Stereotypes in Context: How and When Do Street‐Level Bureaucrats Use Class Stereotypes?

Abstract

Stereotype use in street‐level work and discretionary judgments is important because of the possible introduction of bias. This article contributes to the study of stereotypes in street‐level work by suggesting that stereotypes are related to both cognitive and social uncertainties. A distinction between uncontrolled stereotype activation in the interpretation of information and controlled stereotype application in decision making is made to allow for a more nuanced study. A unique design combining semistructured interviews and a vignette experiment is presented to accommodate this theoretical framework. Results show that stereotype activation is conditioned by class difference and involves both categorization and simplified assumptions. Stereotype application is conditioned by class as well as by the homogeneity of the social contexts of street‐level institutions. These results suggest that in order to decrease stereotypical bias in frontline encounters, one solution may be to increase social heterogeneity.

How Do Citizens Assess Street‐Level Bureaucrats’ Warmth and Competence? A Typology and Test

“…Fourth, gender and core task did not strengthen or weaken each other's effects. This result contributes to the literature on stereotyping and discrimination (e.g., Harrits ; Jilke and Tummers ; Pedersen, Stritch, and Thuesen ; Raaphorst, Groeneveld, and Van de Walle ; Thomann and Rapp ; Yang ). It could be that other cues that were not included in the experimental design are (in)congruent and, in turn, affect a bureaucrats’ trait assessment.…”

“…Street‐level bureaucracy work has focused predominantly on the commonalities among different types of bureaucrats, such as their discretion (e.g., Harrits ; Jilke and Tummers ; Lipsky ; Maynard‐Moody and Musheno , 2003; Pedersen, Stritch, and Thuesen ). However, there are also notable differences between bureaucrats.…”

“…This is surprising because, from the bureaucrats’ perspective, there is evidence that how citizens are judged—for instance, in terms of trust, stereotypes, or deservingness—matters during service provision. How bureaucrats assess citizens plays a role, at least to some extent, in how bureaucrats make decisions about services (Harrits ; Jilke and Tummers ; Keiser ; Pedersen, Stritch, and Thuesen ; Raaphorst, Groeneveld, and Van de Walle ; Thomann and Rapp ; Yang ).…”

Reinforcing and Reproducing Stereotypes? Ethical Considerations When Doing Research on Stereotypes and Stereotyped Reasoning

“…Stereotypes and stereotyped reasoning are studied in various literatures based on a wide range of methodological approaches and methods. For example, experimental vignette studies are often used in the literature on stereotypes and discrimination in street-level bureaucracy [9][10][11][12][13]. Street-level bureaucrats such as caseworkers or teachers are presented with vignettes (case descriptions of a client) and asked to indicate how they would treat the client, for example whether they would impose sanctions, grant benefits, etc.…”

The (un)intended effects of street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style: Do citizens shame or obey bureaucrats?

“…Lipsky, 2010;Petersen et al, 2018;Tummers et al, 2015;Van Engen et al, 2016). There is also growing attention for how bureaucrats assess citizens (Harrits, 2018;Jilke and Tummers, 2018;Keulemans and van der Walle, 2020;Pedersen et al, 2018;Raaphorst et al, 2018). What is lacking from this debate, however, is how citizens assess street-level bureaucrats.…”