Generality and specificity in stereotypes of out‐group power and benevolence: Views of Chechens and Jews in the Russian federation

Abstract

We examined the ascription of five characteristics (moral, peaceful, antagonistic, smart, show initiative) to Chechens and Jews in a large, diverse, sample of participants in the Russian Federation. Factor analysis showed these five characteristics to fit within the expected two-dimensional structure of power (smart, show initiative) and benevolence (moral, peaceful, antagonistic). Consistent with historical stereotypes, Factor analysis showed power to be the more empirically important dimension regarding Jews, whereas benevolence was the more empirically important dimension regarding Chechens. Although the two-dimensional model of judgment was supported, attention to the specific characteristics that fell along these dimensions offered complementary information. For example, the ascription of high benevolence to Jews was more pronounced on the characteristics antagonistic and peaceful than on morality. In contrast, the ascription of low benevolence to Chechens was more pronounced on the characteristic peaceful than on antagonistic or moral. Together, the two general dimensions of power and benevolence, and the specific characteristics that fall along these dimensions, offer a comprehensive model of the content of out-group stereotypes.

Culture and Stereotyping Processes: Integration and New Directions

“…Fiske, Cuddy, and their colleagues have suggested in a number of recent papers (Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, 2009; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Fiske, Xu, & Cuddy, 1999; Fiske et al., 2002) that the content of outgroup stereotypes around the world can be predicted from outgroups’ sociostructural position, namely their relative status and the degree to which they are seen as competing with the ingroup. In both Western and non‐Western samples, higher‐status groups are stereotyped as more competent than lower‐status groups, and more competitive, threatening groups are stereotyped as less warm (Cuddy et al., 2009; Eckes, 2002; Fiske et al., 2002; Leach et al., 2008). In complementary thinking on gender stereotypes, Eagly and colleagues have demonstrated that stereotypes of men as agentic and women as communal arise from the social roles they play as breadwinners and caregivers, respectively (Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Steffen, 1984, 1986; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000).…”

Normas de desejabilidade e unicamente humano de características de moralidade

“…Uma primeira selecção das características foi efectuada a partir da recolha de características presentes nos estudos descritos na secção de revisão da literatura (Costa & McCrae, 1995;Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2008;Haidt & Graham, 2007;Kohlberg, 1992;Leach, Ellemers & Barreto, 2007;Leach, Minescu, Poppe, & Hagendoorn, 2008;Phalet & Poppe, 1997;Schwartz, 1992).…”

“…Assim, alguns autores têm procurado clarificar o papel da moralidade, a par com as outras dimensões fundamentais de percepção (Kay & Jost, 2003;Leach, Minescu, Poppe, & Hagendoorn, 2008;Phalet & Poppe, 1997;Wojciszke, 1994Wojciszke, , 2005, baseando-se, na sua maioria, em abordagens atribuicionais e/ou associativas de traços de moralidade a determinados alvos, grupais ou individuais.…”

Value Differentiation Between Enemies and Allies: Value Projection in National Images

“…Methods based in interpersonal perception and group stereotypes provide a new way of empirically studying national images. There has been considerable research in the domain of intergroup perception analyzing how people judge members from other groups in stereotypic ways (e.g., Eagly & Kite, 1987; Katz & Braly, 1933; Leach, Minescu, Poppe, & Hagendoorn, 2008; Madon et al., 2001; Vinacke, 1949). Such research shows evidence of two important general findings (see Schneider [2004] for a review).…”

“…Such research shows evidence of two important general findings (see Schneider [2004] for a review). First, people often assume that groups to which they belong and higher status groups are more positively evaluated than groups to which they do not belong or which have low social status (e.g., Leach et al., 2008). Second, people are often implicitly in‐group‐centric, judging other groups by the standards of their own group (e.g., Hegarty & Pratto, 2001).…”