“The Casual Cruelty of Our Prejudices”: On Walter Lippmann's Theory of Stereotype and Its “Obliteration” in Psychology and Social Science

Abstract

Reflecting on his wartime government service, Walter Lippmann (1922) developed a theory of policy formulation and error. Introducing the constructs of stereotype, mental model, blind spots, and the process of manufacturing consent, his theory prescribed interdisciplinary social science as a tool for enhancing policy making in business and government. Lippmann used his influence with the Rockefeller foundations, business leaders, Harvard and the University of Chicago to gain support for this program. Citation analysis of references to "stereotype" and Lippmann reveals the rapid spread of the concept across the social sciences and in public discourse paralleled by obliteration by incorporation of the wider theory in behavioral science. "Stereotype" is increasingly invoked in anthropology, economics, and sociology though Lippmann and his wider theory ceased being cited decades ago. In psychology, citations are increasing but content analysis revealed blind spots and misconceptions about the theory and prescription. Studies of heuristics, biases, and organizational decision substantiate Lippmann's theory of judgment and choice. But his model for social science failed to consider the bounded rationality and blind spots of its practitioners. Policy formulation today is supported by research from narrow disciplinary silos not interdisciplinary science that reflects an awareness of history.

On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes

“…Despite successes during the interwar period, these founders feared that disciplinary divisions in the sciences, and the interests of the professional associations, could ultimately undermine their best efforts to develop the interdisciplinary science needed to accomplish this (see Moulton, 1930;Ruml, 1930). Unfortunately, those fears ultimately proved to be well founded (Bottom & Kong, 2012). Even within psychology the experimental and correlational disciplines have splintered, 2 and so the wider ambitions for multilevel integration across biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, and political science remain elusive.…”

The Personality Stereotypes of Three Cohabiting Ethnic Groups

“…As this only statistically significant difference is less than what one would expect by chance, we can conclude cautiously that there was very little agreement between personality stereotypes and actually measured personality dispositions. This means that, on the most part, all in-group and out-group stereotypes measured in this study are more like “pictures in our head” (Bottom & Kong, 2012) that are not based on firsthand information on personality traits but have been somehow constructed and maintained. Personality stereotypes can be understood as collectively shared knowledge based on secondhand information that usually compensates for the absence of personal experience or absence of differences between real personality traits.…”