The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of three theories.

Abstract

In the present research we examined predictions derived from the following three theoretical approaches to stereotyping: complexity-extremity theory, assumed characteristics theory, and expectancy-violation theory. In order to assess these predictions, we manipulated the race, personal appearance, and dialect style of target job applicants. White judges rated these applicants on a set of characteristics relevant to hiring decisions. Results were consistent with all three theories. Specifically, the range of judges' evaluations of black applicants was larger than the range of their evaluations of white applicants; the effects of personal appearance and dialect style were larger than the effects of race; and black applicants, on average, received more favorable ratings than white applicants. We present a model integrating all three perspectives, and we demonstrate its usefulness for explaining our results and for understanding past research on stereotypes.Three theoretical perspectives within social psychology address how stereotypes influence perceptions of individual members of in-groups and out-groups: complexity-extremity theory, assumed characteristics theory, and expectancy-violation theory. Each theory proposes that different processes underlie the impact of background information on evaluations of in-group and out-group members. When considered separately, these theories generate conflicting predictions. Rarely, however, have these theoretical approaches been directly compared with one another. Therefore, in this article we will examine these theories experimentally by investigating how the race, personal appearance, and dialect style of job applicants affects white observers' evaluations.First, we review the basic ideas of each theory to illustrate how they could lead to opposing predictions. For each theory, we generate one set of predictions by assuming that the theory describes the only influences on evaluations. These predictions are useful because they clearly reflect the ideas of each theory. However, researchers from each of these theoretical approaches generally acknowledge the possibility of other influences. Consequently, we also develop a second set of predictions for each theory. These predictions are more realistic and more complex because they reflect how each theory might function in the con-This project was based on work supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship provided to Lee Jussim and by a Spencer Foundation Grant provided to Lerita M. Coleman.We wish to acknowledge Lisa Gibson for her help in collecting the data and

An exploratory investigation examining male and female students' initial impressions and expectancies of lecturers

“…These results support the claims of previous research (e.g., Becker and Solomon 2005;Cook 1971;Horn, Lox, and Labrador 2001;Jussim 1993;Jussim, Coleman, and Lerch 1987;Manley, Greenlees, Graydon, Thelwell, Filby, and Smith 2008;Birch et al 2012) in that dynamic behavioural cues seem to be the major determinant of a perceiver's impression formation. This would especially seem to be the case when it comes to female sports students.…”

The communality-bonus effect for male transformational leaders – leadership style, gender, and promotability

“…On the contrary, expectancy-violation theory suggests that violating a stereotype in a positive way -in comparison to confirming a stereotype -can have a stronger influence on evaluations (Jussim, Coleman, & Lerch, 1987). Counter-stereotypical behaviour is seen as unexpected and therefore more noticeable.…”

“…Building on expectancy violation theory and the idea that communality is less expected of men than women (Jussim et al, 1987), men may be exceeding expectations for communality by showing transformational leadership. According to shifting standards theory (Biernat, 2012), men will be judged in relation to other men, while women will be judged in relation to other women.…”

Stereotypes and terror management: Evidence that mortality salience enhances stereotypic thinking and preferences.

“…This ambivalence gives rise to extreme reactions when Blacks are encountered in a positive or negative social context. A similar pattern of extreme reactions can be explained by expectancy violation theory (e.g., Bettencourt, Dill, Greathouse, Charlton, & Mulholland, 1997;Jackson, Sullivan, & Hodge, 1993;Jussim et al, 1987). Expectancy violation theory posits that in-group members use a judgment process similar to Kelley's (1971) discounting and augmenting principle when perceiving out-group members.…”

“…In sum, these theoretical accounts suggest that in-group members generally prefer stereotype-disconfirming out-group members because of simple judgments of similarity (see Jussim et al, 1996, for a review), ambivalent attitudes (Hass et al, 1991;Katz & Hass, 1988), and expectancy violations (e.g., Bettencourt et al, 1997;Jackson et al, 1993;Jussim et al, 1987). In contrast, TMT leads to the hypothesis that stereotype-consistent out-group members are likely to be preferred over stereotype-inconsistent out-group members when individuals are particularly concerned about sustaining faith in their basic views of the world.…”