In social psychology, a positive stereotype refers to a subjectively favourable belief held about a social group. Common examples of positive stereotypes are Asians with better math ability, African Americans with greater athletic ability, and women with being warmer and more communal. As opposed to negative stereotypes, positive stereotypes represent a "positive" evaluation of a group that typically signals an advantage over another group. As such, positive stereotypes may be considered a form of compliment or praise. However, positive stereotypes can have a positive or negative effect on targets of positive stereotypes. The positive or negative influence of positive stereotypes on targets depends on three factors: (1) how the positive stereotype is stated, (2) who is stating the positive stereotype, (3) in what culture the positive stereotype is presented (e.g., Western contexts vs. East Asian contexts).
Prevalence In The Nature of Prejudice (1954), Gordon Allport suggested that the categorisation of people into groups is adaptive. Although, this categorisation may allow for quicker processing of information present in one's environment, this process may result in stereotyping. Stereotypes have implications for targets of stereotypes and interpersonal interactions generally, because stereotypes assign traits and abilities to members of social groups due simply to their perceived group membership. Much research on prejudice and stereotypes has largely focused on negative stereotypes (e.g., the association of older adults with frailty) and the result of their prevalence (e.g., stereotype threat) on perceivers and targets. Composed of three studies spanning nearly 40 years, the Princeton Trilogy (1933) is noted as one of the earliest set of studies documenting the actual content of stereotypes attributed to different ethnic groups and the change in content over time. In the initial study of Princeton students in 1933, students were asked to list the traits that were associated with various racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Germans, Jews, Negroes). In this initial study, students were found to associate distinct traits with each social group and that there was a high consensus among beliefs (e.g., Germans were scientifically minded and industrious, Italians were artistic, and Negroes were superstitious and lazy). In the follow-up studies in 1951 and in 1969, the researchers found that the consensus and content of the stereotypes had changed in the four decades after the initial study. In the U.S., the content of stereotypes that people explicitly associate to other groups have become more positive since the onset of early studies, such as the Princeton Trilogy, that measured stereotype content. The positive change in content can be attributed to multiple factors:
the relative change in status of different social groups the expression of negative stereotypes as being less socially acceptable the increased intergroup contact of people of different ethnicities and nationalities Although both positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes require making generalisations about a group, positive stereotypes and their expression may not be seen as rooted in prejudice because of their positive valence. Additionally, because positive stereotypes may, on the surface, indicate a positive view of a social identity, expression of positive stereotypes in social interactions may not be as readily suppressed. As a result, positive stereotypes are more likely to be used to when describing a group than a negative stereotype, (e.g., "Women are more warm than men" versus saying "Women are less competent than men") which may contribute to their increase in prevalence.
Interaction with negative stereotypes In their stereotype content model (SCM), Fiske and colleagues (2002) provided evidence that being positively stereotyped in one domain typically leads to being correspondingly negatively stereotyped in another domain. In their model of "mixed" stereotype content, they focused on the stereotypes of warmth and competence. In their model, they propose that "people want to know others' intent (i.e., warmth) and their capability to pursue their intentions (i.e., competence)" (p. 879)
The researchers indicated that the motivation to positively stereotype groups as either warm or competent stemmed from perceived status and competition of an out-group. According to the SCM, out-groups are positively stereotyped as more competent to the extent that they are more powerful or hold higher-status. And correspondingly, out-groups are positively stereotyped as more warm to the extent that they are seen as less competition. However being positively stereotyped on one dimension usually corresponded with being negatively stereotyped on the other dimension. For instance, social out-groups viewed as subordinate and not competitive (e.g., elderly people) are often stereotyped as higher in warmth, but lower in competence. Being high in warmth and low in competence is considered to be a paternalistic stereotype, as the out-group is perceived as not inclined or incapable to harm the in-group. On the other end of the spectrum, an out-group that is perceived as high-status and highly competitive (e.g., rich people) may evoke an envious stereotype. These groups would likely be positively stereotyped as being high in competence to justify their higher relative position in society (compared to one's own in-group). However, feelings of envy or resentment about the group's higher status is justified by perceiving them as more cold (i.e., lower in warmth). Follow-up research has identified that for some subordinate groups being positively stereotyped as high in competence may vary in meaning. For instance, Black athletes and Black musicians are positively stereotyped as high in competence. However, when investigated further, the high competence rating was attributed to being competent due to talent rather than due to intelligence.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
