‘Society thinks they are cold and/or incompetent, but I do not’: Stereotype content ratings depend on instructions and the social group's location in the stereotype content space

Kotzur, Patrick F.; Veit, Susanne; Namyslo, Annika; Holthausen, Mirka‐Alicia; Wagner, Ulrich; Yemane, Ruta

doi:10.1111/bjso.12375

Cited by 30 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, many subsequent studies utilizing the SCM and the BIAS map instructed participants to respond from their individual perspective—what they personally think about the target group. Despite recent concerns about this practice ( Bye and Herrebrøden, 2018 ; Kotzur et al, 2019a ) and emerging evidence about the impact of response instruction format on the warmth and competence scales of the SCM ( Popper and Kollárová, 2018 ; Kotzur et al, 2020 ), little is known about whether instructions inviting responses from individual and shared cultural perspectives influence the BIAS map (including the SCM), especially when applied to target groups that elicit different normative and social desirability concerns, as in Slovakia’s intergroup relations context (the Roma—a stigmatized ethnic minority vs. the Hungarians—a non-stigmatized ethnic minority). In order to fill this gap, we seek to provide novel evidence by testing the hypotheses about the impact of response instruction, target group, and their interaction on the BIAS map scores in a factorial between-subject experiment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the small number of participants make these findings difficult to generalize. Recently, Kotzur et al (2020) observed that German participants gave less positive assessment of multiple groups “but only on already depreciated stereotype content dimensions” when instructed to respond from the societal perspective compared to the individual perspective instruction. Moreover, they have argued that the mean level differences in reported stereotypes between different responses instructions might not under all circumstances reflect the relative position of different target groups within the two-dimensional stereotype content space ( Kotzur et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, Kotzur et al (2020) observed that German participants gave less positive assessment of multiple groups “but only on already depreciated stereotype content dimensions” when instructed to respond from the societal perspective compared to the individual perspective instruction. Moreover, they have argued that the mean level differences in reported stereotypes between different responses instructions might not under all circumstances reflect the relative position of different target groups within the two-dimensional stereotype content space ( Kotzur et al, 2020 ). Even small differences in the mean level of reported stereotypes can be indicative of the distinctive social perceptions and behaviors toward members of different target groups, with some groups (including the Roma) being outliers within their particular SCM quadrant (see e.g., Grigoryev et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Kotzur et al (2020) recognized the limited scope of their analysis focusing solely on stereotypes scales (warmth and competence) of the SCM and suggested that future research should also investigate other components of the SCM and its extensions (the BIAS map). To answer their call, we seek to extend their evidence to include the potential effects of response instruction, the target group, and their interaction on the performance and properties of the social structure, stereotypes, emotions and behavioral tendencies scales, and the mediation hypothesis of the BIAS map.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In four studies in Fiske et al (2002) and two studies in Cuddy et al (2007) participants rated between 4 and 25 groups simultaneously (in Study 2 of Fiske et al, 2002 , the rated groups were split in half and presented in a reversed order). Similarly, in three studies in Kotzur et al (2020) participants assessed between 6 and 38 groups at once. Since these articles report no random order of the rated groups, their design could allow for the effects of question order on participants’ responses due to social comparison and “norm of reciprocity or fairness” ( Hyman and Sheatsley, 1950 ; Oldendick, 2008 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Impact of Response Instruction and Target Group on the BIAS Map

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response instructions—inviting participants to respond from a certain perspective—can significantly influence the performance and construct validity of psychological measures. Stereotype Content Model (SCM) and then the BIAS map (“behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes”) were originally developed as universal measures of shared cultural stereotypes—participants’ perceptions of what most of the people in a society think about the target group—and their related social-structural antecedents, emotions and behavioral tendencies. Yet a number of studies have adopted a different response instruction focusing on individual stereotypes—what the participants personally think about the target group. So far, there is little evidence to suggest how these two different response instructions (individual vs. shared cultural perspective) might influence the performance of the BIAS map, especially when applied to target groups that elicit different normative and social desirability concerns. To provide novel evidence, we conducted an experiment with a representative sample of ethnic Slovaks ( N = 1269). In a 2 × 2 factorial design, we found response instruction (individual vs. shared cultural perspective) and target group [stigmatized ethnic minority (the Roma) vs. non-stigmatized ethnic minority (the Hungarians)] had significant effects on the BIAS map and their interaction had significant effects on the social structure and behavioral tendencies (but not on stereotypes and emotions) scales. Exploratory analysis also points to partial influence on the mediation hypothesis underlying the BIAS map and minor effects on its scale properties. Our evidence suggests that the difference between individual stereotypes and shared cultural stereotypes partially depends on the target group in question and that they should be treated as two potentially separate constructs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Impact of Response Instruction and Target Group on the BIAS Map

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“I wish I could say, ‘Yeah, both the same’”: Cultural stereotypes and individual differentiations of preservice teachers about different low socioeconomic origins

Yendell,

Claus,

Bonefeld

et al. 2023

Soc Psychol Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that (preservice) teachers have more negative stereotypes toward students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than toward students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. School-specific studies on different low socioeconomic origins have been non-existent so far. Evidence collected in non-school settings shows that welfare recipients are stereotyped more negatively than the working poor. This mixed methods study therefore surveyed cultural stereotypes and individual constructions of difference concerning the working poor and welfare recipients by German preservice teachers. In the quantitative study (N = 196), more stereotypes were mentioned in relation to welfare recipients than to the working poor, and more negative and fewer positive stereotypes were mentioned in relation to welfare recipients. In addition to social status, the individual characteristics (e.g., commitment) of welfare recipients were more frequently stereotyped negatively than those of the working poor. In the qualitative interview study (N = 10), preservice teachers reported that the general public perceives welfare recipients more negatively than the working poor. Preservice teachers who obtain their information about welfare recipients from public perception attributed individual failure (e.g., low commitment) as the cause for welfare recipients and structural failure (e.g., incorrect decisions by policy-makers) as the cause for the working poor. Other preservice teachers disagreed with the negative public perception based on personal experience and described welfare recipients as only being in a worse social position than the working poor. The results of the mixed methods study reveal the need to distinguish between different low socioeconomic origins in future stereotype studies.

show abstract