In social psychology, a stereotype is a thought that can be adopted about

specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things.[1] These thoughts or

beliefs may or may not accurately reflect reality.[2][3] However, this is only a
fundamental psychological definition of a stereotype.[3] Within psychology and
spanning across other disciplines, there are different conceptualizations and
theories of stereotyping that provide their own expanded definition. Some of
these definitions share commonalities, though each one may also harbor unique
aspects that may contradict the others.
Contents
[hide]

1Etymology

2Relationship with other types of intergroup attitudes

3Content

4Functions
o

4.1Relationship between cognitive and social functions

4.2Cognitive functions

4.3Social functions: social categorization

4.3.1Explanation purposes

4.3.2Justification purposes

4.3.3Intergroup differentiation

4.4Social functions: self-categorization

4.5Social functions: social influence and consensus

5Formation
o

5.1Correspondence bias

5.2Illusory correlation

5.3Common environment

5.4Socialization and upbringing

5.5Intergroup relations

6Activation
o

6.1Automatic behavioral outcomes

7Accuracy

8Effects
o

8.1Attributional ambiguity

8.2Stereotype threat

8.3Self-fulfilling prophecy

8.4Discrimination

8.5Self-stereotyping

9Role in art and culture

10See also
o

10.1Examples of stereotypes

11References

12Further reading

13Antonym

14External links

Etymology[edit]

The term stereotype derives from the Greek words (stereos), "firm,
solid"[4] and (typos), "impression",[5] hence "solid impression on one or
moreidea/theory".
The term comes from the printing trade and was first adopted in 1798 by Firmin
Didot to describe a printing plate that duplicated any typography. The duplicate
printing plate, or the stereotype, is used for printing instead of the original.
Outside of printing, the first reference to "stereotype" was in 1850, as a noun that
meant "image perpetuated without change".[6] However, it was not until 1922 that
"stereotype" was first used in the modern psychological sense by American
journalist Walter Lippmann in his work Public Opinion.[7]

Relationship with other types of intergroup attitudes [edit]

Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are understood as related but different
concepts.[8][9][10][11] Stereotypes are regarded as the most cognitive component and
often occurs without conscious awareness, whereas prejudice is
the affective component of stereotyping and discrimination is one of the
behavioral components of prejudicial reactions.[8][9][12] In this tripartite view of
intergroup attitudes, stereotypes reflect expectations and beliefs about the
characteristics of members of groups perceived as different from one's own,
prejudice represents the emotional response, and discrimination refers to
actions.[8][9]
Although related, the three concepts can exist independently of each other.[9]
[13]

According to Daniel Katz and Kenneth Braly, stereotyping leads to racial

prejudice when people emotionally react to the name of a group, ascribe

characteristics to members of that group, and then evaluate those
characteristics.[10]
Possible prejudicial effects of stereotypes[3] are:

Justification of ill-founded prejudices or ignorance

Unwillingness to rethink one's attitudes and behavior towards stereotyped

groups

Preventing some people of stereotyped groups from entering or

succeeding in activities or fields[14]

Content[edit]

Stereotype content model, adapted from Fiske et al. (2002): Four types of stereotypes
resulting from combinations of perceived warmth and competence.

Stereotype content refers to the attributes that people think characterize a group.
Studies of stereotype content examine what people think of others, rather than
the reasons and mechanisms involved in stereotyping.[15]
Early theories of stereotype content proposed by social psychologists such
as Gordon Allport assumed that stereotypes of outgroups reflected
uniform antipathy.[16][17] For instance, Katz and Braly argued in their classic 1933
study that ethnic stereotypes were uniformly negative.[15]
By contrast, a newer model of stereotype content theorizes that stereotypes are
frequently ambivalent and vary along two dimensions: warmth and competence.
Warmth and competence are respectively predicted by lack
ofcompetition and status. Groups that do not compete with the in-group for the
same resources (e.g., college space) are perceived as warm, whereas highstatus (e.g., economically or educationally successful) groups are considered
competent. The groups within each of the four combinations of high and low

levels of warmth and competence elicit distinct emotions.[18] The model explains
the phenomenon that some out-groups are admired but disliked, whereas others
are liked but disrespected. This model was empirically tested on a variety of
national and international samples and was found to reliably predict stereotype
content.[16][19]

Functions[edit]
Early studies suggested that stereotypes were only used by rigid, repressed, and
authoritarian people. This idea has been refuted by contemporary studies that
suggest the ubiquity of stereotypes and it was suggested to regard stereotypes
as collective group beliefs, meaning that people who belong to the same social
group share the same set of stereotypes.[13] Modern research asserts that full
understanding of stereotypes requires considering them from two complementary
perspectives: as shared within a particular culture/subculture and as formed in
the mind of an individual person.[20]

Relationship between cognitive and social functions[edit]

Stereotyping can serve cognitive functions on an interpersonal level, and social
functions on an intergroup level.[3][13] For stereotyping to function on an intergroup
level (see social identity approaches: social identity theory and selfcategorization theory), an individual must see themselves as part of a group and
being part of that group must also be salient for the individual.[13]
Craig McGarty, Russell Spears, and Vincent Y. Yzerbyt (2002) argued that the
cognitive functions of stereotyping are best understood in relation to its social
functions, and vice versa.[21]

Cognitive functions[edit]
Stereotypes can help make sense of the world. They are a form of categorization
that helps to simplify and systematize information. Thus, information is more
easily identified, recalled, predicted, and reacted to.[13] Stereotypes are categories
of objects or people. Between stereotypes, objects or people are as different

from each other as possible.[1] Within stereotypes, objects or people are as similar
to each other as possible.[1]
Gordon Allport has suggested possible answers to why people find it easier to
understand categorized information.[22] First, people can consult a category to
identify response patterns. Second, categorized information is more specific than
non-categorized information, as categorization accentuates properties that are
shared by all members of a group. Third, people can readily describe object in a
category because objects in the same category have distinct characteristics.
Finally, people can take for granted the characteristics of a particular category
because the category itself may be an arbitrary grouping.
A complementary perspective theorizes how stereotypes function as time- and
energy-savers that allow people to act more efficiently.[1] Yet another perspective
suggests that stereotypes are people's biased perceptions of their social
contexts.[1] In this view, people use stereotypes as shortcuts to make sense of
their social contexts, and this makes a person's task of understanding his or her
world less cognitively demanding.[1]

Social functions: social categorization[edit]

In the following situations, the overarching purpose of stereotyping is for people
to put their collective self (their ingroup membership) in a positive light:[23]

when stereotypes are used for explaining social events

when stereotypes are used for justifying activities of one's own group
(ingroup) to another group (outgroup)

when stereotypes are used for differentiating the ingroup as positively

distinct from outgroups

Explanation purposes[edit]

An anti-semitic 1873 caricature depicting the stereotypical physical features of a Jewish

male.

As mentioned previously, stereotypes can be used to explain social events.[13]

[23]

Henri Tajfel[13] described his observations of how some people found that the

anti-Semitic contents of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion only made sense if
Jews have certain characteristics. Therefore, according to Tajfel,[13] Jews were
stereotyped as being evil and yearning for world domination to match the antiSemitic facts as presented in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Justification purposes[edit]
People create stereotypes of an outgroup to justify the actions that their ingroup
has committed (or plans to commit) towards that outgroup.[13][22][23] For example,
according to Tajfel,[13] Europeans stereotyped Turkish, Indian, and Chinese people
as being incapable of achieving financial advances without European help. This
stereotype was used to justify European colonialism in Turkey, India, and China.
Intergroup differentiation[edit]
An assumption is that people want their ingroup to have a positive image relative
to outgroups, and so people want to differentiate their ingroup from relevant
outgroups in a desirable way.[13] If an outgroup does not affect the ingroups
image, then from an image preservation point of view, there is no point for the
ingroup to be positively distinct from that outgroup.[13]

People can actively create certain images for relevant outgroups by stereotyping.
People do so when they see that their ingroup is no longer as clearly and/or as
positively differentiated from relevant outgroups, and they want to restore the
intergroup differentiation to a state that favours the ingroup.[13][23]

Social functions: self-categorization[edit]

People will change their stereotype of their ingroups and outgroups to suit the
context they are in.[3][23] People are likely to self-stereotype their ingroup as
homogenous in an intergroup context, and they are less likely to do so in an
intragroup context where the need to emphasise their group membership is not
as great.[23] Stereotypes can emphasise a persons group membership in two
steps: First, stereotypes emphasise the persons similarities with ingroup
members on relevant dimensions, and also the persons differences from
outgroup members on relevant dimensions.[23] Second, the more the stereotypes
emphasise within-group similarities and between-group differences, the more
salient the persons social identity will become, and the more depersonalised that
person will be.[23] A depersonalised person will abandon his/her individual
differences and embrace the stereotypes associated with his/her relevant group
membership.[23]

Social functions: social influence and consensus[edit]

Stereotypes are an indicator of ingroup consensus.[23] When there are intragroup
disagreements over stereotypes of the ingroup and/or outrgroups, ingroup
members will take collective action to prevent other ingroup members from
diverging from each other.[23]
John C. Turner proposed in 1987[23] that if ingroup members disagree on an
outgroup stereotype, then one of three possible collective actions will follow:
First, ingroup members may negotiate with each other and conclude that they
have different outgroup stereotypes because they are stereotyping different
subgroups of an outgroup (e.g., Russian gymnasts versus Russian boxers).
Second, ingroup members may negotiate with each other, but conclude that they

are disagreeing because of categorical differences amongst themselves.

Accordingly, in this context, it is better to categorise ingroup members under
different categories (e.g., Democrats versus Republican) than under a shared
category (e.g., American). Finally, ingroup members may influence each other to
arrive at a common outgroup stereotype.

Formation[edit]
Different disciplines give different accounts of how stereotypes develop:
Psychologists may focus on an individual's experience with groups, patterns of
communication about those groups, and intergroup conflict. As for sociologists,
they may focus on the relations among different groups in a social structure.
They suggest that stereotypes are the result of conflict, poor parenting, and
inadequate mental and emotional development. Once stereotypes have formed,
there are two main factors that explain their persistence. First, the cognitive
effects of schematic processing (see schema) make it so that when a member of
a group behaves as we expect, the behavior confirms and even strengthens
existing stereotypes. Second, the affective or emotional aspects of prejudice
render logical arguments against stereotypes ineffective in countering the power
of emotional responses.[24]

Correspondence bias[edit]
Main article: Correspondence bias
The correspondence bias refers to the tendency to ascribe a person's behavior to
her or his disposition or personality and to underestimate the extent to which
situational factors elicited the behavior. The correspondence bias can play an
important role in stereotype formation.[25]
For example, in a study by Roguer and Yzerbyt (1999) participants watched a
video showing students who were randomly instructed to find arguments either
for or against euthanasia. The students that argued in favor of euthanasia came
from the same law department or from different departments. Results showed
that participants attributed the students' responses to their attitudes although it

had been made clear in the video that students had no choice about their
position. Participants reported that group membership, i.e., the department that
the students belonged to, had an impact on the students' opinions about
euthanasia. Law students were perceived to be more in favor of euthanasia than
students from different departments despite the fact that a pretest had revealed
that subjects had no preexisting expectations about attitudes toward euthanasia
and the department that students belong to. The attribution error created the new
stereotype that law students are more likely to support euthanasia.[26]
Nier et al. (2012) found that people who tend to draw dispositional inferences
from behavior and ignore situational constraints are more likely to stereotype lowstatus groups as incompetent and high-status groups as competent. Participants
listened to descriptions of two fictitious groups of Pacific Islanders, one of which
was described as being higher in status than the other. In a second study,
subjects rated actual groups the poor and wealthy, women and men in the
United States in terms of their competence. Subjects who scored high on the
measure of correspondence bias stereotyped the poor, women, and the fictitious
lower-status Pacific Islanders as incompetent whereas they stereotyped the
wealthy, men, and the high-status Pacific Islanders as competent. The
correspondence bias was a significant predictor of stereotyping even after
controlling for other measures that have been linked to beliefs about low status
groups, the just-world hypothesis andsocial dominance orientation.[27]

Illusory correlation[edit]
Main article: Illusory correlation
Research has shown that stereotypes can develop based on a cognitive
mechanism known as illusory correlation an erroneous inference about the
relationship between two events.[1][28][29] If two events which are statistically
infrequent co-occur, observers overestimate the frequency of co-occurrence of
these events. The underlying reason is that rare, infrequent events are distinctive
and salient and, when paired, become even more so. The heightened salience

results in more attention and more effective encoding, which strengthens the
belief that the events are correlated.[30][31][32]
In the intergroup context, illusory correlations lead people to misattribute rare
behaviors or traits at higher rates to minority group members than to majority
groups, even when both display the same proportion of the behaviors or
traits. Black people, for instance, are a minority group in the United States and
interaction with blacks is a relatively infrequent event for an average white
American. Similarly, undesirable behavior (e.g. crime) is statistically less frequent
than desirable behavior. Since both events "blackness" and "undesirable
behavior" are distinctive in the sense that they are infrequent, the combination of
the two leads observers to overestimate the rate of co-occurrence.[30] Similarly, in
workplaces where women are underrepresented and negative behaviors such as
errors occur less frequently than positive behaviors, women become more
strongly associated with mistakes than men.[33]
In a landmark study, David Hamilton and Richard Gifford (1976) examined the
role of illusory correlation in stereotype formation. Subjects were instructed to
read descriptions of behaviors performed by members of groups A and B.
Negative behaviors outnumbered positive actions and group B was smaller than
group A, making negative behaviors and membership in group B relatively
infrequent and distinctive. Participants were then asked who had performed a set
of actions: a person of group A or group B. Results showed that subjects
overestimated the frequency with which both distinctive events, membership in
group B and negative behavior, co-occurred, and evaluated group B more
negatively. This despite the fact the proportion of positive to negative behaviors
was equivalent for both groups and that there was no actual correlation between
group membership and behaviors.[30] Although Hamilton and Gifford found a
similar effect for positive behaviors as the infrequent events, a metaanalytic review of studies showed that illusory correlation effects are stronger
when the infrequent, distinctive information is negative.[28]

Hamilton and Gifford's distinctiveness-based explanation of stereotype formation

was subsequently extended.[31] A 1994 study by McConnell, Sherman, and
Hamilton found that people formed stereotypes based on information that was
not distinctive at the time of presentation, but was considered distinctive at the
time of judgement.[34] Once a person judges non-distinctive information in memory
to be distinctive, that information is re-encoded and re-represented as if it had
been distinctive when it was first processed.[34]

Common environment[edit]
One explanation for why stereotypes are shared is that they are the result of a
common environment that stimulates people to react in the same way.[1]
The problem with the common environment explanation in general is that it does
not explain how shared stereotypes can occur without direct stimuli.[1] Research
since the 1930s suggested that people are highly similar with each other in how
they describe different racial and national groups, although those people have no
personal experience with the groups they are describing.[35]

Socialization and upbringing[edit]

Another explanation says that people are socialised to adopt the same
stereotypes.[1] Some psychologists believe that although stereotypes can be
absorbed at any age, stereotypes are usually acquired in early childhood under
the influence of parents, teachers, peers, and the media.
If stereotypes are defined by social values, then stereotypes will only change as
per changes in social values.[1] The suggestion that stereotype content depend on
social values reflects Walter Lippman's argument in his 1922 publication that
stereotypes are rigid because they cannot be changed at will.[10]
Studies emerging since the 1940s refuted the suggestion that stereotype
contents cannot be changed at will. Those studies suggested that one groups
stereotype of another group would become more or less positive depending on
whether their intergroup relationship had improved or degraded.[10][36][37] Intergroup
events (e.g., World War Two, Persian Gulf conflict) often changed intergroup

relationships. For example, after WWII, Black American students held a more
negative stereotype of people from countries that were the USAs WWII enemies.
[10]

If there are no changes to an intergroup relationship, then relevant stereotypes

will not change.[11]

Intergroup relations[edit]
According to a third explanation, shared stereotypes are neither caused by the
coincidence of common stimuli, nor by socialisation. This explanation posits that
stereotypes are shared because group members are motivated to behave in
certain ways, and stereotypes reflect those behaviours.[1] It is important to note
from this explanation that stereotypes are the consequence, not the cause, of
intergroup relations. This explanation assumes that when it is important for
people to acknowledge both their ingroup and outgroup, then those people will
aim to emphasise their difference from outgroup members, and their similarity to
ingroup members.[1]

Activation[edit]
The dual-process model of cognitive processing of stereotypes asserts that
automatic activation of stereotypes is followed by a controlled processing stage,
during which an individual may choose to disregard or ignore the stereotyped
information that has been brought to mind.[12]
A number of studies have found that stereotypes are activated
automatically. Patricia Devine (1989), for example, suggested that stereotypes
are automatically activated in the presence of a member (or some symbolic
equivalent) of a stereotyped group and that the unintentional activation of the
stereotype is equally strong for high- and low-prejudice persons. Words related to
the cultural stereotype of blacks were presented subliminally. During an
ostensibly unrelated impression-formation task, subjects read a paragraph
describing a race-unspecified target person's behaviors and rated the target
person on several trait scales. Results showed that participants who received a
high proportion of racial words rated the target person in the story as significantly

more hostile than participants who were presented with a lower proportion of
words related to the stereotype. This effect held true for both high- and lowprejudice subjects (as measured by the Modern Racism Scale). Thus, the racial
stereotype was activated even for low-prejudice individuals who did not
personally endorse it.[12][38][39] Studies using alternative priming methods have
shown that the activation of gender and age stereotypes can also be automatic.[40]
[41]

Subsequent research suggested that the relation between category activation

and stereotype activation was more complex.[39][42] Lepore and Brown (1997), for
instance, noted that the words used in Devine's study were both neutral category
labels (e.g., "Blacks") and stereotypic attributes (e.g., "lazy"). They argued that if
only the neutral category labels were presented, people high and low in prejudice
would respond differently. In a design similar to Devine's, Lepore and
Brownprimed the category of African-Americans using labels such as "blacks"
and "West Indians" and then assessed the differential activation of the associated
stereotype in the subsequent impression-formation task. They found that highprejudice participants increased their ratings of the target person on the negative
stereotypic dimensions and decreased them on the positive dimension whereas
low-prejudice subjects tended in the opposite direction. The results suggest that
the level of prejudice and stereotype endorsement affects people's judgements
when the category and not the stereotype per se is primed.[43]
Research has shown that people can be trained to
activate counterstereotypic information and thereby reduce the automatic
activation of negative stereotypes. In a study by Kawakami et al. (2000), for
example, participants were presented with a category label and taught to
respond "No" to stereotypic traits and "Yes" to nonstereotypic traits. After this
training period, subjects showed reduced stereotype activation.[44][45] This effect is
based on the learning of new and more positive stereotypes rather than the
negation of already existing ones.[45]

Automatic behavioral outcomes[edit]

Empirical evidence suggests that stereotype activation can automatically

influence social behavior.[46][47][48][49] For example, Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996)
activated the stereotype of the elderly among half of their participants by
administering a scrambled-sentence test where participants saw words related to
age stereotypes. Subjects primed with the stereotype walked significantly more
slowly than the control group (although the test did not include any words
specifically referring to slowness), thus acting in a way that the stereotype
suggests that elderly people will act. In another experiment, Bargh, Chen, and
Burrows also found that because the stereotype about blacks includes the notion
of aggression, subliminal exposure to black faces increased the likelihood that
randomly selected white college students reacted with more aggression and
hostility than participants who subconsciously viewed a white face.[50] Similarly,
Correll et al. (2002) showed that activated stereotypes about blacks can
influence people's behavior. In a series of experiments, black and white
participants played a video game, in which a black or white person was shown
holding a gun or a harmless object (e.g., a mobile phone). Participants had to
decide as quickly as possible whether to shoot the target. When the target
person was armed, both black and white participants were faster in deciding to
shoot the target when he was black than when he was white. When the target
was unarmed, the participants avoided shooting him more quickly when he was
white. Time pressure made the shooter bias even more pronounced.[51]

Accuracy[edit]

A magazine feature from Beauty Parade from March 1952 stereotyping women drivers. It
featuresBettie Page as the model.

Stereotypes can be efficient shortcuts and sense-making tools. They can,

however, keep people from processing new or unexpected information about
each individual, thus biasing the impression formation process.[1] Early
researchers believed that stereotypes were inaccurate representations of reality.
[35]

A series of pioneering studies which appeared in the 1930s found no empirical

support for widely held racial stereotypes.[10] By the mid-1950s, Gordon Allport
wrote that "it is possible for a stereotype to grow in defiance of all evidence".[22]
Research on the role of illusory correlations in the formation of stereotypes
suggests that stereotypes can develop because of incorrect inferences about the
relationship between two events (e.g., membership in a social group and bad or
good attributes). This means that at least some stereotypes are inaccurate.[28][30][32]
[34]

There is empirical social science research which shows that stereotypes are
often accurate.[52] Jussim et al. reviewed four studies concerning racial and seven
studies which examined gender stereotypes about demographic characteristics,
academic achievement, personality and behavior. Based on that, the authors
argued that some aspects of ethnic and gender stereotypes are accurate while
stereotypes concerning political affiliation and nationality are much less accurate.
[53]

A study by Terracciano et al. also found that stereotypic beliefs about

nationality do not reflect the actual personality traits of people from different
cultures.[54]

Effects[edit]
Attributional ambiguity[edit]
Main article: Attributional ambiguity
Attributional ambiguity refers to the uncertainty that members of stereotyped
groups experience in interpreting the causes of others' behavior toward them.
Stereotyped individuals who receive negative feedback can attribute it either to

personal shortcomings, such as lack of ability or poor effort, or the evaluator's

stereotypes and prejudice toward their social group. Alternatively, positive
feedback can either be attributed to personal merit or discounted as a form
of sympathyor pity.[55][56][57]
Crocker et al. (1991) showed that when black participants were evaluated by a
white person who was aware of their race, black subjects mistrusted the
feedback, attributing negative feedback to the evaluator's stereotypes and
positive feedback to the evaluator's desire to appear unbiased. When the black
participants' race was unknown to the evaluator, they were more accepting of the
feedback.[58]
Attributional ambiguity has been shown to impact a person's self-esteem. When
they receive positive evaluations, stereotyped individuals are uncertain of
whether they really deserved their success and, consequently, they find it difficult
to take credit for their achievements. In the case of negative feedback, ambiguity
has been shown to have a protective effect on self-esteem as it allows people to
assign blame to external causes. Some studies, however, have found that this
effect only holds when stereotyped individuals can be absolutely certain that their
negative outcomes are due to the evaluators's prejudice. If any room for
uncertainty remains, stereotyped individuals tend to blame themselves.[56]
Attributional ambiguity can also make it difficult to assess one's skills because
performance-related evaluations are mistrusted or discounted. Moreover, it can
lead to the belief that one's efforts are not directly linked to the outcomes, thereby
depressing one's motivation to succeed.[55]

Stereotype threat[edit]

The effect of stereotype threat (ST) on math test scores for girls and boys. Data from
Osborne (2007).[59]

Main article: Stereotype threat

Stereotype threat occurs when people are aware of a negative stereotype about
their social group and experience anxiety or concern that they might confirm the
stereotype.[60] Stereotype threat has been shown to undermine performance in a
variety of domains.[61][62]
Claude M. Steele and Joshua Aronson conducted the first experiments showing
that stereotype threat can depress intellectual performance on standardized
tests. In one study, they found that black college students performed worse than
white students on a verbal test when the task was framed as a measure of
intelligence. When it was not presented in that manner, the performance gap
narrowed. Subsequent experiments showed that framing the test as diagnostic of
intellectual ability made black students more aware of negative stereotypes about
their group, which in turn impaired their performance.[63]
Stereotype threat effects have been demonstrated for an array of social groups in
many different arenas, including not only academics but also sports,
[64]

chess[65] and business.[66]

Self-fulfilling prophecy[edit]
Main article: Self-fulfilling prophecy
Stereotypes lead people to expect certain actions from members of social
groups. These stereotype-based expectations may lead to self-fulfilling
prophecies, in which one's inaccurate expectations about a person's behavior,
through social interaction, prompt that person to act in stereotype-consistent
ways, thus confirming one's erroneous expectations and validating the
stereotype.[67][68][69]
Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974) demonstrated the effects of stereotypes in the
context of a job interview. White participants interviewed black and white subjects
who, prior to the experiments, had been trained to act in a standardized manner.

Analysis of the videotaped interviews showed that black job applicants were
treated differently: They received shorter amounts of interview time and less eye
contact; interviewers made more speech errors (e.g., stutters, sentence
incompletions, incoherent sounds) and physically distanced themselves from
black applicants. In a second experiment, trained interviewers were instructed to
treat applicants, all of whom were white, like the whites or blacks had been
treated in the first experiment. As a result, applicants treated like the blacks of the
first experiment behaved in a more nervous manner and received more negative
performance ratings than interviewees receiving the treatment previously
afforded to whites.[70]
A 1977 study by Snyder, Tanke, and Berscheid found a similar pattern in social
interactions between men and women. Male undergraduate students were asked
to talk to female undergraduates, whom they believed to be physically
attractive or unattractive, on the phone. The conversations were taped and
analysis showed that men who thought that they were talking to an attractive
woman communicated in a more positive and friendlier manner than men who
believed that they were talking to unattractive women. This altered the women's
behavior: Female subjects who, unknowingly to them, were perceived to be
physically attractive behaved in a friendly, likeable, and sociable manner in
comparison with subjects who were regarded as unattractive.[71]

Discrimination[edit]
Because stereotypes simplify and justify social reality, they have potentially
powerful effects on how people perceive and treat one another.[72] As a result,
stereotypes can lead to discrimination in labor markets and other domains.[73] For
example, Tilcsik (2011) has found that employers who seek job applicants with
stereotypically male heterosexual traits are particularly likely to engage in
discrimination against gay men, suggesting that discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation is partly rooted in specific stereotypes and that these
stereotypes loom large in many labor markets.[14] Agerstrm and Rooth (2011)
showed that automatic obesity stereotypes captured by the Implicit Association

Test can predict real hiring discrimination against the obese.[74] Similarly,
experiments suggest that gender stereotypes play an important role in judgments
that affect hiring decisions.[75][76]

Self-stereotyping[edit]
Main article: Self-stereotyping
Stereotypes can affect self-evaluations and lead to self-stereotyping.[3][77] For
instance, Correll (2001, 2004) found that specific stereotypes (e.g., the
stereotype that women have lower mathematical ability) affect women's and
men's evaluations of their abilities (e.g., in math and science), such that men
assess their own task ability higher than women performing at the same level.[78]
[79]

Similarly, a study by Sinclair et al. (2006) has shown that Asian American

women rated their math ability more favorably when their ethnicity and the
relevant stereotype that Asian Americans excel in math was made salient. In
contrast, they rated their math ability less favorably when their gender and the
corresponding stereotype of women's inferior math skills was made salient.
Sinclair et al. found, however, that the effect of stereotypes on self-evaluations
is mediated by the degree to which close people in someone's life endorse these
stereotypes. People's self-stereotyping can increase or decrease depending on
whether close others view them in stereotype-consistent or inconsistent manner.
[80]

Stereotyping can also play a central role in depression, when people have
negative self-stereotypes about themselves, according to
Cox, Abramson, Devine, and Hollon (2012).[3] This depression that is caused by
prejudice (i.e., "deprejudice") can be related to a group membership (e.g., Me
GayBad) or not (e.g., MeBad). If someone holds prejudicial beliefs about a
stigmatized group and then becomes a member of that group, they may
internalize their prejudice and develop depression. People may also show
prejudice internalization through self-stereotyping because of negative childhood
experiences such as verbal and physical abuse.[citation needed]

Role in art and culture[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please
help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February
2012)

American political cartoon titledThe Usual Irish Way of Doing Things, depicting a drunken
Irishman lighting a powder keg and swinging a bottle. Published inHarper's Weekly, 1871.

Stereotypes are common in various cultural media, where they take the form of
dramatic stock characters. These characters are found in the works of
playwright Bertold Brecht, Dario Fo, and Jacques Lecoq, who characterize their
actors as stereotypes for theatrical effect. In commedia dell'arte this is similarly
common. The instantly recognizable nature of stereotypes mean that they are
effective in advertising and situation comedy. These stereotypes change, and in
modern times only a few of the stereotyped characters shown in John
Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress would be recognizable.
Media stereotypes of women first emerged in the early 20th century. Various
stereotypic depictions or "types" of women appeared in magazines, including
Victorian ideals of femininity, the New Woman, the Gibson Girl, the Femme
fatale, and theFlapper.[81] More recently, artists such as Anne Taintor and Matthew
Weiner (the producer of Mad Men) have used vintage images or ideas to insert
their own commentary of stereotypes for specific eras. Weiner's character Peggy

Olson continually battles gender stereotypes throughout the series, excelling in a

workplace dominated by men.
Some contemporary studies indicate that racial, ethnic and cultural stereotypes
are still widespread in Hollywood blockbuster movies.[82] Portrayals of Latin
Americans in film and print media are restricted to a narrow set of characters.
Latin Americans are largely depicted as sexualized figures such as the
Latino macho or the Latina vixen, gang members, (illegal) immigrants, or
entertainers. By comparison, they are rarely portrayed as working professionals,
business leaders or politicians.[83]
In literature and art, stereotypes are clichd or predictable characters or
situations. Throughout history, storytellers have drawn from stereotypical
characters and situations, in order to connect the audience with new tales
immediately. Sometimes such stereotypes can be sophisticated, such
as Shakespeare's Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. Arguably a stereotype that
becomes complex and sophisticated ceases to be a stereotype per se by its
unique characterization. Thus while Shylock remains politically unstable in being
a stereotypical Jew, the subject of prejudicial derision in Shakespeare's era, his
many other detailed features raise him above a simple stereotype and into a
unique character, worthy of modern performance. Simply because one feature of
a character can be categorized as being typical does not make the entire
character a stereotype.
Despite their proximity in etymological roots, clich and stereotype are not used
synonymously in cultural spheres. For example, a clich is a high criticism
innarratology where genre and categorization automatically associates a story
within its recognizable group. Labeling a situation or character in a story
as typicalsuggests it is fitting for its genre or category. Whereas declaring that a
storyteller has relied on clich is to pejoratively observe a simplicity and lack of
originality in the tale. To criticize Ian Fleming for a stereotypically unlikely escape
for James Bond would be understood by the reader or listener, but it would be
more appropriately criticized as a clich in that it is overused and

reproduced. Narrative genre relies heavily on typical features to remain

recognizable and generate meaning in the reader/viewer.