Stereotype content model

Last updated

In social psychology, the stereotype content model (SCM) is a model, first proposed in 2002, postulating that all group stereotypes and interpersonal impressions form along two dimensions: (1) warmth and (2) competence.

Contents

The model is based on the notion that people are evolutionarily predisposed to first assess a stranger's intent to either harm or help them (warmth dimension) and second to judge the stranger's capacity to act on that perceived intention (competence dimension). Social groups and individuals that compete for resources (e.g., college admissions space, fresh well water, etc.) with the in-group or self are treated with hostility or disdain. These groups and individuals fall along the low end of the warmth spectrum, while social groups and individuals with high social status (e.g., economically or educationally successful) are considered competent, and are found at the high end of the competence dimension's spectrum. Thus, lack of perceived threat predicts warmth evaluation and salient status symbols predict impressions of competence. [1] [2] The model was first proposed by social psychologist Susan Fiske and her colleagues Amy Cuddy, Peter Glick and Jun Xu. [3] Subsequent experimental tests on a variety of national and international samples found the SCM to reliably predict stereotype content in different cultural contexts [2] [4] and affective reactions toward a variety of different groups. [5] The model has also received support in such domains as interpersonal perception. [6]

Dimensions

Warmth

Stereotype content model, adapted from Fiske et al. (2002): Four types of stereotypes resulting from combinations of perceived warmth and competence. Mixed stereotype content model (Fiske et al.).png
Stereotype content model, adapted from Fiske et al. (2002): Four types of stereotypes resulting from combinations of perceived warmth and competence.

Appraisals of warmth have a greater impact on interpersonal and intergroup relations than appraisals of competence. Warmth is, therefore, the primary dimension within the SCM. [7] Assessments of an out-group or individual's potential threat level predicts the group or person's place along the warmth dimension's high/low spectrum. From an evolutionary perspective, warmth is primary because having a keen understanding of a person's competency is not as relevant if you already know that they are not trying to harm you. Early versions of the SCM predicted that intergroup or interpersonal competition drove ratings of warmth (low competition → high warmth; high competition → low warmth). [8] In 2015, Kervyn, Fiske, and Yzerbyt expanded the SCM's original definition of threat also include to symbolic threats, based on Kinder and Sears (1981)'s symbolic racism theory, which steams from in-group fears over perceived threats to culture or value norms. In the same paper, Kervyn, Fiske, and Yzerbyt also broadened their concept of warmth and defined it as an umbrella term that encompasses both sociability and morality. This reconceptualization of warmth responded to earlier work by Leach, Ellemers, and Barreto (2007) who argued that the warmth dimension conflated two variables (1) sociability, which describes attributes such as cooperation and kindness, and (2) morality, describing an internal ethical sense. They proposed an alternative three dimension model, which retained competence and divides warmth into morality and sociability. [9] Their plea for the importance of morality in intergroup perception was also echoed by Brambilla et al. (2011) and Brambilla et al. (2012). [10] [11] In addition to broadening the definition of warmth to include morality, Kervyn, Fiske, and Yzerbyt also countered that early theoretical definitions of warmth had, in fact, included adjectives related to morality even though morality measures were not included when warmth was later operationalized during empirical tests. [12]

Competence

People or groups who appear "high in status" are judged as more competent than those with low status. The competence dimension definition and prediction on the bases of status has been robust in the literature, and as such, has not faced the same criticism as the warmth dimension. Durante et al. (2013) cross-cultural review of the literature reported an average correlation between status and competence of r = .9 (range = .74–.99, all ps < .001). [13]

Historical background

Prejudice has been deconstructed and debated by social psychologists for over eight decades. [14] Early stereotype research, exemplified by the work of Gordon Allport (1954), concentrated on negative stereotypes within a binary in-group/out-group model. [15] In contrast to prior "us" vs. "them" approaches, the SCM's 2x2 framework created new room for mixed out-group orientations i.e. groups stereotyped to be low warmth/high competence and low competence/high warmth. The multiple out-group categories accounted for a wider variety of out-group directed treatment than prior work. [16] [7]

The SCM broke from former research literature with a mixed stereotype approach that formalized multiple out-group categories. However, the model's dimensions – warmth and competence – have a long history in psychology literature. In particular, Rosenberg, Nelson, and Vivekananthan's 1968 theory of social judgments, which included social (good/bad) and intellectual (good/bad), was an early version of the warmth competence dimensions. [17] Fiske et al. (2002), also credited their decision to adopt a dual warmth/competence model to a 1997 study from Bogdan Wojciszke's laboratory, which found that warmth and competence accounted for 82% of the variance in social perceptions of daily behaviors. [8] [18]

Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS) Map

To further develop the SCM, Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick (2007) tested a causal model of stereotype development in each of the SCM's four quadrants, which linked social structure (environmental context) to the development of new cognitive explanations (stereotypes), which then provoke affect (emotion), and ultimately lead to action tendencies (behavior). [5] The researchers refer to the integrated behavioral and stereotype content model framework as the behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes (BIAS) map. The BIAS map’s behavioral action tendencies include an active/passive spectrum and harm/facilitation spectrum. The active/passive spectrum distinguishes behaviors that are either intentionally directed at the out-group (active) or behaviors that affect the out-group but do not require noticeable effort (passive). The second behavior spectrum, harm/facilitation, is included in the BIAS Map to differentiate out-groups that the in-group is positioned to either assist or to harm. Each stereotype group quadrant is assigned two behavioral tendencies. Thus, common cultural stereotypes dictate if a social group will either be on the receiving end of cooperative behavior (active or passive) or be subjected to harmful behavior (active or passive).

The BIAS Map Quadrants

1) (High) Warmth / (High) Competence

  • Emotion: Admiration
  • Behavior: Active facilitation
  • Description: The in-group, i.e., the group to which an observer personally belongs, close allies, and societal reference groups (e.g., cultural default groups such as the middle class, heterosexuals) tend to be rated as high on both dimensions. However, there are differences between in-group perceptions between Western and Eastern cultures, with only Western cultures displaying this in-group favoritism. [19]

2) (High) Warmth / (Low) Competence

  • Emotion: Pity
  • Behavior: Passive facilitation
  • Description: According to stereotype surveys conducted in the U.S., some commonly pitied out-groups include the elderly and mentally disabled. Out-groups that are pitied are within the in-group’s moral framework, but are often isolated from society. As an example, the elderly, who are pitied, will either receive passive harm, often in the form of isolation in nursing homes, or active facilitation displayed through elderly charities or community service. [5]

3) (Low) Warmth / (High) Competence

  • Emotion: Envy
  • Behavior: Passive harm
  • Description: Out groups that are seen as lacking warmth and possessing high competency will evoke envy. Studies on US stereotypes identified wealthy Americans, Asian Americans, and members in the Jewish community in the high competency/low warmth out-group category. [20]

4) (Low) Warmth / (Low) Competence

  • Emotion: Contempt
  • Behavior: Active harm
  • Description: Out-groups that are appraised with low warmth and low competency are subject to the greatest amount of hostility. Groups that are subjected to the low/low category commonly include the homeless and welfare recipients. [21]

Warmth and competence interactions

Warmth and competence as distinct dimensions

Warmth and competence are conceptually orthogonal, i.e. non overlapping, and correspondingly a high rating in one dimension can be companied with either a low or high definition in the other dimension without triggering cognitive dissonance. [1] Warmth and competence also function separately within an individual's ego defense mechanism. A 2009 study by Collange, Fiske and Sanitioso found that when participants' own competence was threatened they were more likely to degrade (or diminish) their perceptions of target group members who had (high)competence (low)warmth stereotypes. This study supports the claim that ego defense mechanisms are dimension specific; if a person experiences a threat to their level of competence they will reduced their rating of others stereotyped to be highly competent, but will not downgrade their perception of those groups stereotyped to be high on warmth. [22]

Warmth/competence trade off

Despite conceptual independence, appraisals of warmth and competence are not fully independent. A 2005 experimental study by Judd et al. reported a trade off between high and low assessments of warmth and competence when directly comparing the relative attributed of two social groups. When the study's participants read a profile about one group, which described them as high in one dimension (e.g. warmth) the study subjects increased their appraisal of the comparison group along the alternative dimension (e.g. competence). [23] Thus there is a tendency toward ambivalent stereotypes when comparing social groups' relative warmth and competence.

Warmth and competence in other disciplines

Studies on warmth and competence have had a major influence on social psychology. Their influence soon appeared in other related fields such as advertising, [24] [25] international relations, management, [26] [27] and persuasion. In public diplomacy, states perceive foreign publics based on dimensions akin to warmth and competence: States determine whether foreign stakeholders warrant caution based on their strategic importance (in alignment with warmth), and whether these publics possess resources favorable to the policymakers' objectives (in alignment with competence). [28]

Related Research Articles

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.

Susan Tufts Fiske is an American psychologist who serves as the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs in the Department of Psychology at Princeton University. She is a social psychologist known for her work on social cognition, stereotypes, and prejudice. Fiske leads the Intergroup Relations, Social Cognition, and Social Neuroscience Lab at Princeton University. Her theoretical contributions include the development of the stereotype content model, ambivalent sexism theory, power as control theory, and the continuum model of impression formation.

Infrahumanisation is the tacitly held belief that one's ingroup is more human than an outgroup, which is less human. The term was coined by Jacques-Philippe Leyens and colleagues in the early 2000s to distinguish what they argue to be an everyday phenomenon from dehumanization associated with extreme intergroup violence such as genocide. According to Leyens and colleagues, infrahumanisation arises when people view their ingroup and outgroup as essentially different and accordingly reserve the "human essence" for the ingroup and deny it to the outgroup. Whether a "subhuman" classification means "human but inferior" or "not human at all" may be academic, as in practice it corresponds to prejudice regardless.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Admiration</span> Social emotion

Admiration is a social emotion felt by observing people of competence, talent, or skill exceeding standards. Admiration facilitates social learning in groups. Admiration motivates self-improvement through learning from role-models.

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.

Ambivalent sexism is a theoretical framework which posits that sexism has two sub-components: "hostile sexism" (HS) and "benevolent sexism" (BS). Hostile sexism reflects overtly negative evaluations and stereotypes about a gender. Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear subjectively positive, but are actually damaging to people and gender equality more broadly. For the most part, psychologists have studied hostile forms of sexism. However, theorists using the theoretical framework of ambivalent sexism have found extensive empirical evidence for both varieties. The theory has largely been developed by social psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske.

Ambivalent prejudice is a social psychological theory that states that, when people become aware that they have conflicting beliefs about an outgroup, they experience an unpleasant mental feeling generally referred to as cognitive dissonance. These feelings are brought about because the individual on one hand believes in humanitarian virtues such as helping those in need, but on the other hand also believes in individualistic virtues such as working hard to improve one's life.

Benevolent prejudice is a superficially positive prejudice that is expressed in terms of positive beliefs and emotional responses, which are associated with hostile prejudices or result in keeping affected groups in inferior positions in society. Benevolent prejudice can be expressed towards those of different race, religion, ideology, country, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Hostile prejudice is the outward expression of hate for people of a different race, religion, ideology, country, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Anyone who goes against specific criteria of dress, cultural or moral beliefs, or religious or political ideologies are subject to hostile racism. This racism often leads to direct discrimination to anyone who does not fit the prejudiced person's idea of a "normal" person. This behavior is most prevalent when there are noticeable differences between ingroups and outgroups, with the outgroup members experiencing hostile prejudice from ingroup members.

Moral development focuses on the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from infancy through adulthood. The theory states that morality develops across a lifespan in a variety of ways and is influenced by an individual's experiences and behavior when faced with moral issues through different periods of physical and cognitive development. Morality concerns an individual's reforming sense of what is right and wrong; it is for this reason that young children have different moral judgment and character than that of a grown adult. Morality in itself is often a synonym for "rightness" or "goodness." It also refers to a specific code of conduct that is derived from one's culture, religion, or personal philosophy that guides one's actions, behaviors, and thoughts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amy Cuddy</span> American psychologist

Amy Joy Casselberry Cuddy is an American social psychologist, author and speaker. She is a proponent of "power posing", a self-improvement technique whose scientific validity has been questioned. She has served as a faculty member at Rutgers University, Kellogg School of Management and Harvard Business School. Cuddy's most cited academic work involves using the stereotype content model that she helped develop to better understand the way people think about stereotyped people and groups. Though Cuddy left her tenure-track position at Harvard Business School in the spring of 2017, she continues to contribute to its executive education programs.

A conflict is a struggle and a clash of interest, opinion, or even principles. Conflict will always be found in society; as the basis of conflict may vary to be personal, racial, class, caste, political and international. Conflict may also be emotional, intellectual, and theoretical, in which case academic recognition may, or may not be, a significant motive. Intellectual conflict is a subclass of cultural conflict, a conflict that tends to grow over time due to different cultural values and beliefs.

The maternal wall is a term referring to stereotypes and various forms of discrimination encountered by working mothers and mothers seeking employment. Women hit the maternal wall when they encounter workplace discrimination because of past, present, or future pregnancies or because they have taken one or more maternity leaves. Women may also be discriminated against when they opt for part-time or flexible work schedules. Maternal wall discrimination is not limited to childcare responsibilities. Both men and women with caregiving responsibilities, such as taking care of a sick parents or spouse, may also result in maternal wall discrimination. As such, maternal wall discrimination is also described as family responsibilities discrimination. Research suggests that the maternal wall is cemented by employer stereotypes and gender expectations.

In social psychology, a positive stereotype refers to a subjectively favourable belief held about a social group. Common examples of positive stereotypes are Asians with better math ability, African Americans with greater athletic ability, and women with being warmer and more communal. As opposed to negative stereotypes, positive stereotypes represent a "positive" evaluation of a group that typically signals an advantage over another group. As such, positive stereotypes may be considered a form of compliment or praise. However, positive stereotypes can have a positive or negative effect on targets of positive stereotypes. The positive or negative influence of positive stereotypes on targets depends on three factors: (1) how the positive stereotype is stated, (2) who is stating the positive stereotype, (3) in what culture the positive stereotype is presented.

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.

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.

Peter Samuel Glick is an American social psychologist and the Henry Merritt Wriston Professor in the Social Sciences at Lawrence University. He is known for his research on gender stereotyping and ambivalent sexism. In 2022, Glick, Amy Cuddy, and Susan Fiske were honored with the Society of Experimental Social Psychology's Scientific Impact Award for their 2002 paper proposing the stereotype content model.

References

  1. 1 2 Fiske, Susan T.; Cuddy, Amy J. C.; Glick, Peter; Xu, Jun (2002). "A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow From Perceived Status and Competition" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 82 (6): 878–902. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.320.4001 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878. PMID   12051578.
  2. 1 2 Kassin, Saul M.; Fein, Steven; Markus, Hazel Rose (2011). Social psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. pp. 177–178. ISBN   978-0-495-81240-1.
  3. ↑ Whitley, Bernard E.; Kite, Mary E. (2010). The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. p. 226. ISBN   978-0-495-59964-7.
  4. ↑ Cuddy, Amy J. C.; et al. (2009). "Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences" (PDF). British Journal of Social Psychology. 48 (1): 1–33. doi:10.1348/014466608X314935. PMC   3912751 . PMID   19178758.
  5. 1 2 3 Cuddy, Amy J.C.; Fiske, Susan T.; Glick, Peter (2008). "Warmth and Competence as Universal Dimensions of Social Perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map" (PDF). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 40 (1): 61–149. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.169.3225 . doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0.
  6. ↑ Russel, Ann Marie; Fiske, Susan T. (2008). "It's All Relative: Social Position and Interpersonal Position". European Journal of Social Psychology . 38 (7): 1193–1201. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.539 .
  7. 1 2 Fiske, Susan T.; Cuddy, Amy J.C.; Glick, Peter (2007). "Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 11 (2): 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005. PMID   17188552. S2CID   8060720.
  8. 1 2 Fiske, Susan T.; Cuddy, Amy J. C.; Glick, Peter; Xu, Jun (2002). "A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82 (6): 878–902. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.320.4001 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878. PMID   12051578.
  9. ↑ Leach, Colin Wayne; Ellemers, Naomi; Barretto, Manuela (2007). "Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93 (2): 234–249. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234. PMID   17645397.
  10. ↑ Brambilla, Marco; Rusconi, Patrice; Sacchi, Simona; Cherubini, Paolo (2011-03-01). "Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering" (PDF). European Journal of Social Psychology. 41 (2): 135–143. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.744 . ISSN   1099-0992.
  11. ↑ Brambilla, Marco; Sacchi, Simona; Rusconi, Patrice; Cherubini, Paolo; Yzerbyt, Vincent Y. (2012-03-01). "You want to give a good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation" (PDF). British Journal of Social Psychology. 51 (1): 149–166. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02011.x. ISSN   2044-8309. PMID   22435848.
  12. ↑ Kervyn, Nicolas; Fiske, Susan; Yzerbyt, Vincent (2015-01-01). "Forecasting the Primary Dimension of Social Perception". Social Psychology. 46 (1): 36–45. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000219. ISSN   1864-9335. PMC   6294451 . PMID   30555596.
  13. ↑ Durante, Federica; Fiske, Susan T.; Kervyn, Nicolas; Cuddy, Amy J. C.; Akande, Adebowale (Debo); Adetoun, Bolanle E.; Adewuyi, Modupe F.; Tserere, Magdeline M.; Ramiah, Ananthi Al (2013-12-01). "Nations' income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: How societies mind the gap". British Journal of Social Psychology. 52 (4): 726–746. doi:10.1111/bjso.12005. hdl:2078.1/144146. ISSN   2044-8309. PMC   3855559 . PMID   23039178.
  14. ↑ Mackie, Diane M.; Devos, Thierry; Smith, Eliot R. (2000). "Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 79 (4): 602–616. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602. PMID   11045741.
  15. ↑ Allport, Gordon (1954). The Nature of Prejudice.
  16. ↑ Judd, Charles M.; James-Hawkins, Laurie; Yzerbyt, Vincent; Kashima, Yoshihisa (2005). "Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 89 (6): 899–913. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.379.5039 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899. PMID   16393023.
  17. ↑ Rosenberg, Seymour; Nelson, Carnot; Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). "A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 9 (4): 283–294. doi:10.1037/h0026086. PMID   5670821.
  18. ↑ Wojciszke, Bogdan (1997). "Parallels between competence- versus morality-related traits and individualistic versus collectivistic values". European Journal of Social Psychology. 27 (3): 245–256. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199705)27:3<245::aid-ejsp819>3.3.co;2-8 .
  19. ↑ Cuddy, Amy J. C.; Fiske, Susan T.; Kwan, Virginia S. Y.; Glick, Peter; Demoulin, Stéphanie; Leyens, Jacques-Philippe; Bond, Michael Harris; Croizet, Jean-Claude; Ellemers, Naomi (2009-03-01). "Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences". British Journal of Social Psychology. 48 (1): 1–33. doi:10.1348/014466608x314935. ISSN   2044-8309. PMC   3912751 . PMID   19178758.
  20. ↑ Fiske, Susan T.; Xu, Juan; Cuddy, Amy C.; Glick, Peter (1999-01-01). "(Dis)respecting versus (Dis)liking: Status and Interdependence Predict Ambivalent Stereotypes of Competence and Warmth". Journal of Social Issues. 55 (3): 473–489. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.366.3174 . doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00128. ISSN   1540-4560.
  21. ↑ Harris, Lasana T.; Fiske, Susan T. (2016-05-06). "Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low". Psychological Science. 17 (10): 847–853. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x. PMID   17100784. S2CID   8466947.
  22. ↑ Collange, Julie; Fiske, Susan T.; Sanitioso, Rasyid (2009-02-01). "Maintaining a Positive Self-Image by Stereotyping Others: Self-Threat and the Stereotype Content Model". Social Cognition. 27 (1): 138–149. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.1.138. ISSN   0278-016X. PMC   3882017 . PMID   24403668.
  23. ↑ Judd, Charles M.; James-Hawkins, Laurie; Yzerbyt, Vincent; Kashima, Yoshihisa (2005). "Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 89 (6): 899–913. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.379.5039 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899. PMID   16393023.
  24. ↑ Aaker, Jennifer L.; Garbinsky, Emily N.; Vohs, Kathleen D. (2012-03-03). "Cultivating admiration in brands: Warmth, competence, and landing in the "golden quadrant"". Journal of Consumer Psychology. 22 (2): 191–194. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.012. ISSN   1532-7663. S2CID   9999307.
  25. ↑ Zawisza, Magdalena; Pittard, Chelsea (2015-03-26). "When do warmth and competence sell best? The "golden quadrant" shifts as a function of congruity with the product type, targets' individual differences, and advertising appeal type" (PDF). Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 37 (2): 131–141. doi:10.1080/01973533.2015.1015130. ISSN   1532-4834. S2CID   145480428.
  26. ↑ Gao, Yixing (Lisa); Mattila, Anna S. (2014). "Improving consumer satisfaction in green hotels: The roles of perceived warmth, perceived competence, and CSR motive". International Journal of Hospitality Management. 42: 20–31. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.06.003. ISSN   0278-4319.
  27. ↑ Krings, Franciska; Sczesny, Sabine; Kluge, Annette (2010-11-24). "Stereotypical Inferences as Mediators of Age Discrimination: The Role of Competence and Warmth" (PDF). British Journal of Management. 22 (2): 20–31. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00721.x. ISSN   1467-8551. S2CID   55380870.
  28. ↑ Pacher, Andreas (2018). "Strategic Publics in Public Diplomacy: A Typology and a Heuristic Device for Multiple Publics". The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. 13 (3): 272–296. doi:10.1163/1871191X-13020004. ISSN   1871-191X.
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.