Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace consequences for East Asians in North America.

Abstract

We pursue the idea that racial stereotypes are not only descriptive, reflecting beliefs about how racial groups actually differ, but are prescriptive as well, reflecting beliefs about how racial groups should differ. Drawing on an analysis of the historic and current status of East Asians in North America, we study descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes of East Asians along the dimensions of competence, warmth, and dominance and examine workplace consequences of violating these stereotypes. Study 1 shows that East Asians are descriptively stereotyped as more competent, less warm, and less dominant than Whites. Study 2 shows that only the descriptive stereotype of East Asians as less dominant than Whites is also a prescriptive stereotype. Study 3 reveals that people dislike a dominant East Asian coworker compared to a nondominant East Asian or a dominant or a nondominant White coworker. Study 4 shows that East Asians who are dominant or warm are racially harassed at work more than nondominant East Asians and than dominant and nondominant employees of other racial identities. Implications for research and theory are discussed.

Asian American and Pacific Islander Faculty and the Bamboo Ceiling: Barriers to Leadership and Implications for Leadership Development

“…The bamboo ceiling may also be a result of racial stereotypes of APIAs as technically competent but unsociable. For example, APIAs are commonly described with adjectives such as hard‐working, disciplined, and intelligent; but also with adjectives such as cold, shy, uptight, reserved, and lacking in charisma (Berdahl & Min, ; Cheng, Lee, & Benet‐Martinez, ; Osajima, ; Wong, Lai, Nagasawa, & Lin, ). These stereotypes of APIAs as high in technical competence and low in sociability contribute to perceptions of APIAs as “nerds” (Kibria, ), or people who are fit for technical jobs in technology or engineering, but unfit for jobs that require social skills such as public relations or retail (Lai & Barbcock, ; Leong, ; Sy et al, ).…”

“…According to system justification theory, racial minorities are underrepresented in leadership positions because people are motivated to maintain the current hierarchy where leadership positions are predominantly assumed by members of the majority group (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, ). The relatively “positive” stereotype of APIAs as technically competent makes APIAs appear especially threatening to the current hierarchy (Berdahl & Min, ; Maddux, Galinsky, Cuddy, & Polifroni, ). In addition, this positive stereotype creates the impression that APIAs are less oppressed than other marginalized groups, strengthening the motivation to preserve the existing hierarchy (Kay, Czaplinski, & Jost, ).…”

Discrimination in Selection Decisions: Integrating Stereotype Fit and Interdependence Theories

“…1 Statistical theory of discrimination focuses on social group membership as a signal of general work ability, rather than a particular ability required for a specific task. Yet, different social groups may be stereotyped as competent in one work domain but not another (e.g., for the case of Asians, see Berdahl & Min, 2012;Sy et al, 2010). For this reason, we focus on stereotypes of the particular ability required for a specific task.…”

It's Not Us, It's You: Why Isn't Research on Minority Workers Appearing in Our “Top-Tier” Journals?

“…This view ignores researcher/profession and research/journal factors that may influence the placement of manuscripts. Perusal of other journals, both near to our field (such as Journal of Vocational Behavior , e.g., Law, Martinez, Ruggs, Hebl, & Akers, ; Human Performance , e.g., Hebl, Tonidandel, & Ruggs, ; Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , e.g., Bergman & Henning, ; Journal of Organizational Behavior , e.g., Ryan & Wessel, 2012; or Group and Organization Management ; e.g., Ragins, Cornwell, & Miller, ) and farther away (such as Sex Roles , e.g., Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, ; Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , e.g., Berdahl & Min, ; or Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal , e.g., Snyder, Carmichael, Blackwell, Cleveland, & Thornton, ) demonstrates that I–O psychologists are clearly engaged in research on at least some of the minority groups that Ruggs et al claim we as a field ignore. Thus, the question isn't “why aren't I–O psychologists engaged in research on minorities?” but rather “why are the purported top‐tier journals in our field not publishing research on minorities?” Thus, our first issue deals with factors—beyond supposed lack of researcher interest, because this is clearly not the case—that could account for this lack of publication on understudied minority workers in the journals reviewed for the focal article.…”