A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.

Abstract

Stereotype research emphasizes systematic processes over seemingly arbitrary contents, but content also may prove systematic. On the basis of stereotypes' intergroup functions, the stereotype content model hypothesizes that (a) 2 primary dimensions are competence and warmth, (b) frequent mixed clusters combine high warmth with low competence (paternalistic) or high competence with low warmth (envious), and (c) distinct emotions (pity, envy, admiration, contempt) differentiate the 4 competence-warmth combinations. Stereotypically, (d) status predicts high competence, and competition predicts low warmth. Nine varied samples rated gender, ethnicity, race, class, age, and disability out-groups. Contrary to antipathy models, 2 dimensions mattered, and many stereotypes were mixed, either pitying (low competence, high warmth subordinates) or envying (high competence, low warmth competitors). Stereotypically, status predicted competence, and competition predicted low warmth.

What emotional tears convey: Tearful individuals are seen as warmer, but also as less competent

“…The warmth and competence dimensions were measured with items from Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu (2002) on a 7‐point scale labelled with opposite terms. For perceived warmth, the four items were cold/warm, hypocritical/sincere, unfriendly/friendly, and unpleasant/nice.…”

“…The dimensions of the SCM were measured with items of Fiske et al . (2002) for perceived warmth (warm, nice, friendly, sincere, α = .93) and perceived competence (competent, self‐assured, skilled, capable, α = .91).…”

“…The dimensions of the SCM were again measured with the items of Fiske et al . (2002) for perceived warmth (warm, nice, friendly, sincere, α = .86) and perceived competence (competent, self‐assured, skilled, capable, α = .86). The willingness to approach the person to help was measured with ‘If you would arrive at work and meet this person, would you talk to the person to find out whether there was something you could do for them?’, and the question on willingness to work with the depicted person was ‘If you would arrive at work, and your manager asks you to finish an important project that afternoon, would you like to do that with this person?’.…”

Changing the personality of a face: Perceived Big Two and Big Five personality factors modeled in real photographs.

“…Interestingly, on the semantic-conceptual level, the 2D model of Oosterhof & Todorov (2008), which was built on face-based person evaluation, fits other two dimensional models of social perception, such as the Stereotype Content Model with the two dimensions of warmth and competence to describe social groups (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002;Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007), the model of interpersonal perception with the two dimensions love and dominance (Wiggins, Phillips, & Trapnell, 1989;Wiggins, 1979) or morality and competence (Wojciszke, Bazinska, & Jaworski, 1998;Wojciszke, 1994), and the Big Two personality concept with the dimensions communion and agency (Abele, Uchronski, Suitner, & Wojciszke, 2008;Abele & Wojciszke, 2007;Wiggins, 1991). Though these models differ in several critical aspects, one clear commonality emerges from their joint examination: There are two dimensions, namely valence (or morality/warmth/love/communion) and dominance (or competence/agency), which individuals rely on when referring to individuals, social groups, or to themselves.…”

Seeing overweight adults as babies: Physical cues and implications for stigmatization

“…In other words, one is dealing here with group members that are perceived to misuse others’ prosocial tendencies and engage in social parasitism. The mental representation of this category of deviant conditions does not refer to a problem of lacking competence, as some researchers (e.g., Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) have suggested, neither of criminal or predatory forms of parasitism or cheating (although these conditions may be occasionally framed as such), but to a problem of lacking motivation (Brickman et al ., 1982), offset responsibility (Dijker & Koomen, 2003; Weiner et al ., 1988), violations of the ‘sick role’ (Parsons, 1951), or adults having immature or childlike attributes (LeVine & Campbell, 1972). Accordingly, the attitude towards the overweight and obese can be best characterized as one of ‘not taking others seriously’, frequently combined with both benevolent and malevolent forms of humour and laughter (Burmeister & Carels, 2014; Chou, Prestin, & Kunath, 2014; Yoo & Kim, 2012).…”