Warmth and Competence as Universal Dimensions of Social Perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map
Introduction
Sit in any airport, train station, or bus depot, then watch and listen. The sheer ethnic variety reflected in the visual and aural parade staggers the mind. This variety requires adjustments on all sides, as the world's peoples encounter each other. The circumstances of migration generate particular images of distinct groups, which in turn create distinct feelings and impulses. Mapping this new geography of intergroup and interpersonal contact is the business of this chapter. Migration and ethnic stereotypes are not new, of course,but the circumstances of ethnic groups shift with history, and with these structural changes come changes in patterns of stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination. For example, ethnic Chinese who migrated to the United States in the mid‐19th century to help build railroads were seen as animal laborers, neither especially competent nor especially trustworthy. After they were expelled and new Chinese migrants appeared in the 20th century, stereotypes changed accordingly to reflect entrepreneurs and technical experts, who are viewed now as perhaps excessively competent, but still not warm.
As a result of modern globalization, encounters among people from different social categories are increasingly common. What is more, as the number and range of social categories in society has increased, so has the gap between groups at the top and the bottom, creating further categorical divides. This increase is especially dramatic in the United States (Massey, 2007). North American prejudice researchers have long focused on Black–White intergroup relations, but this model does not apply to all the varieties of differences that people encounter daily, on personal and societal levels. People's ordinary lives require forming efficient and effective impressions of incredible numbers of other individuals. In examining how people make sense of each other, both as individuals and as group members, we have discovered two dimensions that differentiate groups and individuals. These dimensions appear to be both fundamental and universal, as we will argue here.
This chapter presents a framework synthesizing research on perceptions of individuals and groups. The core of this synthesis is the observation that judgments of warmth and competence underlie perceptions of others, driving perceivers' emotional and behavioral reactions, all resulting from social structural relationships. We argue that these dimensions are universal because they assess questions about others that are both basic and adaptive. Further, we show how judgments of warmth and competence follow from the structure of relations between individuals or between groups: specifically, their form of interdependence (cooperative vs competitive) and status relations. These insights are framed in terms of the stereotype content model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002b) and a recent extension of this theory, the behavior from intergroup affect and stereotypes (BIAS) map (Cuddy et al., 2007). Although both the SCM and BIAS map are oriented toward explaining intergroup relations, we show here how they extend to interpersonal relations.
The functional significance and universality of the warmth and competence dimensions result from their correspondence to two critical questions basic to surviving and thriving in a social world. First, actors need to anticipate others' intentions toward them; the warmth dimension—comprising such traits as morality, trustworthiness, sincerity, kindness, and friendliness—assesses the other's perceived intent in the social context. Second, both in importance and temporal sequence, actors need to know others' capability to pursue their intentions; the competence dimension—comprising such traits as efficacy, skill, creativity, confidence, and intelligence—relates to perceived capability to enact intent. Motivationally, warmth represents an accommodating orientation that profits others more than the self, whereas competence represents self‐profitable traits related to the ability to bring about desired events (Peeters, 1983). In short, actors distinguish individuals and groups according to their likely impact on the self or ingroup as determined by perceived intentions and capabilities.
Warmth and competence dimensions have consistently emerged in both classic and contemporary studies of person perception (Asch 1946, Rosenberg 1968, Wojciszke 1998), social‐value orientations (e.g., self‐ and other‐profitability; Peeters, 2002), construals of others' behaviors (Wojciszke, 1994), and voters' ratings of political candidates in the United States (Abelson 1982, Kinder 1981) and Poland (Wojciszke and Klusek, 1996). Although often under the guise of different labels, which we review below, the warmth and competence dimensions also describe national stereotypes (e.g., morality and competence, Alexander 1999, Phalet 1997, Poppe 2001, Poppe 1999), characterize the four poles of Wiggins's interpersonal circumplex of behaviors (i.e., agreeableness and extroversion; Wiggins, 1979), and surface in numerous in‐depth analyses of prejudices toward specific social groups (e.g., Clausell 2005, Eckes 2002, Glick 2002, Glick 1996, Hurh 1989, Kitano 1973, Lin 2005, Spence 1979; cf., Altermatt et al., 2003).
More recently, work on the SCM and the BIAS map has documented the centrality of warmth and competence as dimensions of group stereotypes, identified their origins in social structural relations, and delineated their emotional and behavioral consequences. By integrating the SCM and BIAS map with other relevant theory and research from interpersonal and intergroup perception, we hope to achieve three overarching goals in this chapter: (1) to show the centrality of warmth and competence as dimensions of social judgment across varied targets (both individuals and groups), perceivers, and cultures; (2) to locate the origins of warmth and competence judgments in social structural variables; and (3) to assess the emotional and behavioral consequences of warmth and competence judgments. Throughout the chapter, we review our research on this topic, including more than three dozen correlational and experimental studies from seventeen nations. Ultimately, we aim not only to present an integrative review of the overwhelming evidence of the universality of these two dimensions in social perception, but also to provide a common framework for identifying the origins and predicting the social consequences of warmth and competence judgments.
We organize this chapter into the following sections. First, we address definitional issues and provide a brief background and summary of the SCM and the BIAS map. Second, we review and integrate converging theory and evidence documenting the centrality of warmth and competence dimensions in interpersonal as well as intergroup perception, including our own research, which has provided extensive evidence of their significance in intergroup relations (Cuddy 2007, Cuddy, Fiske 1999, Fiske 2002b, Fiske 2007, Glick 2001b). Third, we turn to a discussion of the structural origins of warmth and competence perceptions. We propose that people viewed as competitors are judged as lacking warmth, whereas people viewed as allies are judged as warm; people viewed as high status are judged as competent, whereas people viewed as low status are judged as incompetent. Fourth, we examine the social outcomes of warmth and competence judgments, proposing and reviewing empirical support for the existence of systematic patterns of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to perceiving others as competent versus incompetent, and warm versus cold. In the fifth section, we discuss ambivalent patterns of prejudice in greater detail. Built upon the paradigm of prejudice as a univalent antipathy, past research has obscured the unique patterns of social responses toward groups that are stereotyped as competent but not warm or as warm but not competent. In the sixth and final section, we summarize and discuss unresolved issues and future research directions.
Many different labels describe what boil down to virtually the same two dimensions. Our warmth scales have included good‐natured, trustworthy, tolerant, friendly, and sincere. Our competence scales have included capable, skillful, intelligent, and confident. Wojciszke et al.'s (1998) terms are morality and competence, but the moral traits include fair, generous, helpful, honest, righteous, sincere, tolerant, and understanding, which overlap entirely with the warmth‐trustworthiness dimension identified elsewhere. (There is no dispute about the competence label, but those traits include clever, competent, creative, efficient, foresighted, ingenious, intelligent, and knowledgeable.) Peeters 1983, Peeters 2002 distinction between self‐profitable traits—those that directly benefit or harm the trait possessor (e.g., intelligence, inefficiency)—versus other‐profitable traits—those that directly benefit or harm others in the trait possessor's social world (e.g., trustworthy, hostile)—set the precedent for Wojciszke's work and essentially agrees with our usage of competence and warmth.
Slightly different but still compatible are the communion and agency dimensions originated in personality psychology by Bakan (1956) who noted, in a philosophical context, two fundamental modalities in the existence of living beings, agency for the existence of the organism as an individual, and communion of the individual with belonging to some larger organism. The gender literature picked up this distinction because the dimensions related respectively to femininity and masculinity (Abele 2003, Carlson 1971, Spence 1979, White 1979). Communion and agency since have been frequently linked to gender stereotypes (e.g., Eagly and Steffen, 1984), social motives (e.g., McAdams et al., 1984), sex differences (Buss, 1981), and more (see Rudman and Glick, 2008, for a review). Although acknowledging the important gendered flavor of these two dimensions, and their relations to warmth and competence, we go beyond gender in the SCM. What's more, whereas communion closely resembles our warmth dimension, agency does not fully capture competence, because agency focuses more on taking effective action. Competence entails the possession of skills, talents, and capability, but it can take the form of potential action as well as actual action, so we prefer to emphasize competence rather than agency. We use the terms warmth and competence for simplicity, but we view them as closely related to communion and agency.
To demonstrate the high redundancy across these variously named dimensions, Abele and Wojciszke (2007) asked participants to rate a list of 300 trait terms, which were selected to represent all of the above‐named dimensions in addition to the collectivism/individualism and the Big Five, on the related constructs of agency/communion, morality/competence, collectivism/individualism, and femininity/masculinity. They found that a two factor‐solution, with one factor comprising the traits representing agency, individualism, masculinity, and competence and the other dimension comprising the traits representing communion, collectivism, femininity, and morality, accounted for almost 90% of the variance. Participants in the same study also rated these traits on the extent to which they reflected self‐interest (i.e., does possessing the trait benefit or harm the self) or other‐interest (i.e., does possessing the trait benefit or harm others). As expected, ratings of other‐interest positively correlated with morality and ratings of self‐interest positively correlated with agency (Abele and Wojciszke, 2007).
Finally, Osgood et al.'s semantic differential (1957) defined dimensions that might seem similar to warmth and competence. They identified evaluation, potency, and activity (EPA) as central dimensions of language and attitudes. Commentators have often wondered whether evaluation corresponds to warmth and potency to competence. Our answer is no, not exactly. First, both warmth and competence have evaluative components; it is better to be warm, trustworthy, and helpful than not. Similarly, it is better to be competent and skilled than not. Second, both warmth and competence can be more or less potent as well: one can be strong and warm or weak and warm, and the same for competence. Third, as for activity, it collapses with potency into a single factor, called “dynamism,” at least in person perception (Osgood et al., 1957). Fourth, recent data comparing the evaluation, potency, and agency (EPA) dimensions and the SCM show that they are not redundant (Capozza et al., 2007). Overall, we would suggest that the evaluation x potency/activity space probably operates at a 45° rotation to our space. We return to this point in our discussion of future directions (section 6.1).
The SCM and the BIAS map integrate several interrelated broad principles of intergroup bias, derived from work on its functional, motivational, and social‐cognitive roots. The first principle is that many groups do not receive a one‐dimensional, hostile type of prejudice. Recent work by us and others converges on the view that prejudice is both group‐ and context‐dependent and can simultaneously include both negative and subjectively positive responses. For example, according to Cottrell and Neuberg's (2005) sociofunctional approach, different groups (e.g., gay men versus Mexican‐Americans) elicit distinct classes of perceived threats (e.g., to health versus property, respectively), which evoke functionally relevant, distinct emotion profiles (e.g., disgust and pity versus fear and anger, respectively; see also Esses 2001, Stephan 2002). On the basis of internation biases, Alexander and colleagues proposed a functional model called Image Theory (Alexander 1999, Alexander 2005, Brewer 2002), which asserts that actors make three appraisals of outgroups: intergroup goal compatibility, relative status, and power to attain goals. For each outgroup, these appraisals (e.g., incompatible goals, equal status, equal power) induce specific action tendencies (attack) and emotions (anger), generating distinct outgroup “images” (e.g., hostile, opportunistic enemy). Like our model, these other approaches also suggest that the contents of biases vary across groups and situations in ways that cannot be explained by a view of prejudice as an undifferentiated antipathy (Esses 2001, Mackie 2000, Stephan 2000).
Second, the contents of the three psychological components of bias—cognitions (stereotypes), affect (emotional prejudices), and behavior (discrimination)—operate in synchrony with one another, an idea that is firmly grounded, for example, in appraisal theories of emotion (Frijda 1986, Roseman 1984, Scherer 1988, Smith 1985). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) define cognitive appraisals as assessments of the implications of the others' behavior for the self (or ingroup). Situations and their corresponding cognitive appraisals elicit discrete patterns of emotions, which in turn trigger specific behavioral responses (e.g., offensive action) adapted to cope with the potential threat the other individual or group poses (Frijda 1989, Izard 1991, Izard 1993, Roseman 1994), a view that is even supported by evidence of neuroanatomical emotion pathways linked to specific behaviors (Panksepp, 2000). For example, according to intergroup emotions theory (IET), an appraisal‐based approach to intergroup relations, appraising the ingroup as stronger than a hostile outgroup elicits anger, which leads to offensive action tendencies, whereas appraising the outgroup as stronger results in fear (Mackie et al., 2000). These patterns of relationships have been documented at both the interpersonal and intergroup levels (Devos 2002, Dijker 1987, Dijker 1996b, Mackie 1998, Mackie 2000; cf. Fiske et al., 2002b). Attitude theories also posit that the affective, cognitive, and behavioral correlates of evaluation tend to converge, depending on circumstances (e.g., Ajzen, 2001).
Third, emotions mediate the effects of cognitions on discrimination. Emotions can be viewed as the engines that drive behavior (Tomkins, as cited in Zajonc, 1998) and “changes in action readiness” (Zajonc, 1998, p. 466). Affect often mediates the effects of cognition on behavior, which is a central tenet of appraisal theories of emotion, including IET, which propose a cognitive appraisal → emotion → behavior sequence (Frijda 1989, Mackie 2000, Roseman 1994). Because of this more direct link to behavior, past research suggests that affect often predicts discriminatory behavior better than stereotypes (Dovidio 1996, Dovidio 2002, Esses 2002, Esses 1993, Schütz 1996, Stangor 1991, Talaska 2007). Although we agree that emotions mediate the effects of cognitions (including stereotyped beliefs) on behavior, our theoretical perspective and findings suggest that past research has underestimated the effects of cognition by failing to appreciate how the content of stereotypes on warmth and competence dimensions together create distinct patterns of bias (cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally).
The SCM's first tenet is that perceived warmth and competence underlie and differentiate group stereotypes. Although specific group stereotypes have some idiosyncratic content (e.g., the notion that Black people are “rhythmic”), underlying such beliefs are more general themes organized along warmth and competence dimensions. Although we do not discount the importance of specific, historically conditioned beliefs about groups, we suggest that much of the variance in stereotypes of groups is accounted for by the more basic warmth and competence dimensions. As we review in detail below, our research consistently reveals differentiated clusters of high versus low warmth and competence stereotypes across widely varied target groups, such as occupations, nationalities, ethnicities, socioeconomic groups, religions, and gender subtypes. Moreover, these patterns appear to be (a) universal features of social perception, supported in diverse US samples (Fiske 2002b, Fiske 1999), including a representative national sample (Cuddy et al., 2007), and in 17 other nations (Cuddy et al., in press) and (b) predicted by the structural relations between groups (Cuddy 2007, Cuddy, Fiske 2006, Fiske 1999, Fiske 2002b).
The SCM posits that many groups will receive ambivalent stereotypes, comprising a positive evaluation on one dimension and a negative evaluation on the other. In other words, many outgroups are viewed as competent but not warm (e.g., Asians, Jews, the rich), or as warm but not competent (e.g., the disabled, the elderly, housewives). Importantly, subjectively positive stereotypes on one dimension typically do not contradict prejudice or reduce discrimination but reinforce unflattering stereotypes on the other dimension and justify unequal treatment. Although some groups (homeless, poor, welfare recipients) are stereotyped as low on both warmth and competence, only reference groups—ingroups (e.g., students) and societal prototype groups (e.g., Whites, middle‐class)—are perceived to be both warm and competent (at least in Western cultures; Cuddy et al., in press). (See Fig. 2.1 for the relative locations of various groups.)
According to the SCM, the origins of perceived warmth and competence lie in social structural variables, namely competition and status, such that non‐competitive others are judged to be warm, whereas competitive others are not; and high‐status others are judged to be competent, whereas low‐status others are not. These relationships have been replicated in virtually all of the studies of actual groups cited above (Cuddy 2007, Cuddy, Fiske 1999, Fiske 2002b). Further, the same principles hold for experimentally constructed groups (Caprariello 2007, Oldmeadow 2007) and in perceptions of individuals (Russell and Fiske, 2007), which we discuss in more detail below.
The SCM proposes that the four combinations of high versus low warmth and competence judgments elicit four unique emotional responses: admiration, contempt, envy, and pity (Fiske 2002a, Fiske 2002b). Specifically, groups stereotyped as warm and competent (e.g., ingroups)—elicit admiration. Groups stereotyped as incompetent and cold (e.g., homeless people) elicit contempt. Groups stereotyped as competent but not warm (e.g., Asians) elicit envy. Groups stereotyped as warm but not competent (e.g., elderly people) elicit pity. These proposals have been supported using both correlational and experimental methods, as well as cross‐cultural comparisons (Cuddy 2004, Cuddy, Fiske 2002a, Fiske 2002b). We discuss the theoretical underpinnings of these relationships later.
The BIAS map (Cuddy et al., 2007; Fig. 2.2) extends the SCM by considering the behavioral outcomes of warmth and competence evaluations in social interactions. It proposes that the four combinations of high versus low warmth and competence elicit four unique patterns of behavioral responses: active facilitation (e.g., helping), active harm (e.g., harassing), passive facilitation (e.g., convenient cooperation), and passive harm (e.g., neglecting).
Because the warmth dimension is primary (due to its perceived link to others' intentions), perceived warmth predicts active behaviors: groups judged as warm elicit active facilitation (i.e., help), whereas those judged as lacking warmth elicit active harm (i.e., attack). The competence dimension, being secondary (because it assesses others' capability to carry out intentions), predicts passive behaviors: groups judged as competent elicit passive facilitation (i.e., obligatory association, convenient cooperation), whereas those judged as lacking competence elicit passive harm (i.e., neglect, ignoring). In short, distinct types of discrimination follow each warmth‐by‐competence combination.
The BIAS map also connects the four kinds of emotions—corresponding to the four warmth–competence combinations—to predicted behaviors. Specifically, admired (i.e., competent and warm) groups elicit both active and passive facilitation, that is, both helping and associating. Resented, envied (i.e., incompetent and cold) groups elicit both kinds of harm: active attack and passive neglect.
The ambivalent combinations are more volatile: pitied groups elicit both active helping and passive neglect, aptly describing patronizing behavior toward older and disabled people, who may sometimes be overhelped and other times neglected. Being institutionalized also can combine active help and passive neglect. In contrast, envied groups elicit both passive association and active harm. For instance people may shop at the stores of entrepreneurial outsiders, “going along to get along,” but under societal breakdown may attack and loot these same shops. Koreans in Los Angeles, Tutsis in Rwanda, Chinese in Indonesia, and Jews in Europe have each experienced such treatment.
Consistent with appraisal theories of emotion, the BIAS map predicts that emotions are the proximal cause of social behaviors, a finding reflected in meta‐analyses of emotional prejudices and cognitive stereotypes as predictors of discrimination (Dovidio 1996, Talaska 2007). The BIAS map predicts that emotions more strongly and directly predict behaviors because they mediate the link from warmth and competence judgments to behaviors. We later present both correlational and experimental support for these patterns at both the intergroup (e.g., Cuddy 2004, Cuddy 2007) and interpersonal levels (Asbrock 2008, Talaska 2007).
Section snippets
Centrality of warmth and competence
The centrality of warmth and competence is well documented in the area of interpersonal perception, going back over half a century. Perhaps the first empirical suggestion of the importance of these two dimensions came from Asch's (1946) classic studies, in which the inclusion of the trait “warm” versus “cold” shaped people's “Gestalt impressions” of a person described by a list of competence‐related characteristics. When the target person described as competent and capable was also described as
Social Structural Roots of Warmth and Competence Judgments
The SCM suggests that warmth and competence judgments result from the social structural relations between individuals and groups. Because all complex societies are hierarchically organized and have limited resources, we argue that not only the two dimensions but also their social structural predictors ought to generalize across cultures. Specifically, we argue that two variables long identified as important in intergroup relations—competition and status—predict warmth and competence judgments.
Emotional, Behavioral, and Attributional Consequences
Moving from antecedents to consequences, how do warmth and competence judgments affect how targets are treated? This section focuses on the impact of stereotypes along these fundamental dimensions. We propose that perceptions of high versus low warmth and competence elicit predictable, differentiated patterns of social emotions, behaviors, and attributions (Fig. 2.2). Prior research and theory, dominated by a view of prejudice as a univalent antipathy, has obscured these distinctive patterns
Spotlight on Ambivalent Combinations: Warm–Incompetent and Competent–Cold
A unique feature of our work is its focus on ambivalent combinations of warmth and competence judgments—competent and cold, and warm and incompetent. Our research has demonstrated that groups with ambivalent warmth‐competence stereotypes elicit both ambivalent emotions (Cuddy, Fiske 2002b) and ambivalent behavioral responses (Cuddy et al., 2007). We discuss findings concerning both types of ambivalent prejudice, pitying and envious, in greater detail and then apply these insights to
Current and Future Directions and Summary
This section reviews new directions for research suggested by the SCM and BIAS map, which would appear to have a variety of implications for both intergroup and interpersonal perception and interaction, that have yet to be plumbed, then provides a brief chapter summary.
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this chapter was facilitated by research funds from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and from Princeton University. The authors wish to thank their joint and respective research collaborators for stimulating intellectual support.
References (263)
- et al.
Cognitive and affective bases of attitudes toward social groups and social policies
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
(1994) - et al.
Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes
- et al.
Negative interdependence and prejudice: Whence the affect?
- et al.
Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2007) - et al.
Ambivalent sexism
The dynamics of masculine‐agentic and feminine‐communal traits: Findings from a prospective study
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
(2003)- et al.
Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
(2007) - Abele, A. E., Cuddy, A. J. C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., and Judd, C. M. (eds.) (in press). Universal dimensions of social...
- et al.
Affective and semantic components in political person perception
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
(1982) - et al.
The human amygdala in social judgment
Nature
(1998)
Nature and operation of attitudes
Annu. Rev. Psychol.
Images and affect: A functional analysis of outgroup stereotypes
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Putting stereotype content in context: Image theory and interethnic stereotypes
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
“The Nature of Prejudice”.
Agency and virtue: Dimensions of female stereotypes
Sex Roles
Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and social cognition
Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
A statistical review of the literature concerning the self‐serving attribution bias in interpersonal influence situations
J. Pers.
Interpersonal behavioral outcomes of warmth and competence judgements
Manuscript under review
Forming impressions of personality
J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol.
Effects of age stereotyping in a simulated interview
Psychol. Aging
Tactical differences in coping with rejection sensitivity: The role of prevention pride
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
“The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and Religion.”
A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction
Am. Sociol. Rev.
Perception of and reactions to the homeless: A survey of fourth‐grade, high school, and college students in a small Midwestern community
J. Soc. Distress Homel.
Altrusim and prosocial behavior
Trait theory and cross cultural studies of person perception
Psychol. Inq.
Language attitudes and impression formation
Intergroup emotions and images
“The Psychology of Aggression.”
Sex differences in the evaluation and performance of dominant acts
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.
Compensatory biases after intergroup threat: ‘Yeah, but we have a good personality.’
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.
EPA and warmth‐competence dimensions: Are the two universals redundant?
Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model
Manuscript submitted for publication
Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory studies of agency and communion
J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.
Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks
Harv. Bus. Rev.
“An Integrative Theory of Leadership.”
Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review
Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
When do the parts add up to the whole? Ambivalent stereotype content for gay male subgroups
Soc. Cogn.
Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat‐based approach to “prejudice.”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Relational aggression, gender, and social‐psychological adjustment
Child Dev.
Doddering, but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping of older persons
Legitimating status inequalities: The effect of race on motherhood discrimination
When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn't cut the ice
J. Soc. Issues
This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype
J. Soc. Issues
The BIAS Map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Cited by (1607)
Informational or emotional? Exploring the relative effects of chatbots’ self-recovery strategies on consumer satisfaction
2024, Journal of Retailing and Consumer ServicesJudging a book by its cover? Investigating pre-service teacher's stereotypes towards pupils with special educational needs
2024, Teaching and Teacher EducationSport event vs. art event? The effect of CSR-linked sponsorship event type on product purchase
2024, Journal of Retailing and Consumer ServicesFacial first impressions following a prison sentence: Negative shift in trait ratings but the same underlying structure
2024, Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyAre rules meant to be broken? When and why consistent rule-following undermines versus enhances trust
2024, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology