View article

In their founding work on stereotype content, Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, and Glick (1999) argued that stereotypes of almost all social groups (be they Jews, housewives, rock stars, or tradespersons) express generalised evaluative beliefs that vary according to the degree of warmth and competence ascribed to members of the target group. Why warmth and competence? Judgements on these two dimensions have been shown to be the most important evaluations of self and other in perceptions of both groups and individuals (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007). The warmth dimension represents the first domain of evaluation that people naturally (and automatically) infer when evaluating unfamiliar others: that is, are members of this group friend or foe? Are their intentions toward my group positive or negative? The second central question concerns perceived competence: is this group capable of acting upon its (inferred negative or positive) intentions toward my group? Taken together then, perceived warmth and competence allow for generalised evaluations of almost all social groups (Fiske et al., 2007). One of the best-supported hypotheses of the Stereotype Content Model is that most groups receive mixed stereotypes, that is, high on one dimension but low on the other (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008). This is a major argument against the classical conceptualisation of intergroup evaluations as purely positive or negative: Groups that are seen as cold and incompetent tend to be the exception rather than the rule. For example, as Glick (2006) has argued, Jewish people in 1940s German society were viewed as highly competent and …