The Stereotype Content Model

Understanding what it’s like to live in a prejudiced world requires an understanding of the content of the stereotypes people hold. Stereotypes differ in many ways, of course, depending on whether they pertain to the young or old, immigrants from Asia or Latin America, Buddhists or Evangelical Christians, rural Whites or urban Blacks, boomers or Gen Z. But despite all the variability inherent in the most widely shared stereotypes, the stereotypes people hold tend to adhere to an underlying structure, a structure described by Susan Fiske and her colleagues in their stereotype content model (Cuddy et al., 2008, 2009; Fiske et al., 2002). The stereotype content model posits that the nature of different stereotypes varies systematically depending on how the groups in question are evaluated on the dimensions of warmth and competence. These two dimensions figure so prominently in people’s thoughts and feelings because they correspond to two considerations that are key to our survival. First, we need to understand a person or group’s likely intentions. Friend or foe? Likely to provide benefits or inflict harm? This understanding reflects our assessment of the person or group’s warmth, which depends on whether we judge them to be moral, trustworthy, kind, friendly, and so on. Moral and kind people aren’t likely to hurt us. Second, we need to know whether someone is able to act on their kind or malevolent intentions. That is, we need to know whether the friend or foe is competent or not, which depends on whether we judge them to be intelligent, determined, creative, and so on. A competent friend is a treasure; a competent foe is a potential danger.

Assessments along these two dimensions create a conceptual space, depicted in Figure 11.1, that allows us to organize how different groups in society tend to be seen. Figure 11.1 and others like it are based on the responses of participants who have been asked, to encourage honest responding, how they believe others view these groups (after being cautioned, “We are not interested in your personal opinions”). The responses here reflect the views of U.S. participants, but similar studies have been conducted with respondents around the globe. Groups that are viewed most positively are thought to be seen as both warm and competent (Black professionals, the Irish, Americans generally, for example) and tend to be admired. Those viewed most negatively, as lacking in both warmth and competence (poor people, the homeless), tend to be viewed with contempt.

One notable feature of the stereotype content model is that it calls attention to a number of “ambivalent” stereotypes about groups that are seen as high on one dimension but low on the other. Those seen as high in competence but low in warmth (Asians, the British) tend to be envied, whereas those seen as high in warmth but low in competence (older adults, people with disabilities) tend to be pitied. When European respondents are asked about prevailing stereotypes of the different nations in the European Union, a remarkable percentage fall in the two ambivalent quadrants (see Figure 11.2). As one observer summarized it, the Germans love the Italians but don’t respect them, and the Italians respect the Germans but don’t love them (Landler, 2003).

A similar ambivalence arises with gender stereotypes. As we discussed in Chapter 10, “benevolent” sexism derives from one especially prominent ambivalent stereotype that emphasizes women’s expected warmth and creates something of a “double bind” for women in leadership positions in the workforce. Leaders need to be seen as competent, but when women act in ways that signal competence, they risk being seen as insufficiently warm and hence at variance with the female stereotype. They may be criticized for being “imperious” or “strident” for the same behavior that is approved of or goes unnoticed in men. As one female CEO put it, “A man can be as hostile as he wants and be accepted; if I put someone on hold I’m regarded as aggressive.” But when women in charge act in ways that signal warmth, they risk being seen as insufficiently competent and hence not fit to be a leader (Heilman, 2001; Rudman & Glick, 2001). This dilemma arises in especially pointed fashion when female political candidates (such as Hillary Clinton during her pursuit of the presidency in 2016) debate male opponents (such as then-candidate Donald Trump). The role of “leader” calls for being strong and assertive, whereas the role of “woman” calls for being warm and nurturing. The more a female candidate conveys strength in a debate, the more she’s seen as lacking in the warmth the electorate expects of women. But the more she conveys warmth, the more she risks being seen as insufficiently strong and decisive. Some campaign insiders have proposed that one way out of this bind is for female candidates to project strength on behalf of others (for the middle class, for military families), a more communally oriented and hence warmer strength.

But why are some groups seen as competent and others not, and some warm and others not? The stereotype content model is helpful here, too, positing that allies are generally thought to be warm and competitors to be cold and that people high in status are generally thought to be competent and those low in status to be less competent. We have warm, fuzzy feelings toward allies and members of our ingroups because they “have our backs” and we can count on them to treat us well. People don’t assume the same about outgroups and, especially, competitors. High-status individuals are seen as competent both because their privileged position often comes with resources that actually make them competent and because, as we saw with social dominance theory, people tend to hold meritocratic beliefs that simply assume competence on the part of high-status individuals.

Support for these ideas comes in two forms. First, in surveys that ask respondents to rate different groups on warmth, competence, status, and competitiveness, there are strong positive associations between the ratings of competence and status and negative associations between the ratings of competence and warmth (Cuddy et al., 2007; Fiske et al., 2002). Second, when participants read about a (fictitious) immigrant group and are asked to rate the group on warmth and competence, the group is seen as warm (but not necessarily competent) if its members emigrated from a country whose citizens are thought to be cooperative, and it is seen as competent (but not necessarily warm) if its members tended to be economically successful in their country of origin (Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, 2009).

Stereotypes of the Rich and Poor in a Polarized World of Increasing Economic Inequality

Stereotypes of “the poor” tend to be highly variable, in part because people have more favorable attitudes toward “the working poor” than they do toward, say, people described as homeless or on welfare. That difference is but one reflection of the fact that individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES) are sometimes viewed with contempt (lower left quadrant in Figure 11.1) but more often with a paternalistic sympathy (upper left quadrant). In the latter, relatively common view, lower-SES individuals are seen as low in competence but high in warmth. The extent to which lower-SES individuals are viewed with contempt or condescension is influenced by the level of income inequality in society. People in more unequal societies are especially likely to see lower-SES individuals as lacking competence (Durante, Tablante, & Fiske, 2017). Note that this tendency fits the tenets of social dominance theory because it serves to rationalize existing economic disparities: Those lower on the economic totem pole are seen as deserving of their place because they lack competence.

Just as the stereotype content model sheds light on the nature of widespread stereotypes about the poor, it also helps us understand the nature of the prejudices people have toward the wealthy or “elites” more broadly. To be elite is to be at the top of one hierarchy or another, and those who are at the top tend to be seen as competent but cold. This is especially true of the rich, who tend to be granted credit for their wealth but who are not seen as especially warm or moral. Although philanthropic efforts can make wealthy donors seem warm and altruistic, they don’t much change people’s assessments of the wealthy in general. As one of the most well-known passages in the Bible has it, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24).

Politicians also score low on the warmth dimension, largely because they are not seen as trustworthy (S. T. Fiske, 2019). They don’t inspire much trust for several reasons: (1) they are often seen as captives of the rich, a view that has strengthened over time as lobbying efforts have become more sophisticated, more intense, and more incestuous, with retired politicians themselves lobbying their former colleagues in government; (2) the compromises politicians often have to make to get legislation passed can make them seem unprincipled; and (3) people recognize that politicians’ first order of business is to get elected, which can conflict with looking after the country’s or even their local constituents’ best interests.

Some of the ire that has long been directed at politicians and the wealthy is increasingly directed at formerly esteemed elite institutions and professions—scientists, the news media, universities, even health professionals. The “Varsity Blues” scandal, in which members of the Hollywood elite were found guilty of bribing university officials to grant admission to their children, furthered people’s sense (if not outright conviction) that “the system” is rigged. People tend to trust science because of its emphasis on impartiality, but even that has been called into question more and more in our increasingly polarized climate. In addition, the detached deliberation that scientists strive for can ironically make them seem less trustworthy. People who take their time arriving at a moral course of action, for example, are viewed with greater suspicion than are those who get there more quickly (Critcher, Inbar, & Pizarro, 2013). People also prefer to work and interact with those whose moral choices are grounded in intuition as opposed to rational deliberation (Everett, Pizarro, & Crockett, 2016). The careful deliberation so important to the conduct of sound science often involves detailed, time-consuming calculation, and people are suspicious of anyone they consider “calculating.”

The stereotypes that people higher and lower on the socioeconomic ladder have of one another can also negatively affect their interactions with each other, furthering mutual discomfort and suspicion. Working-class individuals, for example, often worry that elites question their competence, so they seek respect when interacting with higher-SES individuals. But they often fail to get it because higher-SES individuals, focused on not appearing cold, come across as patronizing and condescending. This makes working-class individuals feel disrespected, which can cause resentment (S. T. Fiske, 2019). This dynamic feeds the emotionally charged polarization that we now see across much of the world, which is reflected in the trucker protests in Canada and the United States, the yellow vest movement in France, and the rise of populist movements in democracies around the globe.