(Dis)respecting versus (Dis)liking: Status and Interdependence Predict Ambivalent Stereotypes of Competence and Warmth

TLDR

Stereotype content is systematic and ambivalent, as Allport (1954) implied, reflecting systematic principles. The study hypothesizes two outgroup clusters—one incompetent but warm, the other competent but not warm—and links perceived status to competence and competition to warmth. Surveys of 17 outgroups confirm the hypotheses, showing ambivalent prejudice such as paternalistic sexism toward traditional women, envious sexism toward career women, and perceived competence but social skill deficits toward Asians.

Abstract

As Allport (1954) implied, the content of stereotypes may be systematic, and specifically, ambivalent. We hypothesize two clusters of outgroups, one perceived as incompetent but warm (resulting in paternalistic prejudice) and one perceived as competent but not warm (resulting in envious prejudice). Perceived group status predicts perceived competence, and perceived competition predicts perceived (lack of) warmth. Two preliminary surveys support these hypotheses for 17 outgroups. In‐depth analyses of prejudice toward particular outgroups support ambivalent prejudice: Paternalistic prejudice toward traditional women, as well as envious prejudice toward career women, results in ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Envious prejudice toward Asians results in perceived competence but perceived lack of social skills. Ambivalent content reflects systematic principles.