Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 47, Issue 3–4, pp 99–114 | Cite as

Paternalistic and Envious Gender Stereotypes: Testing Predictions from the Stereotype Content Model

  • Thomas Eckes
Article

Abstract

In 2 studies, paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes were examined. Paternalistic stereotypes portray particular female or male subgroups as warm but not competent, whereas envious stereotypes depict some other female or male subgroups as competent but not warm. A total of 134 women and 82 men, primarily White and middle class, participated in this research. Building on the stereotype content model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), Study 1 tested the mixed-stereotypes hypothesis that many gender subgroups are viewed as high on either competence or warmth but low on the other. Study 2 additionally addressed the social-structural hypothesis that status predicts perceived competence and interdependence predicts perceived warmth. The results provided strong support for both hypotheses.

gender stereotypes prejudice subgrouping sexism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alexander, M. G., Brewer, M. B., & Herrmann, R. K. (1999). Images and affect: Afunctional analysis of out-group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 78-93.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Ashmore, R. D. (1970). The problem of intergroup prejudice. In B. E. Collins (Ed.), Social psychology (pp. 245-296). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 1-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism: Blatant, subtle, and covert discrimination (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S., & Trentham, S. (1998). Subtypes of women and men: Anew taxonomy and an exploratory categorical analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 679-696.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, S., & Trentham, S. (2001). Should we take “gender” out of gender subtypes? The effects of gender, evaluative valence, and context on the organization of person subtypes. Sex Roles, 45, 455-480.Google Scholar
  9. Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M., & Lewis, L. L. (1985). Level of categorization and content of gender stereotypes. Social Cognition, 3, 145-167.Google Scholar
  10. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Historical trends and contemporary approaches. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 1-34). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41-113.Google Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A socialrole interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.Google Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 1-35.Google Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Eckes, T. (1994). Explorations in gender cognition: Content and structure of female and male subtypes. Social Cognitio, 12, 37-60.Google Scholar
  17. Eckes, T. (1996). Linking female and male subtypes to situations: A range-of-situation-fit effect. Sex Roles, 35, 401-426.Google Scholar
  18. Eckes, T. (1997). Geschlechterstereotype: Frau und Mann in sozialpsychologischer Sicht [Gender stereotypes: Woman and man in social psychological perspective]. Pfaffenweiler, Germany: Centaurus.Google Scholar
  19. Eckes, T. (2001). Ambivalenter Sexismus und die Polarisierung von Geschlechterstereotypen [Ambivalent sexism and the polarization of gender stereotypes]. Zeitschrift f ür Sozialpsychologie, 32, 235-247.Google Scholar
  20. Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1999). Hostilität und Benevolenz: Eine Skala zur Erfassung des ambivalenten Sexismus [Hostility and benevolence: Ascale measuring ambivalent sexism]. Zeitschrift f ür Sozialpsychologie, 30, 211-228.Google Scholar
  21. Eckes, T., & Trautner, H. M. (2000). Developmental social psychology of gender: An integrative framework. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 3-32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Eckes, T., Trautner, H. M., & Behrendt, R. (2002). Gender subgroups and intergroup perception: Adolescents' views of owngender and other-gender groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  23. Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357-411). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Fiske, S. T. (2000a). Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 115-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Fiske, S. T. (2000b). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 299-322.Google Scholar
  26. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.Google Scholar
  27. Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 473-489.Google Scholar
  28. Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323-1334.Google Scholar
  29. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.Google Scholar
  30. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119-135.Google Scholar
  31. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999a). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536.Google Scholar
  32. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999b). Sexism and other “isms”: Interdependence, status, and the ambivalent content of stereotypes. In W. B. Swann Jr., J. H. Langlois & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 193-221). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  33. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001a). Anambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications of gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.Google Scholar
  34. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001b). Ambivalent sexism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 115-188.Google Scholar
  35. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001c). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies: Differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 278-306). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775.Google Scholar
  37. Glick, P., & Hilt, L. (2000). Combative children to ambivalent adults: The development of gender prejudice. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 243-272). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Harris, M. (1995). Cultural anthropology (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  39. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674.Google Scholar
  40. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  41. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M.R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.Google Scholar
  42. Kite, M. E. (2001). Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do we want women and men to be? In R. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 215-227). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. MacDonald, T. K., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Cross-dimension ambivalence toward social groups: Can ambivalence affect intentions to hire feminists? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 427-441.Google Scholar
  44. Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93-120.Google Scholar
  45. Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism: Relationships amonghostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and neosexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 503-517.Google Scholar
  46. Maurer, K. L., Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1995). Subtyping versus subgrouping processes in stereotype representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 812-824.Google Scholar
  47. Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50, 159-179.Google Scholar
  48. Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1987). Methodology review: Clustering methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 329-354.Google Scholar
  49. Oettingen, G. (Ed.). (1993). Deutschland Ost und Deutschland West [Germany East and Germany West; special issue]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 24(3).Google Scholar
  50. Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Stereotypes: Content, structures, processes, and context. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 22-44). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Pettigrew, T. F. (1999). Gordon Willard Allport: A tribute. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 415-427.Google Scholar
  52. Pratto, F. (1996). Sexual politics: The gender gap in the bedroom, the cupboard, and the cabinet. In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 179-230). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52-73.Google Scholar
  54. Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 283-294.Google Scholar
  55. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743-762.Google Scholar
  56. Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 294-309.Google Scholar
  57. Six, B., & Eckes, T. (1991). A closer look at the complex structure of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 57-71.Google Scholar
  58. Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: What do they signify? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 44-62.Google Scholar
  59. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: Ameasure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43-44 (Ms. No. 617).Google Scholar
  60. Stangor, C., & Schaller, M. (1996). Stereotypes as individual and collectice representations. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 3-37). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  61. Swim, J. K., & Campbell, B. (2001). Sexism: Attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 218-237). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  62. Vonk, R., & Olde-Monnikhof, M. (1998). Gender subgroups: Intergroup bias within the sexes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 37-47.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1996). Physical appearance as a basis of stereotyping. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 79-120). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eckes
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of DresdenGermany
  2. 2.TestDaF InstituteUniversity of HagenHagenGermany

Personalised recommendations