Vlad Glăveanu
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences
University of Bucharest
Traditionally social psychologists had been “stereotypical” about stereotypes. Especially the early work in this field presented stereotypes as misleading, extreme and destructive in the context of inter-group relations. Such a position is explained by the fact that most researchers focused initially on the study of antagonistic groups that shared a past of conflict, exploitation and violence (Brigham, 1971). As a result, a common belief at that time was that inter-group harmony can be enhanced by eliminating stereotypes (Taylor, 1981).
Despite this initial tendency, contemporary research promotes a more balanced attitude (Smith and Bond, 1994) partially renouncing at considering stereotypes just as simplifying errors and rigid schemata (Stănculescu, 2000).
Facts about stereotypes
Nowadays the number of studies on stereotypes and related topics (mainly prejudice and discrimination) has increased substantially especially concerning gender and ethnic issues. Stereotypes became one of the most popular themes of debate during reunions among social scientists (Leyens and Bourhis, 1997) due to their connection with almost all major research subjects in social psychology (Worchel et al., 1989).
The term stereotype was first introduced by Walter Lippmann (1922). In his book on public opinion he anticipated several important positions in contemporary research on stereotypes: their predominant cognitive nature (Hamilton, 1981), their utility as cognitive economy and energy-saving instruments (Macrae et al., 1994), and the antagonism between stereotyping and individuating processes (Fiske and Neuberg, 1990). Lippmann compared stereotypes with stable images in our head that shorten our perceptions. They are economical in the sense that previous experience moulds current perceptions. There are, however, some notable exceptions: we tend not to stereotype persons we love or admire.
Over the years several important features of stereotypes have been highlighted by theorists thus constructing a convergent image of the nature, role and impact stereotypes have on social functioning and group interaction. Generally stereotypes are seen as:
- A set of shared convictions / beliefs about members of a particular group (Leyens at al., 1994; Smith and Bond, 1994)
- Perceptions of a genuine correspondence between group membership and certain traits (Doise et al., 1999)
- Constructs describing both personality traits and behaviour patterns (Leyens at al., 1994; Drozda-Senkowsks, 1999)
- Standardized, stabile and preconceived images (Gavreliuc, 2006)
- A natural function of the human and cultural mind (Nachbar and Lause, 1992)
Stereotypes as collective constructs
Are all socially constructed images stereotypes? Most certainly not but surprisingly many beliefs are wrongly labelled as stereotypes. For instance some consider that stereotypes stand for both persons and objects (Nachbar and Lause, 1992) or that a stereotype can be held by just one person and not necessarily shared with other in-group members (Drozda-Senkowska, 1999).
In my opinion stereotypes are only those beliefs that transcend the individual level. Stereotypes are an excellent illustration of “collective constructs” as discussed by Hofmann (2004) and particularly the subtype of “shared constructs” (distinct from global or configural ones). As shared constructs, stereotypes gain validity only when group members share similar perceptions.
This remark leads to two important criteria in defining a stereotype: the analysis level and the generality level. The analysis level addresses the question of “Who holds the stereotype belief” and the generality level addresses the question of “Who the stereotype belief refers to”. In both cases there are three distinct possibilities: a person, a group (or micro-group) or a community (or macro-group) as can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The analysis and generality level in the study of stereotypes
Considering the level of analysis, the individual can only have a schema of another person or an “individual stereotype” of specific groups / communities. Genuine stereotypes are beliefs shared by groups and refer to members of another group / category. If the stereotype is held by members of a macro-group / community (and refer to members of another group / community / category) it may be considered a cultural stereotype. Taking into account the level of generality all stereotypic beliefs of an individual should be considered as schemata rather than stereotypes. For example a person can have a schema of a specific neighbour and all persons from the same building (a micro-group) can hold a shared schema of the property-owner.
Theoretical approaches
If, as we have seen, stereotypes have been characterized in a rather homogenous manner, most discrepancies emerge when constructing a theory of stereotypes, or, in other words, a coherent theoretical model that would explain this phenomenon.
Among the well-known theories that can clarify how stereotypes come to exist and function one can find: the psychodynamic model / the authoritarian personality (Adorno, 1950), the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), the realistic group conflict theory (Sherif, 1966) and the cognitive theories (Pendry and al., 1998). Still, despite this diversity of particular theoretical models, three broad theoretical and methodological approaches dominate the study of stereotypes. Each one of these is defined by a unique outlook on what stereotypes are and how they should be studied (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of stereotypes
The social cognition approach focuses on the study of stereotypes at an individual level and uses mainly laboratory studies (highly rigorous but sometimes low in ecological validity). Processes such as categorisation, social perception and comparison are primarily investigated and stereotypes are defined / explained in terms of schemata or prototypes.
On the other hand, the inter-group relations approach focuses on the group level, especially on relations between group members, and therefore it primarily involves field studies. Stereotypes are considered in relation to group membership, attitudes, social identity and self-esteem and their connection with prejudice and discrimination becomes much more salient.
At first glance the two perspectives above appear to contradict one another and, indeed, researchers from both sides tend to ignore each other (Bourhis and Leyens, 1994). Currently the “dichotomy” is completed by a third approach, that of social representations. From this perspective stereotypes are seen as essential or synthesized expressions / components of social representations (Moliner, 1996; Mannoni, 1998; Chiru, 2000). The level of study this time transcends the individual and even the group level. The community / societal focus as well as a rather balanced positioning between universal and situational claims characterise this last frame. If cognitive processes are generally presumed as universal (or less influenced by cultural factors) and inter-group relations need to be studied contextually, stereotype representations (Glăveanu, 2007) simultaneously consider social practices and cultural norms.
Still, it is important to notice that the social representations approach does not combine or transcend social cognition and inter-group relations. All three are fertile and equally productive viewpoints on stereotypes and it is in the responsibility of social scientists to be flexible in selecting the most suitable theoretical perspective for particular research objectives.
Taxonomy
Apart from the theoretical distinctions discussed in the last section it is useful to consider the taxonomy of stereotypes. For a better understanding let us consider two interacting groups, Group 1 and Group 2. Their members develop at least four types of stereotype images (in this case ethnic stereotypes) as represented in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Types of stereotypes in an inter-group relation
Usually what one thinks of when talking about stereotypes are “heterostereotypes” (a stereotype of the out-group). In our example members from Group 1 have a heterostereotype about members from Group 2 and members from Group 2 also develop a heterostereotype regarding Group 1 members.
At the same time members from both groups have an image concerning their own group and this kind of images are conceptualised as “autostereotypes”.
Things become even more complicated when taking into account, for instance, how members from Group 1 think members of Group 2 see themselves or, in other words, when considering the stereotype members of Group 1 share in regard to the (presumed) autostereotype of Group 2 members. In this case we talk about an “attributed autostereotype”.
Last but not least Group 1 members also think about how Group 2 members see them (about the heterostereotype that members from Group 2 share about members of their group) or the “projected heterostereotype”.
If the distinction between hetero and autostereotypes is a rather classical one (Doise et al., 1999; Chiru, 2000), there are some terminological disagreements concerning the other two forms. For example other authors tend to use a reversed terminology and refer to “projected autostereotypes” instead of “projected heterostereotypes” and “projected heterostereotypes” instead of “attributed autostereotypes” (Lehtonen, electronic article). They also commonly refer to “projected heterostereotypes” using the term “metastereotype” (Owuamalam and Tarrant, 2006). In my opinion the term metastereotype should be used in a more general and abstract manner following the epistemological meaning of the prefix “meta” (“about”) as it is reflected in concepts such as “metacognition”, “metamemory”, “metaemotion” etc. From this perspective metastereotypes define one’s ability to analyse and reflect upon personal stereotypes – how they are generated, how they function and impact social interactions – and then act accordingly modifying these processes (an awareness and understanding of stereotypes guided by personal experience).
The role of stereotypes
From the beginning I have emphasized the paradigmatic shift in the case of stereotypes from considering them as harmful and erroneous to discovering their social and cognitive utility. In fact, the three major approaches pointed out earlier each suggested how stereotypes might be useful if not unavoidable in everyday situations.
The cognitive perspective is maybe the most eloquent in demonstrating how stereotypes contribute to cognitive economy and how they help each of us save valuable cognitive resources. In this field the shift from metaphorically considering every social actor as a cognitive sloth (Gilbert and Hixon, 1991) to a motivated tactician (Fiske and Taylor, 1991) is highly representative. When confronted with multifaceted social situations stereotypes represent quick, effortless and even adaptive “answers”. Using them helps us become cognitive experts and remain cognitively efficient (Macrae and Bodenhausen, 2001).
From the inter-group relations perspective positive stereotypes of the in-group and less positive ones for out-group members serve to protect / enhance our “positive social identity”. Such a premise has been formalised as one of the most prominent contributions of the European social psychology, the social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Both auto and heterostereotypes play an important part in building our identity as group members and also allow us to comprehend and justify certain attitudes or conducts toward out-group members. The social representations frame furthers this understanding and goes beyond the identity issue by explaining social practices and norms. Stereotypes not only regulate particular inter-group interactions but are part of a broader cultural system that orientates our behaviour in various social contexts.
Still, a fundamental role of stereotypes has been repeatedly ignored or only briefly discussed by most theorists: “having stereotypes makes us feel safe”. Stereotypes give us a sense of control over our social contacts, and help us reduce uncertainty and avoid risky situations (both personal and social). This basic need surpasses that of esteem / positive identity and is more specific than most cognitive-economy strategies (that employ not only stereotypes but also concepts and prototypes). The “safety” hypothesis most certainly does not exclude all other theories presented above. Experience has taught us that when studying stereotypes it is best to eliminate all preconceived beliefs and keep an open mind to alternative explanations.
References
Adorno, T. W. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Brigham, J. C. (1971). “Ethnic Stereotypes”. Psychological Bulletin, 76.
Bourhis, R. Y. & Leyens, J.P. (1994). “Perceptions et relations intergroupes: Deux solitudes?”. In R.Y. Bourhis and J.P. Leyens (Eds), Stéréotypes, Discrimination et Relations Intergroupes. Liège: Mardaga.
Chiru, C. (2000). “Atribuirea de calităţi şi defecte psihomorale”. In S. Chelcea (homage), Stereotipuri, reprezentări şi identitate socială. Piteşti: Editura Universităţii din Piteşti.
Doise, W., Deschamps, J.-C., & Mugny, G. (1999). Psihologie socială experimentală. Iaşi: Polirom.
Drozda-Senkowska, E. (1999). Psihologie socială experimentală. Iaşi: Eurocart.
Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S.L. (1990). “A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23.
Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gavreliuc, A. (2006). De la relaţiile interpersonale la comunicarea socială, ediţia a II-a. Iaşi: Polirom.
Gilbert, D. T. & Hixon, G.J. (1991). “The Troubles of Thinking Activation and Application of Stereotypic Beliefs”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2007). “Românii şi statutul de cetăţean european: apartenenţe identitare şi reprezentări stereotipe ale bucureştenilor”. Psihologia Socială, nr 19.
Hamilton, D. L. (1981). “Stereotyping and intergroup behavior: Some thoughts on the cognitive approach”. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behaviour. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hofman, D. A. (2004). “Issues in Multilevel Research: Theory Development, Measurement, and Analysis”. In S.G. Rogelberg (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Blackwell Publishing.
Lehtonen, J. (electronic article). Cultural stereotypes. http://www.jyu.fi/viesti/verkkotuotanto/kp/vf/jaakko.shtml, accessed on 12.08.2007.
Leyens, J.-Ph., & Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Schadron, G. (1994). Stereotypes and social cognition. London: Sage.
Leyens, J.-Ph., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). “Epilog: percepţii şi relaţii intergrupuri”. In R. Y. Bourhis & J.-P. Leyens (coord.), Stereotipuri, discriminare şi relaţii intergrupuri. Iaşi: Polirom.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). “Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the toolbox”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66.
Macrae, C. N. & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2001). “Social cognition: Categorical person perception”. British Journal of Psychology, 92.
Mannoni, P. (1998). Les représentations sociales. Paris: PUF.
Moliner, P. (1996). Images et représentations sociales. De la théorie des représentations a l’étude des images sociales. Grenoble: PUG.
Nachbar, J. & Lause, K. (1992). Popular Culture: An Introductory Text. Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press.
Owuamalam, C. K., & Tarrant, M. (2006). Metastereotype negativity, legitimising ideology and willingness to attribute life’s outcomes to discrimination.
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/SPSSIBiennialConventionPoster.pdf, accessed on 12.08.2007.
Pendry, L. F., Macrae, C. N., & Hewstone, M. (1998). “Reflecţii asupra celuilalt: o abordare socio-cognitivă”, in S. Moscovici (coord.), Psihologia socială a relaţiilor cu celălalt. Iaşi: Polirom.
Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.
Smith, P. B. & Bond M. H. (1994). Social Psychology Across Cultures. Analysis and perspectives. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Stănculescu, E. (2000). “Abordarea sociocognitivă a stereotipurilor” in S. Chelcea (homage), Stereotipuri, reprezentări şi identitate socială, Piteşti: Ed. Universităţii din Piteşti.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). “The social identity theory of inter-group behavior” in S. Worchel and L. W. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chigago: Nelson-Hall
Taylor, D. M. (1981). “Stereotypes and intergroup relations” in R.C. Gardner and R. Kalin (eds.), A Canadian Social Psychology of Ethnic Relations. Toronto: Methuen.
Worchel, S., Cooper, J., & Goethals, G. (1989). Understanding Social Psychology (4th edition). California: Books/Cole Publishing Company.
Biographical Note
Contact: glaveanu_vlad@yahoo.com
The author has graduated from the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Bucharest, and has worked as youth trainer and researcher in consumer psychology. He is a member of several international organisations (International Association for Applied Psychology, International School Psychology Association) and NGO’s (Save the Children, FICE-Romania, ASPSE). Co-editor of Europe’s Journal of Psychology, the author has published numerous articles, books / book chapters in national or international volumes on themes such as social psychology, organisational psychology and educational psychology. Currently he has been offered a scholarship for a Master programme in Social and Cultural Psychology at London School of Economics and Political Science.