyping". Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 19 (3): 225–234. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12137. hdl: 1959.13/1314011 . S2CID   148188762.
  8. 1 2 3 Bennett, Mark; Sani, Fabio (2008). "Children's subjective identification with social groups: a self-stereotyping approach". Developmental Science. 11 (1): 69–75. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00642.x. PMID   18171369.
  9. ↑ Latrofa, Marcella; Vaes, Jeroen; Cadinu, Mara (2012). "Self-Stereotyping: The Central Role of an Ingroup Threatening Identity". The Journal of Social Psychology. 152 (1): 92–111. doi:10.1080/00224545.2011.565382. hdl: 11572/100643 . ISSN   0022-4545. PMID   22308763. S2CID   9792549.
  10. ↑ Leonard, Diana J.; Moons, Wesley G.; Mackie, Diane M.; Smith, Eliot R. (2011). ""We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore": Anger self-stereotyping and collective action". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 14 (1): 99–111. doi:10.1177/1368430210373779. ISSN   1368-4302. S2CID   145168713.
  11. ↑ Biernat, Monica; Vescio, Theresa K.; Green, Michelle L. (1996). "Selective Self-Stereotyping". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 71: 1194–1209.
  12. ↑ Bell, Angela C.; Burkley, Melissa (2014). ""Women Like Me Are Bad at Math": The Psychological Functions of Negative Self-Stereotyping: Negative Self-Stereotyping". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 8 (12): 708–720. doi:10.1111/spc3.12145.
  13. 1 2 Lun, Janetta; Sinclair, Stacey; Cogburn, Courtney (2009-05-18). "Cultural Stereotypes and the Self: A Closer Examination of Implicit Self-Stereotyping". Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 31 (2): 117–127. doi:10.1080/01973530902880340. ISSN   0197-3533. S2CID   144032052.
  14. ↑ Seddig, Daniel (March 2020). "Individual Attitudes toward Deviant Behavior and Perceived Attitudes of Friends: Self-stereotyping and Social Projection in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood". Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 49 (3): 664–677. doi:10.1007/s10964-019-01123-x. ISSN   0047-2891. PMID   31529235. S2CID   202672812.
  15. ↑ Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in Organizations . London: SAGE Publications. ISBN   978-0-7619-6157-4.
  16. ↑ Whitley, B. E. Jr., Kite, M.E. (2010). The social context of prejudice. The psychology of prejudice and discrimination, Ed. 2, (p. 333). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  17. 1 2 Cadinu, M. S. (2012). "Gender differences in implicit gender self-categorization lead to stronger gender self-stereotyping by women than by men". European Journal of Social Psychology. 42 (5): 546–551. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1881.
  18. ↑ Kosakowska-Berezecka, Natasza; Besta, Tomasz; Adamska, Krystyna; Jaśkiewicz, Michał; Jurek, Paweł; Vandello, Joseph A. (2016). "If my masculinity is threatened I won't support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations". Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 17 (3): 274–284. doi:10.1037/men0000016. ISSN   1939-151X. S2CID   148279679.
  19. ↑ Cadinu, Mara; Latrofa, Marcella; Carnaghi, Andrea (2013). "Comparing Self-stereotyping with In-group-stereotyping and Out-group-stereotyping in Unequal-status Groups: The Case of Gender". Self and Identity. 12 (6): 582–596. doi:10.1080/15298868.2012.712753. ISSN   1529-8868. S2CID   145053003.
  20. ↑ Coleman, Jill M.; Hong, Ying-Yi (2008). "Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping". Self and Identity. 7 (1): 34–53. doi:10.1080/15298860600980185. ISSN   1529-8868. S2CID   144843925.
  21. ↑ Cadinu, Mara; Galdi, Silvia; Maass, Anne (2013). "Chameleonic social identities: Context induces shifts in homosexuals' self-stereotyping and self-categorization: Shifts in self-categorization and self-stereotyping". European Journal of Social Psychology: n/a. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1957.
  22. 1 2 Cadinu, Mara; Galdi, Silvia; Maass, Anne (July 2013). "Chameleonic social identities: Context induces shifts in homosexuals' self-stereotyping and self-categorization". European Journal of Social Psychology. 43 (6): 471–481. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1957. ISSN   0046-2772.
  23. 1 2 Hong, Y.-J. Y.-Y. (2010). "Implicit Theories of the world and Implicit Theories of the Self as Moderators of Self-Stereotyping". Social Cognition. 28 (2): 251–261. doi:10.1521/soco.2010.28.2.251.
  24. 1 2 3 Flanders, Corey E (2016-05-27). "Bisexuality, social identity, and well-being: An exploratory study". Sexualities. 19 (5–6): 497–516. doi:10.1177/1363460715609093. ISSN   1363-4607. S2CID   147893929.
  25. ↑ Rivera, Luis M.; Paredez, Stefanie M. (2014). "Stereotypes Can "Get Under the Skin": Testing a Self-Stereotyping and Psychological Resource Model of Overweight and Obesity: Self-Stereotyping and Overweight-Obesity". Journal of Social Issues. 70 (2): 226–240. doi:10.1111/josi.12057. PMC   4160906 . PMID   25221353.
  26. 1 2 Rivera, Luis M.; Benitez, Sandra (2012). "Revisiting "The Obama Effect": Role Models and Identification Affect Self-Stereotyping". doi:10.1037/e521512014-068.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.