In social psychology, a stereotype is a thought that can be adopted about specific types of individuals

or certain ways of doing things.[1] These thoughts or beliefs may or may not accurately reflect reality.
[2][3]
However, this is only a fundamental psychological definition of a stereotype. [3] Within psychology
and spanning across other disciplines, there are different conceptualizations and theories of
stereotyping that provide their own expanded definition. Some of these definitions share
commonalities, though each one may also harbor unique aspects that may contradict the others.
a process, now often replaced by more advanced methods, for making metal printing plates by
taking a mold of composed type or the like in papier-mch or other material and then taking from
this mold a cast in type metal.
2.
a plate made by this process.
3.
a set form; convention.
4.
Sociology. a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and
held in common by members of a group:
The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.

Etymology
The term stereotype derives from the Greek words (stereos), "firm, solid"[4] and
(typos), "impression,"[5] hence "solid impression".
The term comes from the printing trade and was first adopted in 1798 by Firmin Didot to describe a
printing plate that duplicated any typography. The duplicate printing plate, or the stereotype, is
used for printing instead of the original.
Outside of printing, the first reference to "stereotype" was in 1850, as a noun that meant "image
perpetuated without change."[6] However, it was not until 1922 that "stereotype" was first used in
the modern psychological sense by American journalist Walter Lippmann in his work Public Opinion.
[7]

Relationship with other types of intergroup attitudes

Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are understood as related but different concepts. [8][9][10][11]
Stereotypes are regarded as the most cognitive component and often occurs without conscious
awareness, whereas prejudice is the affective component of stereotyping and discrimination is the
behavioral component of prejudicial reactions. [8][9][12] In this tripartite view of intergroup attitudes,
stereotypes reflect expectations and beliefs about the characteristics of members of groups
perceived as different from one's own, prejudice represents the emotional response, and
discrimination refers to actions.[8][9]
Although related, the three concepts can exist independently of each other. [9][13] According to Daniel
Katz and Kenneth Braly, stereotyping leads to racial prejudice when people emotionally react to the
name of a group, ascribe characteristics to members of that group, and then evaluate those
characteristics.[10]
Possible prejudicial effects of stereotypes [3] are:
Justification of ill-founded prejudices or ignorance
Unwillingness to rethink one's attitudes and behavior towards stereotyped groups
Preventing some people of stereotyped groups from entering or succeeding in activities or fields [14]
Content
Stereotype content model, adapted from Fiske et al. (2002): Four types of stereotypes resulting from
combinations of perceived warmth and competence.
Stereotype content refers to the attributes that people think characterize a group. Studies of
stereotype content examine what people think of others, rather than the reasons and mechanisms
involved in stereotyping.[15]
Early theories of stereotype content proposed by social psychologists such as Gordon Allport
assumed that stereotypes of outgroups reflected uniform antipathy.[16][17] For instance, Katz and
Braly argued in their classic 1933 study that ethnic stereotypes were uniformly negative. [15]
By contrast, a newer model of stereotype content theorizes that stereotypes are frequently
ambivalent and vary along two dimensions: warmth and competence. Warmth and competence are
respectively predicted by lack of competition and status. Groups that do not compete with the in-
group for the same resources (e.g., college space) are perceived as warm, whereas high-status (e.g.,
economically or educationally successful) groups are considered competent. The groups within each
of the four combinations of high and low levels of warmth and competence elicit distinct emotions.
[18]
The model explains the phenomenon that some out-groups are admired but disliked, whereas
others are liked but disrespected. This model was empirically tested on a variety of national and
international samples and was found to reliably predict stereotype content. [16][19]
Functions
Early studies suggested that stereotypes were only used by rigid, repressed, and authoritarian
people. This idea has been refuted by contemporary studies that suggest the ubiquity of stereotypes
and it was suggested to regard stereotypes as collective group beliefs, meaning that people who
belong to the same social group share the same set of stereotypes. [13] Modern research asserts that
full understanding of stereotypes requires considering them from two complementary perspectives:
as shared within a particular culture/subculture and as formed in the mind of an individual person. [20]
Relationship between cognitive and social functions
Stereotyping can serve cognitive functions on an interpersonal level, and social functions on an
intergroup level.[3][13] For stereotyping to function on an intergroup level (see social identity
approaches: social identity theory and self-categorization theory), an individual must see
themselves as part of a group and being part of that group must also be salient for the individual. [13]
Craig McGarty, Russell Spears, and Vincent Y. Yzerbyt (2002) argued that the cognitive functions of
stereotyping are best understood in relation to its social functions, and vice versa. [21]
Cognitive functions
Stereotypes can help make sense of the world. They are a form of categorization that helps to
simplify and systematize information. Thus, information is more easily identified, recalled, predicted,
and reacted to.[13] Stereotypes are categories of objects or people. Between stereotypes, objects or
people are as different from each other as possible. [1] Within stereotypes, objects or people are as
similar to each other as possible.[1]
Gordon Allport has suggested possible answers to why people find it easier to understand
categorized information.[22] First, people can consult a category to identify response patterns.
Second, categorized information is more specific than non-categorized information, as
categorization accentuates properties that are shared by all members of a group. Third, people can
readily describe object in a category because objects in the same category have distinct
characteristics. Finally, people can take for granted the characteristics of a particular category
because the category itself may be an arbitrary grouping.
A complementary perspective theorizes how stereotypes function as time- and energy-savers that
allow people to act more efficiently.[1] Yet another perspective suggests that stereotypes are people's
biased perceptions of their social contexts. [1] In this view, people use stereotypes as shortcuts to
make sense of their social contexts, and this makes a person's task of understanding his or her
world less cognitively demanding.[1]
Social functions: social categorization
In the following situations, the overarching purpose of stereotyping is for people to put their
collective self (their ingroup membership) in a positive light: [23]
when stereotypes are used for explaining social events
when stereotypes are used for justifying activities of one's own group (ingroup) to another group
(outgroup)
when stereotypes are used for differentiating the ingroup as positively distinct from outgroups
Explanation purposes
As mentioned previously, stereotypes can be used to explain social events. [13][23] Henri Tajfel[13]
described his observations of how some people found that the anti-Semitic contents of The Protocols
of the Elders of Zion only made sense if Jews have certain characteristics. Therefore, according to
Tajfel,[13] Jews were stereotyped as being evil and yearning for world domination to match the anti-
Semitic facts as presented in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Justification purposes
People create stereotypes of an outgroup to justify the actions that their ingroup has committed (or
plans to commit) towards that outgroup.[13][22][23] For example, according to Tajfel,[13] Europeans
stereotyped Turkish, Indian, and Chinese people as being incapable of achieving financial advances
without European help. This stereotype was used to justify European colonialism in Turkey, India,
and China.
Intergroup differentiation
An assumption is that people want their ingroup to have a positive image relative to outgroups, and
so people want to differentiate their ingroup from relevant outgroups in a desirable way. [13] If an
outgroup does not affect the ingroups image, then from an image preservation point of view, there
is no point for the ingroup to be positively distinct from that outgroup. [13]
People can actively create certain images for relevant outgroups by stereotyping. People do so when
they see that their ingroup is no longer as clearly and/or as positively differentiated from relevant
outgroups, and they want to restore the intergroup differentiation to a state that favours the
ingroup.[13][23]
Social functions: self-categorization
People will change their stereotype of their ingroups and outgroups to suit the context they are in. [3]
[23]
People are likely to self-stereotype their ingroup as homogenous in an intergroup context, and
they are less likely to do so in an intragroup context where the need to emphasise their group
membership is not as great.[23] Stereotypes can emphasise a persons group membership in two
steps: First, stereotypes emphasise the persons similarities with ingroup members on relevant
dimensions, and also the persons differences from outgroup members on relevant dimensions. [23]
Second, the more the stereotypes emphasise within-group similarities and between-group
differences, the more salient the persons social identity will become, and the more depersonalised
that person will be.[23] A depersonalised person will abandon his/her individual differences and
embrace the stereotypes associated with his/her relevant group membership. [23]
Social functions: social influence and consensus
Stereotypes are an indicator of ingroup consensus. [23] When there are intragroup disagreements over
stereotypes of the ingroup and/or outrgroups, ingroup members will take collective action to prevent
other ingroup members from diverging from each other. [23]
John C. Turner proposed in 1987[23] that if ingroup members disagree on an outgroup stereotype,
then one of three possible collective actions will follow: First, ingroup members may negotiate with
each other and conclude that they have different outgroup stereotypes because they are
stereotyping different subgroups of an outgroup (e.g., Russian gymnasts versus Russian boxers).
Second, ingroup members may negotiate with each other, but conclude that they are disagreeing
because of categorical differences amongst themselves. Accordingly, in this context, it is better to
categorise ingroup members under different categories (e.g., Democrats versus Republican) than
under a shared category (e.g., American). Finally, ingroup members may influence each other to
arrive at a common outgroup stereotype.
Formation
Different disciplines give different accounts of how stereotypes develop: Psychologists may focus on
an individual's experience with groups, patterns of communication about those groups, and
intergroup conflict. As for sociologists, they may focus on the relations among different groups in a
social structure. They suggest that stereotypes are the result of conflict, poor parenting, and
inadequate mental and emotional development. Once stereotypes have formed, there are two main
factors that explain their persistence. First, the cognitive effects of schematic processing (see
schema) make it so that when a member of a group behaves as we expect, the behavior confirms
and even strengthens existing stereotypes. Second, the affective or emotional aspects of prejudice
render logical arguments against stereotypes ineffective in countering the power of emotional
responses.[24]
Correspondence bias
Main article: Correspondence bias
The correspondence bias refers to the tendency to ascribe a person's behavior to her or his
disposition or personality and to underestimate the extent to which situational factors elicited the
behavior. The correspondence bias can play an important role in stereotype formation. [25]
For example, in a study by Roguer and Yzerbyt (1999) participants watched a video showing
students who were randomly instructed to find arguments either for or against euthanasia. The
students that argued in favor of euthanasia came from the same law department or from different
departments. Results showed that participants attributed the students' responses to their attitudes
although it had been made clear in the video that students had no choice about their position.
Participants reported that group membership, i.e., the department that the students belonged to,
had an impact on the students' opinions about euthanasia. Law students were perceived to be more
in favor of euthanasia than students from different departments despite the fact that a pretest had
revealed that subjects had no preexisting expectations about attitudes toward euthanasia and the
department that students belong to. The attribution error created the new stereotype that law
students are more likely to support euthanasia. [26]
Nier et al. (2012) found that people who tend to draw dispositional inferences from behavior and
ignore situational constraints are more likely to stereotype low-status groups as incompetent and
high-status groups as competent. Participants listened to descriptions of two fictitious groups of
Pacific Islanders, one of which was described as being higher in status than the other. In a second
study, subjects rated actual groups the poor and wealthy, women and men in the United States
in terms of their competence. Subjects who scored high on the measure of correspondence bias
stereotyped the poor, women, and the fictitious lower-status Pacific Islanders as incompetent
whereas they stereotyped the wealthy, men, and the high-status Pacific Islanders as competent. The
correspondence bias was a significant predictor of stereotyping even after controlling for other
measures that have been linked to beliefs about low status groups, the just-world hypothesis and
social dominance orientation.[27]
Illusory correlation
Main article: Illusory correlation
Research has shown that stereotypes can develop based on a cognitive mechanism known as
illusory correlation an erroneous inference about the relationship between two events. [1][28][29] If two
events which are statistically infrequent co-occur, observers overestimate the frequency of co-
occurrence of these events. The underlying reason is that rare, infrequent events are distinctive and
salient and, when paired, become even more so. The heightened salience results in more attention
and more effective encoding, which strengthens the belief that the events are correlated.[30][31][32]
In the intergroup context, illusory correlations lead people to misattribute rare behaviors or traits at
higher rates to minority group members than to majority groups, even when both display the same
proportion of the behaviors or traits. Black people, for instance, are a minority group in the United
States and interaction with blacks is a relatively infrequent event for an average white American.
Similarly, undesirable behavior (e.g. crime) is statistically less frequent than desirable behavior.
Since both events "blackness" and "undesirable behavior" are distinctive in the sense that they are
infrequent, the combination of the two leads observers to overestimate the rate of co-occurrence. [30]
Similarly, in workplaces where women are underrepresented and negative behaviors such as errors
occur less frequently than positive behaviors, women become more strongly associated with
mistakes than men.[33]
In a landmark study, David Hamilton and Richard Gifford (1976) examined the role of illusory
correlation in stereotype formation. Subjects were instructed to read descriptions of behaviors
performed by members of groups A and B. Negative behaviors outnumbered positive actions and
group B was smaller than group A, making negative behaviors and membership in group B relatively
infrequent and distinctive. Participants were then asked who had performed a set of actions: a
person of group A or group B. Results showed that subjects overestimated the frequency with which
both distinctive events, membership in group B and negative behavior, co-occurred, and evaluated
group B more negatively. This despite the fact the proportion of positive to negative behaviors was
equivalent for both groups and that there was no actual correlation between group membership and
behaviors.[30] Although Hamilton and Gifford found a similar effect for positive behaviors as the
infrequent events, a meta-analytic review of studies showed that illusory correlation effects are
stronger when the infrequent, distinctive information is negative. [28]
Hamilton and Gifford's distinctiveness-based explanation of stereotype formation was subsequently
extended.[31] A 1994 study by McConnell, Sherman, and Hamilton found that people formed
stereotypes based on information that was not distinctive at the time of presentation, but was
considered distinctive at the time of judgement. [34] Once a person judges non-distinctive information
in memory to be distinctive, that information is re-encoded and re-represented as if it had been
distinctive when it was first processed.[34]
Common environment
One explanation for why stereotypes are shared is that they are the result of a common
environment that stimulates people to react in the same way. [1]
The problem with the common environment explanation in general is that it does not explain how
shared stereotypes can occur without direct stimuli. [1] Research since the 1930s suggested that
people are highly similar with each other in how they describe different racial and national groups,
although those people have no personal experience with the groups they are describing. [35]
Socialization and upbringing
Another explanation says that people are socialised to adopt the same stereotypes.[1] Some
psychologists believe that although stereotypes can be absorbed at any age, stereotypes are
usually acquired in early childhood under the influence of parents, teachers, peers, and the media.
If stereotypes are defined by social values, then stereotypes will only change as per changes in
social values.[1] The suggestion that stereotype content depend on social values reflects Walter
Lippman's argument in his 1922 publication that stereotypes are rigid because they cannot be
changed at will.[10]
Studies emerging since the 1940s refuted the suggestion that stereotype contents cannot be
changed at will. Those studies suggested that one groups stereotype of another group would
become more or less positive depending on whether their intergroup relationship had improved or
degraded.[10][36][37] Intergroup events (e.g., World War Two, Persian Gulf conflict) often changed
intergroup relationships. For example, after WWII, Black American students held a more negative
stereotype of people from countries that were the USAs WWII enemies. [10] If there are no changes to
an intergroup relationship, then relevant stereotypes will not change. [11]
Intergroup relations
According to a third explanation, shared stereotypes are neither caused by the coincidence of
common stimuli, nor by socialisation. This explanation posits that stereotypes are shared because
group members are motivated to behave in certain ways, and stereotypes reflect those behaviours.
[1]
It is important to note from this explanation that stereotypes are the consequence, not the cause,
of intergroup relations. This explanation assumes that when it is important for people to
acknowledge both their ingroup and outgroup, then those people will aim to emphasise their
difference from outgroup members, and their similarity to ingroup members. [1]
Activation
The dual-process model of cognitive processing of stereotypes asserts that automatic activation of
stereotypes is followed by a controlled processing stage, during which an individual may choose to
disregard or ignore the stereotyped information that has been brought to mind. [12]
A number of studies have found that stereotypes are activated automatically. Patricia Devine (1989),
for example, suggested that stereotypes are automatically activated in the presence of a member
(or some symbolic equivalent) of a stereotyped group and that the unintentional activation of the
stereotype is equally strong for high- and low-prejudice persons. Words related to the cultural
stereotype of blacks were presented subliminally. During an ostensibly unrelated impression-
formation task, subjects read a paragraph describing a race-unspecified target person's behaviors
and rated the target person on several trait scales. Results showed that participants who received a
high proportion of racial words rated the target person in the story as significantly more hostile than
participants who were presented with a lower proportion of words related to the stereotype. This
effect held true for both high- and low-prejudice subjects (as measured by the Modern Racism
Scale). Thus, the racial stereotype was activated even for low-prejudice individuals who did not
personally endorse it.[12][38][39] Studies using alternative priming methods have shown that the
activation of gender and age stereotypes can also be automatic. [40][41]
Subsequent research suggested that the relation between category activation and stereotype
activation was more complex.[39][42] Lepore and Brown (1997), for instance, noted that the words
used in Devine's study were both neutral category labels (e.g., "Blacks") and stereotypic attributes
(e.g., "lazy"). They argued that if only the neutral category labels were presented, people high and
low in prejudice would respond differently. In a design similar to Devine's, Lepore and Brown primed
the category of African-Americans using labels such as "blacks" and "West Indians" and then
assessed the differential activation of the associated stereotype in the subsequent impression-
formation task. They found that high-prejudice participants increased their ratings of the target
person on the negative stereotypic dimensions and decreased them on the positive dimension
whereas low-prejudice subjects tended in the opposite direction. The results suggest that the level
of prejudice and stereotype endorsement affects people's judgements when the category and not
the stereotype per se is primed.[43]
Research has shown that people can be trained to activate counterstereotypic information and
thereby reduce the automatic activation of negative stereotypes. In a study by Kawakami et al.
(2000), for example, participants were presented with a category label and taught to respond "No"
to stereotypic traits and "Yes" to nonstereotypic traits. After this training period, subjects showed
reduced stereotype activation.[44][45] This effect is based on the learning of new and more positive
stereotypes rather than the negation of already existing ones. [45]
Automatic behavioral outcomes
Empirical evidence suggests that stereotype activation can automatically influence social behavior.
[46][47][48][49]
For example, Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) activated the stereotype of the elderly
among half of their participants by administering a scrambled-sentence test where participants saw
words related to age stereotypes. Subjects primed with the stereotype walked significantly slower
than the control group (although the test did not include any words specifically referring to
slowness), thus acting in a way that the stereotype suggests that elderly people will act. In another
experiment, Bargh, Chen, and Burrows also found that because the stereotype about blacks includes
the notion of aggression, subliminal exposure to black faces increased the likelihood that randomly
selected white college students reacted with more aggression and hostility than participants who
subconsciously viewed a white face.[50] Similarly, Correll et al. (2002) showed that activated
stereotypes about blacks can influence people's behavior. In a series of experiments, black and
white participants played a video game, in which a black or white person was shown holding a gun
or a harmless object (e.g., a mobile phone). Participants had to decide as quickly as possible
whether to shoot the target. When the target person was armed, both black and white participants
were faster in deciding to shoot the target when he was black than when he was white. When the
target was unarmed, the participants avoided shooting him more quickly when he was white. Time
pressure made the shooter bias even more pronounced. [51]
Accuracy

A magazine feature from Beauty Parade from March 1952 stereotyping women drivers. It features
Bettie Page as the model.
Stereotypes can be efficient shortcuts and sense-making tools. They can, however, keep people
from processing new or unexpected information about each individual, thus biasing the impression
formation process.[1] Early researchers believed that stereotypes were inaccurate representations of
reality.[35] A series of pioneering studies which appeared in the 1930s found no empirical support for
widely held racial stereotypes. [10] By the mid-1950s, Gordon Allport wrote that "it is possible for a
stereotype to grow in defiance of all evidence". [22]
Research on the role of illusory correlations in the formation of stereotypes suggests that
stereotypes can develop because of incorrect inferences about the relationship between two events
(e.g., membership in a social group and bad or good attributes). This means that at least some
stereotypes are inaccurate.[28][30][32][34]
There is empirical social science research which shows that stereotypes are often accurate. [52] Jussim
et al. reviewed four studies concerning racial and seven studies which examined gender stereotypes
about demographic characteristics, academic achievement, personality and behavior. Based on that,
the authors argued that some aspects of ethnic and gender stereotypes are accurate while
stereotypes concerning political affiliation and nationality are much less accurate. [53] A study by
Terracciano et al. also found that stereotypic beliefs about nationality do not reflect the actual
personality traits of people from different cultures. [54]
Effects
Attributional ambiguity
Main article: Attributional ambiguity
Attributional ambiguity refers to the uncertainty that members of stereotyped groups experience in
interpreting the causes of others' behavior toward them. Stereotyped individuals who receive
negative feedback can attribute it either to personal shortcomings, such as lack of ability or poor
effort, or the evaluator's stereotypes and prejudice toward their social group. Alternatively, positive
feedback can either be attributed to personal merit or discounted as a form of sympathy or pity.[55]
[56][57]

Crocker et al. (1991) showed that when black participants were evaluated by a white person who
was aware of their race, black subjects mistrusted the feedback, attributing negative feedback to
the evaluator's stereotypes and positive feedback to the evaluator's desire to appear unbiased.
When the black participants race was unknown to the evaluator, they were more accepting of the
feedback.[58]
Attributional ambiguity has been shown to impact a person's self-esteem. When they receive
positive evaluations, stereotyped individuals are uncertain of whether they really deserved their
success and, consequently, they find it difficult to take credit for their achievements. In the case of
negative feedback, ambiguity has been shown to have a protective effect on self-esteem as it allows
people to assign blame to external causes. Some studies, however, have found that this effect only
holds when stereotyped individuals can be absolutely certain that their negative outcomes are due
to the evaluators's prejudice. If any room for uncertainty remains, stereotyped individuals tend to
blame themselves.[56]
Attributional ambiguity can also make it difficult to assess one's skills because performance-related
evaluations are mistrusted or discounted. Moreover, it can lead to the belief that one's efforts are
not directly linked to the outcomes, thereby depressing one's motivation to succeed.[55]
Stereotype threat

The effect of stereotype threat (ST) on math test scores for girls and boys. Data from Osborne
(2007).[59]
Main article: Stereotype threat
Stereotype threat occurs when people are aware of a negative stereotype about their social group
and experience anxiety or concern that they might confirm the stereotype. [60] Stereotype threat has
been shown to undermine performance in a variety of domains. [61][62]
Claude M. Steele and Joshua Aronson conducted the first experiments showing that stereotype
threat can depress intellectual performance on standardized tests. In one study, they found that
black college students performed worse than white students on a verbal test when the task was
framed as a measure of intelligence. When it was not presented in that manner, the performance
gap narrowed. Subsequent experiments showed that framing the test as diagnostic of intellectual
ability made black students more aware of negative stereotypes about their group, which in turn
impaired their performance.[63]
Stereotype threat effects have been demonstrated for an array of social groups in many different
arenSelf-fulfilling prophecy
Main article: Self-fulfilling prophecy
Stereotypes lead people to expect certain actions from members of social groups. These stereotype-
based expectations may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies, in which one's inaccurate expectations
about a person's behavior, through social interaction, prompt that person to act in stereotype-
consistent ways, thus confirming one's erroneous expectations and validating the stereotype. [67][68][69]
Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974) demonstrated the effects of stereotypes in the context of a job
interview. White participants interviewed black and white subjects who, prior to the experiments,
had been trained to act in a standardized manner. Analysis of the videotaped interviews showed
that black job applicants were treated differently: They received shorter amounts of interview time
and less eye contact; interviewers made more speech errors (e.g., stutters, sentence incompletions,
incoherent sounds) and physically distanced themselves from black applicants. In a second
experiment, trained interviewers were instructed to treat applicants, all of whom were white, like the
whites or blacks had been treated in the first experiment. As a result, applicants treated like the
blacks of the first experiment behaved in a more nervous manner and received more negative
performance ratings than interviewees receiving the treatment previously afforded to whites. [70]
A 1977 study by Snyder, Tanke, and Berscheid found a similar pattern in social interactions between
men and women. Male undergraduate students were asked to talk to female undergraduates, whom
they believed to be physically attractive or unattractive, on the phone. The conversations were
taped and analysis showed that men who thought that they were talking to an attractive woman
communicated in a more positive and friendlier manner than men who believed that they were
talking to unattractive women. This altered the women's behavior: Female subjects who,
unknowingly to them, were perceived to be physically attractive behaved in a friendly, likeable, and
sociable manner in comparison with subjects who were regarded as unattractive. [71]
Discrimination
Because stereotypes simplify and justify social reality, they have potentially powerful effects on how
people perceive and treat one another.[72] As a result, stereotypes can lead to discrimination in labor
markets and other domains.[73] For example, Tilcsik (2011) has found that employers who seek job
applicants with stereotypically male heterosexual traits are particularly likely to engage in
discrimination against gay men, suggesting that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is
partly rooted in specific stereotypes and that these stereotypes loom large in many labor markets. [14]
Agerstrm and Rooth (2011) showed that automatic obesity stereotypes captured by the Implicit
Association Test can predict real hiring discrimination against the obese. [74] Similarly, experiments
suggest that gender stereotypes play an important role in judgments that affect hiring decisions.[75]
[76]

Self-stereotyping
Main article: Self-stereotyping
Stereotypes can affect self-evaluations and lead to self-stereotyping. [3][77] For instance, Correll (2001,
2004) found that specific stereotypes (e.g., the stereotype that women have lower mathematical
ability) affect women's and men's evaluations of their abilities (e.g., in math and science), such that
men assess their own task ability higher than women performing at the same level. [78][79] Similarly, a
study by Sinclair et al. (2006) has shown that Asian American women rated their math ability more
favorably when their ethnicity and the relevant stereotype that Asian Americans excel in math was
made salient. In contrast, they rated their math ability less favorably when their gender and the
corresponding stereotype of women's inferior math skills was made salient. Sinclair et al. found,
however, that the effect of stereotypes on self-evaluations is mediated by the degree to which close
people in someone's life endorse these stereotypes. People's self-stereotyping can increase or
decrease depending on whether close others view them in stereotype-consistent or inconsistent
manner.[80]
Stereotyping can also play a central role in depression, when people have negative self-stereotypes
about themselves, according to Cox, Abramson, Devine, and Hollon (2012).[3] This depression that is
caused by prejudice (i.e., "deprejudice") can be related to a group membership (e.g., MeGayBad)
or not (e.g., MeBad). If someone holds prejudicial beliefs about a stigmatized group and then
becomes a member of that group, they may internalize their prejudice and develop depression.
People may also show prejudice internalization through self-stereotyping because of negative
childhood experiences such as verbal and physical abuse. [citation needed]
Role in art and culture
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by
adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(February 2012)
American political cartoon titled The Usual Irish Way of Doing Things, depicting a drunken Irishman
lighting a powder keg and swinging a bottle. Published in Harper's Weekly, 1871.
Stereotypes are common in various cultural media, where they take the form of dramatic stock
characters. These characters are found in the works of playwright Bertold Brecht, Dario Fo, and
Jacques Lecoq, who characterize their actors as stereotypes for theatrical effect. In commedia
dell'arte this is similarly common. The instantly recognizable nature of stereotypes mean that they
are effective in advertising and situation comedy. These stereotypes change, and in modern times
only a few of the stereotyped characters shown in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress would be
recognizable.
Media stereotypes of women first emerged in the early 20th century. Various stereotypic depictions
or "types" of women appeared in magazines, including Victorian ideals of femininity, the New
Woman, the Gibson Girl, the Femme fatale, and the Flapper.[81] More recently, artists such as Anne
Taintor and Matthew Weiner (the producer of Mad Men) have used vintage images or ideas to insert
their own commentary of stereotypes for specific eras. Weiner's character Peggy Olson continually
battles gender stereotypes throughout the series, excelling in a workplace dominated by men.
Some contemporary studies indicate that racial, ethnic and cultural stereotypes are still widespread
in Hollywood blockbuster movies. [82] Portrayals of Latin Americans in film and print media are
restricted to a narrow set of characters. Latin Americans are largely depicted as sexualized figures
such as the Latino macho or the Latina vixen, gang members, (illegal) immigrants, or entertainers.
By comparison, they are rarely portrayed as working professionals, business leaders or politicians. [83]
In literature and art, stereotypes are clichd or predictable characters or situations. Throughout
history, storytellers have drawn from stereotypical characters and situations, in order to connect the
audience with new tales immediately. Sometimes such stereotypes can be sophisticated, such as
Shakespeare's Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. Arguably a stereotype that becomes complex and
sophisticated ceases to be a stereotype per se by its unique characterization. Thus while Shylock
remains politically unstable in being a stereotypical Jew, the subject of prejudicial derision in
Shakespeare's era, his many other detailed features raise him above a simple stereotype and into a
unique character, worthy of modern performance. Simply because one feature of a character can be
categorized as being typical does not make the entire character a stereotype.
Despite their proximity in etymological roots, clich and stereotype are not used synonymously in
cultural spheres. For example a clich is a high criticism in narratology where genre and
categorization automatically associates a story within its recognizable group. Labeling a situation or
character in a story as typical suggests it is fitting for its genre or category. Whereas declaring that a
storyteller has relied on clich is to pejoratively observe a simplicity and lack of originality in the
tale. To criticize Ian Fleming for a stereotypically unlikely escape for James Bond would be
understood by the reader or listener, but it would be more appropriately criticized as a clich in that
it is overused and reproduced. Narrative genre relies heavily on typical features to remain
recognizable and generate meaning in the reader/viewer.
as, including not only academics but also sports, [64] chess[65] and business.