An Intersectional Analysis of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypes

Abstract

We compared perceived cultural stereotypes of diverse groups varying by gender and ethnicity. Using a free-response procedure, we asked 627 U.S. undergraduates to generate 10 attributes for 1 of 17 groups: Asian Americans, Blacks, Latinos, Middle Eastern Americans, or Whites; men or women; or 10 gender-by-ethnic groups (e.g., Black men or Latina women). Based on intersectionality theory and social dominance theory, we developed and tested three hypotheses. First, consistent with the intersectionality hypothesis, gender-by-ethnic stereotypes contained unique elements that were not the result of adding gender stereotypes to ethnic stereotypes. Second, in support of an ethnicity hypothesis, stereotypes of ethnic groups were generally more similar to stereotypes of the men than of the women in each group. Third, a gender hypothesis postulated that stereotypes of men and women will be most similar to stereotypes of White men and White women, less similar to ethnic minority men and ethnic minority women, and least similar to Black men and Black women. This hypothesis was confirmed for target women, but results for target men were mixed. Collectively, our results contribute to research, theory, and practice by demonstrating that ethnic and gender stereotypes are complex and that the intersections of these social categories produce meaningful differences in the way groups are perceived.

Interreligious contact, attitudes, and stereotypes: A study of five religious groups in Canada.

“…Feelings expressed toward them included "neutral," "just like everybody else," and "fear." More recently, Ghavami and Peplau (2012) asked United States undergraduates to list 10 cultural stereotypes about the characteristics of Middle Eastern Americans. Although the target group was Middle Eastern Americans and not Muslims, the five most frequently described attributes for the group were "Muslim," "terrorists," "dark-skinned," "oppress women," and "hairy.…”

Reimagining Social and Emotional Development: Accommodation and Resistance to Dominant Ideologies in the Identities and Friendships of Boys of Color

“…Being a boy, especially a heterosexual boy, means not caring about relationships, especially same-sex friendships [Way, 2011]. Being a boy of color, particularly Black or Latino from low-income communities, means not caring about or being capable of doing well in school, and being obsessed with sex [Ghavami & Peplau, 2013;Nasir et al, 2012;Rogers, Niwa, & Way, 2017]. Being an Asian American boy means being good at math but lacking social and emotional skills [Cvencek, Nasir, O'Connor, Wischnia, & Meltzoff, 2015;Way, 2011].…”

Invisibility of Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Developmental Science: Implications for Research and Institutional Practices

“…At the same time, invisibility has been a strong contribution of psychological interpretations of intersectionality. Intersectional invisibility is a concept developed to bring attention to how our systems and dominant ways of thinking can lead to certain social identities and oppressions to be rendered invisible (PurdieVaughns & Eibach, 2008; see also Ghavami & Peplau, 2013). We build upon this definition by inserting racial colorblindness as the core system, or ideological setting, which creates and sustains the invisibilities of racial/ethnic minorities in developmental science.…”