Printed Page 96

Using Stereotypes

A final way we form impressions is to categorize people into social groups and then evaluate them based on information we have in our schemata related to these groups (Bodenhausen, Macrae, & Sherman, 1999). This is known as stereotyping, a term first coined by journalist Walter Lippmann (1922) to describe overly simplistic interpersonal impressions. When we stereotype others, we replace the subtle complexities that make people unique with blanket assumptions about their character and worth based solely on their social group affiliation.

We stereotype because doing so streamlines the perception process. Once we’ve categorized a person as a member of a particular group, we can apply all of the information we have about that group to form a quick impression (Bodenhausen et al., 1999). For example, suppose a friend introduces you to Conor, an Irish transfer student. Once you perceive Conor as “Irish,” beliefs that you might hold about Irish people could come to mind: they love to tell exaggerated stories (the blarney), have bad tempers, like to drink, and are passionate about soccer. Mind you, none of these assumptions may be accurate about Irish people or relevant to Conor. But if this is what you believe about the Irish, you’ll keep it in mind during your conversation with Conor and look for ways to confirm your beliefs. So when he tells you about “seeing a great match” last weekend, you might assume he’s talking about soccer rather than tennis or chess. If he discloses that he went to a party last night, you might picture him with a pint of Guinness in his hand rather than a root beer.

As this example suggests, stereotyping frequently leads us to form flawed impressions of others. One study of workplace perception found that male supervisors who stereotyped women as “the weaker sex” perceived female employees’ work performance as deficient and gave women low job evaluations—regardless of the women’s actual job performances (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000). A separate study examining college students’ perceptions of professors found a similar biasing effect for ethnic stereotypes. Euro-American students who stereotyped Hispanics as “laid-back” and “relaxed” perceived Hispanic professors who set high expectations for classroom performance as “colder” and “more unprofessional” than Euro-American professors who set identical standards (Smith & Anderson, 2005).

However, stereotyping doesn’t automatically lead to negative outcomes. Communication scholars Valerie Manusov and Radha Hegde (1993) found that during encounters between American and Indian students, the Americans who held positive or negative stereotypes about Indians were more inquisitive and actively engaged during the interaction than those who lacked stereotypes. As this study suggests, stereotyping can create an opportunity for communication, but the quality of the communication will depend on the nature of the stereotype.

Stereotyping is almost impossible to avoid. Researchers have documented that categorizing people in terms of their social group affiliation is the most common way we form impressions, more common than either Gestalts or algebraic impressions (Bodenhausen et al., 1999). Why? Social group categories such as race and gender are among the first things we notice about others upon meeting them. As a consequence, we often perceive people in terms of their social group membership before any other impression is even possible (Devine, 1989). The Internet provides no escape from this tendency. Without many of the nonverbal cues and additional information that can distinguish a person as a unique individual, people communicating online are even more likely than those communicating face-to-face to form stereotypical impressions when meeting others for the first time (Spears, Postmes, Lea, & Watt, 2001).

Most of us presume that our beliefs about groups are valid. As a consequence, we have a high degree of confidence in the legitimacy of our stereotypical impressions, despite the fact that such impressions are frequently flawed (Brewer, 1993). We also continue to believe in stereotypes even when members of a stereotyped group repeatedly behave in ways that contradict the stereotype. In fact, contradictory behavior may actually strengthen stereotypes. For example, if you think of Buddhists as quiet and contemplative and meet a talkative and funny Buddhist, you may dismiss his or her behavior as atypical and not worthy of your attention (Seta & Seta, 1993). You’ll then actively seek examples of behavior that confirm the stereotype to compensate for the uncertainty that the unexpected behavior aroused (Seta & Seta, 1993). As a result, the stereotype is reinforced.

You can overcome stereotypes by critically assessing your beliefs about various groups, especially those you dislike. Is the information in your schemata related to these groups accurate or flawed? Then educate yourself about these groups. Pick several groups you feel positively or negatively about. Read a variety of materials about these groups’ histories, beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors. Look for similarities and differences between people affiliated with these groups and yourself. Finally, when interacting with members of these groups, keep in mind that just because someone belongs to a certain group, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all of the defining characteristics of that group apply to that person. Since each of us simultaneously belongs to multiple social groups, don’t form a narrow and biased impression of someone by slotting him or her into just one group.