See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316565007

Stereotypes of Stay-at-Home and Working Mothers

Article  in  Southern Communication Journal · March 2017

DOI: 10.1080/1041794X.2017.1287214

CITATIONS READS

12 952

2 authors:

Kelly G. Odenweller Christine E. Rittenour

Iowa State University West Virginia University
9 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   375 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kelly G. Odenweller on 23 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Southern Communication Journal

ISSN: 1041-794X (Print) 1930-3203 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsjc20

Stereotypes of Stay-at-Home and Working Mothers

Kelly G. Odenweller & Christine E. Rittenour

To cite this article: Kelly G. Odenweller & Christine E. Rittenour (2017) Stereotypes of
Stay-at-Home and Working Mothers, Southern Communication Journal, 82:2, 57-72, DOI:
10.1080/1041794X.2017.1287214

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2017.1287214

Published online: 01 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 35

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsjc20

Download by: [Iowa State University], [Kelly Odenweller] Date: 02 May 2017, At: 07:58
SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL
2017, VOL. 82, NO. 2, 57–72
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2017.1287214

Stereotypes of Stay-at-Home and Working Mothers

Kelly G. Odenwellera and Christine E. Rittenourb
a
Communication Studies Program, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA; bDepartment of Communication Studies,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
To empirically investigate the conjectured rivalry between stay-at-home Intergroup communication;
mothers (SAHMs) and working mothers (WMs), we focused on stereotypes stay-at-home mothers;
stereotypes; warmth and
and attitudes about these two mother subgroups. In Study 1, mothers and competence; working
nonmothers (N = 672) identified the content of 28 SAHM stereotypes and mothers
21 WM stereotypes. In Study 2, different mothers and nonmothers (N = 499)
reported on the stereotypes’ prevalence and valence. Principal components
analyses evidenced six prevalent stereotype profiles for SAHMs and five
prevalent stereotype profiles for WMs. Between-group differences (i.e.,
SAHMs, WMs, and nonmothers) emerged for stereotype prevalence, cogni-
tive dimensions of ingroup/outgroup attitudes (i.e., warmth and compe-
tence), and outgroup homogeneity. These results demonstrate the
combative intergroup nature of these mother subgroups and sexism sur-
rounding the idealization of motherhood.

Although feminism has brought U.S. women many opportunities in both public and private
domains, sexism endures. Evidence of this includes misconceptions that all women fully choose
their place at home and/or at work (see Williams, 2009 for commentary regarding the “opt-out
revolution”), daunting expectations that women continue the majority of household responsibilities,
even if they work longer hours than men (see Coltrane, 2000), and the illusionary correlation
between the availability of work–family policies and career advancement (e.g., Buzzanell, 1995;
Kirby & Krone, 2002). In comparison to other prejudicial acts, these examples seem insignificant
to some and may be fueling opinions that gender equality is achieved and feminism is no longer
needed (Erchull et al., 2009). However, prejudicial acts such as those mentioned here are of
consequence, both explicitly and through the complacency they evoke (Becker & Wright, 2011).
Because prejudicial acts are guided by prejudicial thinking (Oakes, 2008), we focus on the cognitive
dimensions of prejudice toward women. As society considers motherhood a strong component of
what it means to be a “good woman” (Koropeckyj-Cox, Romano, & Moras, 2007) and further
evaluates mothers based on binary mother–worker identities (Johnston & Swanson, 2006), we
explored stereotypes and attitudes of stay-at-home mothers (SAHMs) and working mothers
(WMs). Specifically, we surveyed two different samples of SAHMs, WMs, and nonmothers (a) to
identify the content, prevalence, and valence of SAHM and WM stereotypes (RQ), (b) to reveal
ingroup favoritism and outgroup homogeneity (H1 and H2), (c) and to assess perceptions of SAHMs’
and WMs’ warmth and competence (H3).

Intergroup communication and motherhood

According to foundational intergroup communication theories (e.g., social identity theory, self-
categorization theory; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987),

CONTACT Kelly G. Odenweller kellyo@iastate.edu Communication Studies Program, Iowa State University, 346 Carver
Hall, Ames, IA 50010, USA.
© 2017 Southern States Communication Association
58 K. G. ODENWELLER AND C. E. RITTENOUR

salient social identities (e.g., age, race, gender) elicit self- and other categorization and, as a result,
create arbitrary in-group/out-group distinctions. Individuals are motivated to draw in-group/out-
group comparisons in order to maintain positive perceptions of their social group and, by extension,
themselves as members of that social group. As the mothering role is central to all mothers’ identities
(Graham, Sorell, & Montgomery, 2004), mothers are motived to categorize themselves and other
mothers into in- and out-groups in order to promote favorable impressions of their mothering
competence. The media depicts these in-group/out-group divisions as the cultural “mommy wars,”
intense rivalries among mothers based on socially constructed dichotomies of parenting roles,
behaviors, and/or choices (Moore & Abetz, 2016; Zimmerman, Aberle, Krafchick, & Harvey,
2008). The socially constructed dichotomization of mothers as either primarily caregivers committed
to family formation and childrearing or paid workers invested in their own education and career
aspirations (Arendell, 2000) has influenced one of the most prominent “mommy wars”: the war
between SAHMs and WMs (Dillaway & Pare, 2008; Johnston & Swanson, 2004). This SAHM/WM
“war” is consistent with other intergroup conflicts in which exaggerated between-group differences
lead to stereotyping and prejudicial attitudes toward out-group members (e.g., Hummert & Garstka,
1995; Stephan & Stephan, 1996). This serves as a rationale for our targeted exploration of the specific
stereotypes and attitudes about SAHMs and WMs in order to better understand, and eventually
improve, intergroup dynamics among these subgroups of mothers.
Stereotypes are overgeneralized and exaggerated “pictures in our heads” associated with social
groups’ characteristics and behaviors (Lippmann, 1922). Stereotypes are cognitively functional as
they help individuals categorize copious information from their social environments (Allport, 1954).
Thus, stereotypes follow and take shape via the rules associated with the social categorization
process: selection, accentuation, and interpretation (Allport, 1954). First, individuals select a few
characteristics, or stereotype content, on which to focus their attention for a given social group.
Second, individuals accentuate these characteristics, perceiving them as the most prevalent for a
given social group and ignoring other, possibly divergent, characteristics. Third, individuals interpret
this narrow list of prevalent characteristics by generalizing them into positively or negatively
valenced judgments of a given social group and members who exhibit stereotype-confirming
behaviors. Together, these cognitive processes provide insight into society’s ranking of groups’ social
value, relationships among groups, and cultural biases (Allport, 1954; Operario & Fiske, 2008).
Because mothers—and women in general—have historically occupied an inferior position within
patriarchal society and endure societal scrutiny of their mothering/career aspirations (Bridges,
Etaugh, & Barnes-Farrell, 2002), we sought to explore the content, prevalence, and valence of
stereotypes for SAHMs and WMs in order to illuminate cultural perceptions of motherhood and
relationships among these subgroups of mothers. Thus, the following research question asked:

RQ: What are the content, prevalence, and valence of stereotypes held about stay-at-home and
working mothers?

Individuals have a tendency to favor their perceived in-groups over their perceived out-groups
(Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987). This ingroup favoritism coincides with perceiving the
out-group’s characteristics as less diverse than the in-groups’ characteristics (Jones, Wood, &
Quattrone, 1981). This perceived out-group homogeneity makes communication “easier” by keeping
the number of out-group stereotypes to a minimum (Hewstone & Hamberger, 2000; Oakes, 2008).
As the “mommy wars” depict an intergroup contact situation among SAHMs and WMs, we expected
each participating mother to provide more characteristics (or stereotypes) for their in-(sub)group
compared to the characteristics (or stereotypes) provided for the out-(sub)group. This prediction is
reflected in the following hypothesis:

H1: Among stay-at-home and working mothers, in-group stereotypes are more prevalent than out-
group stereotypes.
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 59

In-group/out-group distinctions are fluid and contextual. Individuals cognitively “move” themselves
and others in and out of social groups based on the salience of cues in a given situation (Gaertner,
Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Turner et al., 1987). We presume SAHMs and WMs shift
from viewing themselves as members of out-groups (i.e., SAHMs, WMs) to members of the same in-
group (i.e., mothers) depending on the context. When compared to nonmothers (i.e., the out-group),
we expect mothers (i.e., the subordinate in-group for SAHMs and WMs) to have a more variable, yet
common, understanding of motherhood. Within this mother/nonmother intergroup context, non-
mothers are likely more susceptible to perceptions of out-group homogeneity compared to SAHMs
and WMs. This prediction, in terms of stereotypes, is reflected in the following hypothesis:

H2: Compared to nonmothers, stay-at-home and working mothers report greater prevalence of
stereotypes about both mother subgroups.

Stereotypes emerge out of two universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence.
Warmth stems from appraisals of the degree to which the stereotyped group can help or hurt the
stereotyping individual’s group goals. The warmth dimension captures stereotypes such as “likeable,”
“nice,” and “friendly” (if the stereotyped group is perceived as helpful) or “cold,” “mean,” and
“competitive” (if the stereotyped group is perceived as hurtful). Competence stems from appraisals
of the extent to which the stereotyped group would be successful in its efforts to help/hurt the
stereotyping individual’s group goals (Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999). The competence dimension
captures stereotypes such as “able,” “high-status,” and “threatening” (if the stereotyped group is
deemed capable of helping/hurting) or “low-status,” “incompetent, and “nonthreatening” (if the
stereotyped group is deemed incapable of helping/hurting; Fiske et al., 1999). Perceptions of the
stereotyped and stereotyping groups’ interdependence and relative status influence perceptions of
warmth and competence, respectively.
Although some groups are perceived to be high or low on both warmth and competence dimensions,
societal perceptions reflect ambivalent belief systems in which many groups are perceived to be high on
one dimension and low on the other (i.e., high warmth/low competence; low warmth/high compe-
tence). Most importantly to our studies are the ambivalent—yet shifting—gendered belief systems for
female subgroups. Initial explorations (e.g., Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Fiske et al., 1999) revealed
societal views of housewives as warm but incompetent and feminists and businesswomen as cold but
competent. Later shifts in cultural perceptions of women afforded housewives more, and feminists and
businesswomen less, competence (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2004, 2007). Although “housewife” and
“feminist” are not synonymous with “stay-at-home mother” and “working mother,” we draw parallels
between women who dominate the domestic sphere (i.e., SAHMs and housewives) and women who
embody nontraditional female roles (i.e., WMs and feminists). Thus, we predicted:

H3: Stay-at-home mothers are perceived as warmer and more competent than working mothers.

Study 1
The objective of Study 1 was to reveal the content of stereotypes about SAHMs and WMs (the first
component of the RQ) with a sample of mothers and nonmothers. Using the stereotype content that
answered the first component of the RQ, Study 1 also provided preliminary evidence for mothers’ in-
group favoritism (H1).

Method
Participants
To ensure a wide range of responses, 672 nonmothers (n = 322, 47.92%) and mothers (n = 350,
52.08%) were recruited via two sampling techniques. The first sampling technique (n = 538, 80.06%)
60 K. G. ODENWELLER AND C. E. RITTENOUR

involved undergraduate students enrolled in communication studies courses at a large, Mid-Atlantic

university. Undergraduate students were awarded extra credit for recruiting qualified mothers (i.e.,
18-year-old women with at least one child) or nonmothers (i.e., childless men and women) from
their families and social networks. The second sampling technique (n = 134, 19.94%) involved
announcements posted to Facebook, university/company intranets, and other Web sites, discussion
forums, and blogs. In the recruitment messages, the researchers informed participants that they were
involved in a research study focused on motherhood.
Participants represented a wide range of demographics. Nonmothers were men (n = 100, 31.06%)
and women (n = 222, 68.94%) who ranged in age from 18 to 60 (M = 21.46, SD = 4.70) and were
predominantly single (n = 193, 59.94%) and Caucasian (n = 260, 80.70%). Mothers, were asked to
self-identify as a SAHM (n = 121; 18.01%) or WM (n = 223; 33.18%), ranged in age from 18 to 58 (M
= 39.82, SD = 9.09) and were predominantly married (n = 297, 84.90%), Caucasian (n = 311,
88.90%), and heterosexual (n = 350, 95.43%). As group identification is the crux of intergroup
communication (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), mothers’ self-identification with the SAHM/WM social
groups serve as optimal grounds for conducting an intergroup communication study on stereotypes.
The majority of mothers (n = 315, 90.00%) had one to three children.

Procedures
Following recruitment, participants provided their consent and completed a 10-minute online
questionnaire that assessed basic demographic information and the content of SAHMs’ and WMs’
stereotypes. Based on procedures used in previous stereotype research (e.g., Hummert, Garstka,
Shaner, & Strahm, 1994; Ruble & Zhang, 2013; Wade & Brewer, 2006), stereotype content was
assessed via two open-ended questions—one for SAHMs and one for WMs. The questions instructed
participants to describe typical characteristics of SAHMs and WMs using as many words or phrases
they associate or have heard others associate with these mothers regardless if they consider these
descriptions to be accurate representations of these social groups. This process (and inclusion of
nonmother participants) minimized the potential for participants’ responses to be biased by their
own in-group favoritism and out-group prejudices and allowed both positive and negative attributes
to be revealed.

Results
The RQ asked about the content, prevalence, and valence of stereotypes held about SAHMs and
WMs. The first step to answering the RQ was to identify the content of stereotypes held about
SAHMs and WMs.
In accordance with previous stereotype research (e.g., Hummert et al., 1994; Ruble & Zhang,
2013; Wade & Brewer, 2006), the first and second authors collaboratively compiled the 5,523
characteristics provided by participants into categories of SAHM and WM stereotypes via the
following four steps. The characteristics that emerged as the most frequent stereotypes through
these coding procedures and subsequent statistical procedures have been retrospectively italicized.
First, identical or synonymous characteristics (e.g., “homemaker,” “housewife,” “housekeeper,”
“maid,” “takes care of household chores”) within the same target group (SAHMs, WMs) were
collapsed into major categories (e.g., domestic), resulting in 101 categories for SAHMs and 93
categories for WMs. Second, comparative words and phrases that were kept separate from non-
comparative characteristics during the first stage (84 for SAHMs and 88 for WMs) were subsumed
under the relevant categories (e.g., “better mom than working mom” placed within ideal mom
category). Third, categories that appeared to represent similar themes (e.g., lucky, wealthy, and
spoiled), but were at first separated due to their incongruent valences, were further collapsed, which
resulted in the final 73 distinct categories for SAHMs and 78 distinct categories for WMs. Fourth,
vague or nontrait descriptors (e.g., “great,” “babies,” “ramen noodles”) and descriptors that diverged
from the instructions (e.g., “different as snowflakes, all have different motivations and situation at
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 61

home”; “I know several stay-at-home mothers, no two are exactly the alike”) were removed, resulting
in 36 deletions.
Also in accordance with previous stereotype research (e.g., Hummert et al., 1994; Ruble & Zhang,
2013; Wade & Brewer, 2006), we determined stereotype frequency via two steps. First, we calculated
the number of stereotypes listed within each of the 73 SAHM and 78 WM categories. Categories with
frequencies of at least 10% of the overall sample (i.e., 67 stereotypes) were considered the most
frequent stereotype categories. At this step, there were 14 SAHM (e.g., domestic, caring, involved in
children’s lives) and 12 WM (e.g., busy, determined, hardworking) stereotype categories. Second, to
increase the utility of this initial investigation, we also followed Ruble and Zhang’s (2013) procedures
to determine frequency based on a binomial distribution of participants (N = 672) and stereotype
categories (i.e., 73 for SAHMs and 78 for WMs). The results of the binominal distribution demon-
strated 37 (p < .001) as a statistically significant critical frequency value for SAHM stereotypes and 39
(p < .001) as a statistically significant critical frequency value for WM stereotypes. Thus, the final
frequency counts revealed 28 total SAHM stereotype categories mentioned by at least 37 participants
and 21 total WM stereotype categories mentioned by at least 39 participants. The first author can
provide the full list of stereotypes and their frequencies upon request.
H1 predicted that, among SAHMs and WMs, in-group stereotypes are more prevalent than out-
group stereotypes. To determine the number of in- and out-group stereotypes provided by mothers,
we tallied the units of analysis (within the stereotype content data described above for the RQ)
provided by each subgroup for each subgroup. To capture the complexity of mothers’ perceptions,
we employed this procedure prior to grouping the stereotypes into categories. Results of this
procedure demonstrated that SAHMs provided 635 stereotypes for SAHMs and 454 stereotypes
for WMs, and WMs provided 886 stereotypes for SAHMs and 823 stereotypes for WMs.
To substantiate these results statistically, two paired-samples t tests were conducted. Results of the
first t test demonstrated that the number of stereotypes SAHMs provided for their in-group (M =
5.25, SD = 3.69, mode = 4, range = 1–25) was significantly greater than the number of stereotypes
SAHMs provided for the out-group (M = 3.75, SD = 2.43, mode = 3, range = 1–15), t(119) = 6.74, p
< .001. The results of the second t test demonstrated that WMs provided significantly more
stereotypes for the out-group (M = 3.97, SD = 2.27, mode = 3, range = 1-13) compared to the
number of stereotypes WMs provided for their in-group (M = 3.69, SD = 2.02, mode = 3, range =
1–14), t(222) = 2.54, p = .01. Thus, H1 was partially supported as both SAHMs and WMs provided
more stereotypes for SAHMs.

Discussion
Adding complexity to the way society thinks about and behaves toward subgroups of women, Study
1 revealed the characteristics that comprise stereotype content associated with SAHMs and WMs.
The stereotype content reinforces other researchers’ subgroupings of women and mothers (e.g.,
Johnston & Swanson, 2003; Wade & Brewer, 2006) and evidence enduring scrutiny of motherhood
from mothers and nonmothers alike. References to mothers’ (lack of) warmth (e.g., loving, selfish,
nurturing) and (in)competence (e.g., determined, lazy, hardworking, aimless), heteronormativity (e.g.,
references to heterosexual partnerships), and criticisms of nontraditional female behaviors (e.g.,
uninvolved with children’s lives, work-focused, independent) illustrate the oppressive ways these
“warring” women are perceived.
Adjacent to stereotype content, we uncovered preliminary evidence that SAHMs exhibit greater
in-group bias than WMs. Previous research has demonstrated that women generate more subgroups
for their female in-groups than men generate for female out-groups or their own male in-groups
(Rudman & Goodwin, 2004; Wade & Brewer, 2006). Our findings extend this notion by demonstrat-
ing that SAHMs are even more likely than WMs—despite both being women and part of one,
superordinate mother group—to differentiate their in-group via more stereotypes. Drawing upon
62 K. G. ODENWELLER AND C. E. RITTENOUR

these findings, we designed Study 2 to expand our understanding of in- and out-group attitudes
toward SAHMs and WMs.

Study 2
Using the stereotype content identified in Study 1, the objective of Study 2 was to address the
prevalence and valence of stereotypes about SAHMs and WMs (the second and third components of
the RQ) with a new sample of mothers and nonmothers. Using the stereotype prevalence that
answered the second component of the RQ, Study 2 provided further evidence for mothers’ in-group
favoritism (H1) and new evidence for nonmothers’ out-group homogeneity (H2). Finally, Study 2
also revealed societal perceptions of SAHMs and WMs’ warmth and competence (H3).

Method
Participants
Similar to the sample in Study 1, 499 nonmothers (n = 224; 44.09%) and mothers (n = 275; 55.10%)
were recruited primarily via Facebook announcements (n = 475, 95.19%). A smaller portion of
participants were recruited via undergraduate students in communication studies courses at a large,
Mid-Atlantic university (n = 24, 4.81%). In the recruitment messages, the researchers informed
participants that they were involved in a research study focused on traits of SAHMs and WMs.
Participants represented a wide range of demographics. Nonmothers were men (n = 70, 31.25%)
and women (n = 154, 68.75%) who ranged in age from 18 to 61 (M = 27.88, SD = 7.80) and were
predominantly Caucasian (n = 167, 74.60%). Nonmothers were almost equally single (n = 68,
30.40%), engaged or in a long-term, committed relationship (n = 58, 25.90%), and married (n =
50, 22.30%). Mothers, who were asked to self-identify as a SAHM (n = 130; 47.30%) or WM (n =
145; 52.70%), ranged in age from 18 to 57 (M = 33.24, SD = 6.88) and were predominantly married
(n = 192, 69.80%), Caucasian (n = 218, 79.30%), and heterosexual (n = 226, 82.18%). As mentioned
in Study 1, mothers’ self-identification with the SAHM/WM social groups was sufficient for con-
ducting an intergroup communication study on stereotypes. The majority of mothers (n = 215,
78.10%) had one to three children.

Procedures
Following recruitment, participants provided their consent and completed a 10-minute online
questionnaire that assessed basic demographic information and the prevalence and valence of the
final 43 stereotypes revealed in Study 1. Because multistudy designs more rigorously and robustly
reduce (and validate) data compared to factor-analyzing data provided by one sample (Osborne &
Fitzpatrick, 2012), it was important to begin Study 2 with the entire list of stereotypes and, then, to
perform principle components analysis with the prevalence and valence data provided by a new
sample of mothers and nonmothers.
Prevalence and valence were assessed in accordance with procedures outlined by Ruble and
Zhang (2013). To assess prevalence, participants used a 10-point Likert scale to indicate the
percentage of mothers in each subgroup perceived to possess each trait. Specifically, participants
were instructed to choose 0% if they thought no SAHM/WM possessed a particular trait and choose
100% if they thought all SAHM/WM possessed a particular trait. To assess valence, participants used
a 7-point Likert scale to indicate the degree to which they perceived each trait as unfavorable (1) or
favorable (7) without a particular target in mind. To ensure the combination of participants’
attitudes toward SAHMs and WMs and perceptions of a trait’s prevalence within these subgroups
did not influence their assessments of the individual traits’ favorability, valence was assessed before
prevalence.
In accordance with Cuddy et al.’s (2007) procedures, warmth and competence were assessed by
asking participants to rate each subgroup of mothers on four items using a 5-point Likert scale
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 63

ranging from not at all (1) to extremely (5). These items were the following: “As viewed by most
Americans, how [competent, capable, warm, friendly] are stay-at-home/working mothers?” The
intraclass correlation (ICC) suggests acceptable reliability for SAHM competence (ICC = .67, p <
.01; M = 3.30, SD = 0.85), for SAHM warmth (ICC = .47, p < .01; M = 4.20, SD = 0.62), for WM
competence (ICC = .60, p < .01; M = 4.09, SD = 0.74), and for WM warmth (ICC = .59, p < .01; M =
2.97, SD = 0.23).

Results
The RQ asked about the content, prevalence, and valence of stereotypes held about SAHMs and
WMs. After identifying the content of SAHM and WM stereotypes in Study 1 (the first step), the
second step to answering the RQ was to address each stereotype’s degree of prevalence within both
mother subgroups. As descriptive statistics provide preliminary evidence of the 43 stereotypes’
prevalence, see Table 1 for the means and standard deviations of the percentages of SAHMs and
WMs perceived to possess each stereotype.
To provide greater specificity around the extensive list of stereotypes and to create profiles of
SAHMs and WMs based on the most prevalent stereotypes for each mother subgroup, two inde-
pendent principal components analyses (PCAs) with varimax rotation were conducted on the 43
stereotypes. To be retained in the final solutions, items had to obtain eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater,
account for at least 5% of the total solution’s variance, appear before the bend in a scree plot, obtain
minimum primary component loadings of .50 and obtain maximum discrepancies of .20 between
primary and secondary component loadings (Hatcher, 1994).
For the SAHM group, the analysis was run four times, eliminating items that fell below the
minimum requirements during each iteration.1 The final iteration revealed a six-component, 23-
item solution (see Table 2), which accounted for 59.86% of total variance. The stereotypes that
clustered together based on their primary loadings onto the final six components appear to
comprise six descriptive profiles of SAHMs. In accordance with their ordered listing in Table 2,
we labeled these clusters as follows: busy and overworked; executive of the home; lazy, selfish, and
lost; ideal mother; balancing work, family, and life; and traditional/nontraditional woman. These
labels were based primarily on the highest loading stereotype(s) within each cluster and—given
the within-cluster similarity between stereotypes—captured the shared meaning of all stereotypes
within each cluster.
For the WM group, the analysis was run three times, eliminating items that fell below the
minimum requirements during each iteration.2 The final iteration revealed a five-component, 20-
item solution (see Table 3), which accounted for 62.31% of the total variance. The stereotypes that
clustered together based on their primary loadings onto the final five components appear to
comprise five descriptive profiles of WMs. In accordance with their ordered listing in Table 3, we
labeled these clusters as follows: overworked with no free time; determined and hardworking; flexible
and family-oriented; supermom; and nontraditional helicopter parent. Although the WM profiles
were generally labeled in accordance with the highest loading stereotype(s) within each cluster,
“helicopter parent” was selected for its encapsulation of the traits subsumed within this profile
(Kantrowitz & Tyre, 2006) and because it was a phrase participants specifically mentioned in tandem
with other traits within this profile.
The third step to answering the RQ was to address the valence of each SAHM and WM stereotype
identified in Study 1. Stereotypes ranged from highly favorable (e.g., loving, dedicated, caring) to
unfavorable (e.g., lazy, uninvolved, selfish). See Table 1 for means and standard deviations for the
favorability of all 43 stereotypes.
H1 and H2 involved stereotype prevalence according to each participant group. H1 predicted that,
among SAHMs and WMs, in-group stereotypes would be more prevalent than out-group stereo-
types. H2 predicted that, compared to nonmothers, SAHMs and WMs would report greater pre-
valence of stereotypes about both mother subgroups. Two multivariate analyses of variance
64 K. G. ODENWELLER AND C. E. RITTENOUR

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Stereotype Prevalence within Stay-at-Home and Working Subgroups and Stereotype
Valence.
Stereotype % of Stay-at-Home Mothersa % of Working Mothersa Favorabilityb
Aimless 34.66 (19.82) 27.95 (18.36) 1.69 (1.02)
Balancing work, family, & life 69.34 (29.38) 85.50 (21.46) 6.46 (1.00)
Busy 89.00 (21.29) 100.73 (12.11) 4.36 (1.22)
Caregiver 100.41 (12.94) 84.53 (19.27) 6.07 (1.09)
Caring 93.82 (15.55) 91.41 (14.90) 6.61 (0.74)
Crafty 70.39 (20.07) 62.48 (20.29) 5.22 (1.28)
Dedicated 90.88 (17.89) 92.60 (15.12) 6.64 (0.70)
Determined 82.33 (21.10) 94.88 (14.06) 6.49 (0.82)
Domestic 84.89 (19.14) 64.11 (19.95) 4.72 (1.31)
Executive of the home 79.50 (23.87) 73.73 (21.83) 4.61 (1.43)
Family oriented 95.42 (15.76) 82.12 (17.87) 6.20 (1.03)
Flexible 80.64 (20.54) 71.80 (25.09) 6.34 (0.88)
Happy 74.79 (18.61) 72.26 (18.56) 6.61 (0.75)
Hardworking 87.61 (20.43) 96.97 (13.08) 6.47 (0.83)
Has a lot of free time 45.23 (26.08) 24.99 (14.54) 3.96 (1.39)
Ideal Mom 64.72 (23.19) 60.20 (22.02) 5.09 (1.61)
Independent 62.69 (25.04) 83.83 (18.40) 5.81 (1.22)
Involved in children’s lives 95.51 (14.95) 78.39 (18.76) 6.42 (0.87)
Knowledgeable 82.14 (18.27) 87.04 (16.40) 6.39 (0.89)
Lazy 33.08 (19.55) 23.48 (13.17) 1.47 (0.93)
Loving 93.91 (14.48) 92.82 (14.99) 6.74 (0.63)
Multitasking 91.73 (17.61) 97.47 (13.91) 5.76 (1.19)
Nontraditional 49.82 (22.58) 71.74 (20.61) 4.48 (1.16)
Organized 74.67 (17.53) 82.15 (18.08) 5.93 (1.13)
Overbearing 56.86 (22.60) 49.49 (21.42) 1.83 (1.03)
Overextended 64.63 (24.98) 84.00 (21.83) 2.08 (1.25)
Overworked 68.41 (26.34) 88.88 (18.78) 1.95 (1.22)
Patient 78.36 (18.16) 71.59 (18.88) 6.35 (0.96)
Privileged 63.19 (27.40) 49.80 (21.51) 3.72 (1.55)
Selfish 34.33 (18.16) 39.42 (21.47) 1.62 (0.98)
Selfless 76.36 (23.04) 71.40 (23.78) 5.53 (1.54)
Short on time 69.07 (27.85) 93.86 (17.14) 2.84 (1.30)
Socially isolated 64.21 (24.63) 45.89 (25.60) 1.94 (1.22)
Stressed 79.23 (21.74) 93.46 (15.53) 2.11 (1.41)
Strong 83.18 (20.14) 92.06 (16.16) 6.18 (1.04)
Substandard Mom 33.82 (20.47) 36.66 (21.56) 2.01 (1.25)
Supermom 66.15 (27.71) 64.91 (28.60) 4.88 (1.70)
Tired 86.79 (21.70) 95.88 (14.50) 2.79 (1.38)
Traditional 72.37 (19.96) 53.10 (19.39) 4.11 (1.12)
Uninvolved in children’s lives 25.81 (17.31) 39.44 (21.73) 1.49 (0.90)
Unknowledgeable 32.69 (18.64) 29.56 (16.56) 1.68 (0.97)
Warm 82.17 (17.77) 81.53 (17.65) 6.17 (0.98)
Work focused 47.60 (27.55) 85.94 (17.66) 4.34 (1.38)
Note. Results reported in this table represent all participants’ (i.e., stay-at-home mothers, working mothers, and nonmothers)
responses. Bold items represent the top-five most prevalent stereotypes for each group of mothers.
a
Percentages are based on a 0–100 scale, assessed in increments of 10, ranging from none (0) to all (100).
b
Favorability was assessed on a 7-point, Likert scale ranging from unfavorable (1) to favorable (7).

(MANOVAs) were conducted with the three-category, group-membership variable (i.e., SAHM,
WM, and nonmother) as the independent variable and the six SAHM-stereotype profiles and five
WM-stereotype profiles as the dependent variables. For SAHM stereotypes, the Wilks’ Lambda
results at the multivariate level revealed a significant main effect for SAHMs, WMs, and nonmothers,
F(12, 800) = 5.73, p < .001, partial η2 = .08, power = 1.00. The Wilks’ Lambda results at the univariate
level revealed significant main effects for four stereotype profiles. The between-subjects results
appear in Table 4. For WM stereotypes, the Wilks’ Lambda results at the multivariate level revealed
a significant main effect for SAHMs, WMs, and nonmothers, F(10, 764) = 3.69, p < .001, partial η2 =
.05, power = 1.00. The Wilks’ Lambda results at the univariate level revealed significant main effects
for three WM-stereotype profiles. The between-subjects results appear in Table 5.
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 65

Table 2. Components and Loadings of Stay-at-Home-Mother Stereotypes.

Component
Traditional/
Busy and Executive of Lazy, Selfish, Ideal Balancing Work, Nontraditional
Stereotype Overworked the Home and Lost Mother Family, and Life Woman
Overworked .84 .05 –.07 .11 .13 .20
Tired .80 .10 –.09 –.03 .04 –.02
Overextended .79 .00 .04 .12 .00 .19
Stressed .79 .08 –.03 .03 .11 –.07
Short on time .74 .00 –.14 .11 .22 .04
Busy .63 .19 –.21 –.05 .38 –.05
Family oriented .06 .83 –.19 .14 .02 –.07
Involved in –.01 .80 –.19 .09 .02 –.13
children’s lives
Domestic –.03 .67 .07 .30 –.27 –.10
Caregiver .11 .63 –.15 –.03 .24 –.10
Executives of the .15 .62 –.01 .15 –.08 .18
home
Loving .11 .62 –.30 .31 .18 –.03
Lazy –.17 –.15 .76 –.02 –.11 .05
Selfish –.07 –.19 .74 –.11 –.10 .03
Substandard Mom .09 –.11 .73 .03 .16 .06
Aimless –.15 –.05 .68 .01 –.09 –.08
Ideal Mom –.01 .22 .04 .81 .04 –.03
Supermom .13 .17 .01 .82 .00 –.10
Selfless .19 .22 –.33 .61 .18 .11
Balancing work, .24 .06 –.05 .13 .79 –.03
family, and life
Work focused .24 –.02 –.05 .02 .71 .28
Nontraditional .11 –.02 .10 .13 .13 .82
Traditional –.06 .16 .08 .37 –.03 –.68
Note. Stereotypes that did not meet minimum requirements during the principal components analysis do not appear. Bold items
represent the highest loadings in each component.

Table 3. Components and Loadings of Working-Mother Stereotypes.

Component
Overworked with Determined and Flexible and Nontraditional
Stereotype No Free Time Hardworking Family-Oriented Supermom Helicopter Parent
Overworked .85 .09 .00 .13 .04
Overextended .79 .02 .06 .09 .11
Stressed .76 .23 .02 –.02 .02
Tired .71 .27 .01 –.04 .08
Short on time .67 .23 .07 .00 –.22
Has a lot of free time –.61 –.16 –.05 .14 .31
Determined .15 .83 .22 .17 –.04
Dedicated .10 .79 .31 .15 –.05
Hardworking .22 .76 .26 .06 –.07
Multitasking .22 .75 .17 .10 –.03
Busy .36 .68 .07 –.04 –.11
Involved in children’s lives –.03 .28 .74 .06 .03
Flexible .08 .07 .71 .00 –.10
Family oriented .13 .32 .68 .13 .20
Patient .00 .21 .66 .15 –.08
Supermom .09 .17 .02 .87 –.01
Ideal Mom –.05 .13 .23 .81 .02
Overbearing .18 –.04 –.26 .05 .71
Nontraditional .12 .08 –.06 .27 –.57
Privileged –.10 –.05 .16 .30 .50
Note. Stereotypes that did not meet minimum requirements during the principal components analysis do not appear. Bold items
represent the highest loadings in each component.
66 K. G. ODENWELLER AND C. E. RITTENOUR

Table 4. Multivariate Analysis of Variance of the Prevalence of Stay-at-Home-Mother Stereotype Profiles by Stay-at-Home Mother,
Working Mother, or Nonmother Participant Groups.
Participant Group
Stereotype Working Mothers Stay-at-Home Mothers Nonmothers F p
Overworked & Busy 43.00 (11.82)a 51.45 (8.66)b 44.45 (11.43)a 19.40 .000
Executives of the Home 55.89 (7.28)a 56.32 (6.15)a 53.70 (7.54)b 5.82 .003
Lazy, Selfish, & Lost 12.78 (5.88)a 12.45 (5.59)a 14.53 (5.62)b 5.78 .003
Balancing Work, Family, & Life 10.61 (4.75)a 13.74 (4.36)b 11.41 (4.74)a 13.75 .000
Note. Means and standard deviations are based on a 0–100 scale, assessed in increments of 10, ranging from none (0) to all (100).
Means with different superscripts within rows are significantly different at the p < .05 based on Bonferroni’s post hoc multiple
comparisons. Stereotype profiles that were not significantly different across any of the three groups do not appear.

Table 5. Multivariate Analysis of Variance of the Prevalence of Working-Mother-Stereotype Profiles by Stay-at-Home Mother,
Working Mother, or Nonmother Participant Groups.
Participant Group
Stereotype Working Mothers Stay-at-Home Mothers Nonmothers F p
Overextended with no free time 49.82 (5.47)a 48.79 (6.36)a 46.89 (6.30)b 8.38 .000
Determined & Hardworking 49.29 (6.19)a 48.82 (5.04) 47.31 (5.39)b 5.00 .007
Family-oriented & Flexible 31.96 (5.78)a 30.40 (6.59) 29.12 (5.53)b 7.84 .000
Note. Means and standard deviations are based on a 0–100 scale, assessed in increments of 10, ranging from none (0) to all (100).
Means with different superscripts within rows are significantly different at the p < .05 based on Bonferroni’s post hoc multiple
comparisons. Stereotype profiles that were not significantly different across any of the three groups do not appear.

Three trends emerged among mothers and nonmothers in regard to the stereotype profiles. First,
compared to SAHMs, WMs and nonmothers perceived two stereotype profiles as less prevalent
among SAHMs (i.e., overworked and busy; balancing work, family, and life). This trend provides
evidence of SAHMs’ in-group favoritism, which corresponds with our prediction in H1. However,
this did not occur for all stereotype profiles, which contradicts our prediction in H1. Thus, H1 is only
moderately supported.
Second, compared to nonmothers, SAHMs and WMs perceived three stereotype profiles as more
(i.e., executives of the home; overextended with no free time) or less (i.e., lazy, selfish, and lost)
prevalent among their mother subgroups. Third, compared to nonmothers, WMs perceived two
stereotype profiles as more prevalent among WMs (i.e., determined and hardworking, family-oriented
and flexible). Both of these trends provide evidence of nonmothers’ out-group homogeneity, which
corresponds with our prediction in H2. However, mothers did not report similar perceptions
regarding all stereotype profiles, which contradicts our prediction in H2. Thus, H2 is only partially
supported.
To explore potential sex differences among nonmothers, we conducted a series of post hoc
analyses with all of the hypotheses. Only one significant difference emerged. Compared to male
nonmothers (M = 45.26, SD = 6.32), female nonmothers (M = 47.64, SD = 5.25) perceived the
hardworking and determined profile as more prevalent among WMs, t(175) = -2.10, p < .05. Because
so few sex differences emerged and the focus of this project was societal perceptions of SAHMs and
WMs, we do not include the full post hoc results here. The first author can provide these results
upon request.
H3 predicted that SAHMs would be perceived as warmer and more competent than WMs.
Descriptive statistics provide evidence for SAHMs’ high warmth (M = 4.22, SD = 0.62) and moderate
competence (M = 3.30, SD = 0.85) and WMs’ moderate warmth (M = 2.97, SD = 0.73) and high
competence (M = 4.09, SD = 0.74). Additionally, the results of two paired-samples t tests suggest that
SAHMs are perceived to be significantly warmer than WMs, t(399) = 26.86, p < .001, which
corresponds with our prediction, and WMs are perceived to be significantly more competent than
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 67

SAHMs, t(393) = 13.95, p < .001, which contradicts our prediction. Because perceptions of SAHMs’
and WMs’ competence were slightly different than predicted, H3 is only partially supported.

Discussion
Study 2’s findings validate and add specificity to the stereotype content illuminated in Study 1,
revealing similarities and differences in perceptions of mother subgroups. SAHM and WM share
portrayals of the overextended, tired, and stressed mom, as well as the family-oriented, involved, and
supermom. Stereotypes once held only for SAHMs in their quintessential female role are now used to
characterize WMs (e.g., patient, involved in children’s lives) and stereotypes once held only for WMs in
their progressive female role are now used to characterize SAHMs (e.g., balancing work, family, and
life; nontraditional). Although these findings demonstrate shifts in public perception and the potential
to regroup mothers based on their common characteristics, ambivalence toward women persists.
The stereotype valence and perceptions of SAHMs’ and WMs’ warmth and competence corroborate
Study 1’s findings and decade-old trends regarding men and women’s ambivalence toward female social
groups (Cuddy et al., 2004; Wade & Brewer, 2006). Participants made generally positive evaluations of
the caregiver and loving stereotypes and negative evaluations of the uninvolved in children’s lives and
substandard mom stereotypes. Interestingly, SAHMs and WMs also receive criticism when they fall short
of traditional and nontraditional traits (e.g., low warmth, low competence) as indicated through
participants’ negative evaluations of the selfish, lazy, unknowledgeable, and aimless stereotypes.
Findings also revealed interesting between-group differences in terms of participants’ responses to
stereotype prevalence and valence for the different mother subgroups. When SAHMs and WMs were
compared to each other, the valence of stereotype content elicited positive group distinctiveness
among mothers. Participants in the targeted mother subgroup rated positive stereotypes as more
prominent, and negative stereotypes as less prominent, for their in-group as compared to all other
participants’ ratings of said stereotype. For example, SAHMs, compared to WMs and nonmothers,
rated selfless more prominent for SAHMs. WMs, compared to SAHMs and nonmothers, rated loving
more prominent for WMs. These trends highlight mothers’ drive to accentuate favorable impres-
sions of their own subgroup.
When WMs and SAHMs were compared to nonmothers, the shifts in in-group/out-group
boundaries altered perceptions of stereotypes. Compared to nonmothers, SAHMs’ and WMs’
perceptions generally aligned with each other—and differed from nonmothers’ perceptions—in
terms of prototypical mothers’ stereotypes (e.g., dedicated, involved in children’s lives, family-
oriented). These trends uphold key intergroup principles as nonmothers exist as the out-group to
the collective mother group. Yet, at the same time, WMs agreed with nonmothers on the prevalence
of work/time-related stereotypes for SAHMs. In particular, WMs and nonmothers do not consider
SAHMs to be as busy, stressed, overworked, short on time, or tired as SAHMs think they are. These
results suggest that social category subgroups (i.e., SAHMs versus WMs) work in ways similar to
larger social categories (e.g., women versus men) but also in nuanced ways based on the salience of
group boundaries (e.g., WMs and nonmothers versus SAHMs). In the following general discussion
section, we expand upon these conclusions by linking the two studies and drawing theoretical and
practical implications for intergroup communication and feminism.

General discussion
Prejudice toward women (i.e., sexism) is typically rooted in an oversimplified “men versus women”
intergroup phenomenon (Chaudoir & Quinn, 2010; Hart, Hung, Glick, & Dinero, 2012). Supporting
claims from foundational intergroup theories (e.g., social identity theory, common in-group identity
model) and extending previous research on stereotypes of women (Schneider & Bos, 2014; Wade &
Brewer, 2006), our results demonstrate decategorization across, as well as categorization within, the
broad female/mother social categories. Although SAHMs and WMs can be decategorized into one,
68 K. G. ODENWELLER AND C. E. RITTENOUR

superordinate group of “women” or “mothers” based on common female traits (e.g., overextended,
stressed, family-oriented), distinct stereotypes and attitudes associated with SAHMs and WMs
continue to categorize these mothers into different subgroups. These easily instigated shifts in in-
group/out-group boundaries have implications for mothers’ relationships with other mothers and
sexism toward women in and outside the family. The following sections will explain these implica-
tions, describe the limitations to the current studies and outline subsequent investigations we hope
our work will inform.
As stereotypes reveal cultural perceptions of social groups (Allport, 1954; Operario & Fiske,
2008), our findings evidence an oppressive way of thinking about mothers. Because an ideal
mother is one who practices intensive mothering (Hays, 1996), SAHMs are the highest standard
against which all other mothers are judged (Arendell, 2000). In turn, “deviant” mothers (e.g.,
WMs, single mothers, mothers of non-White ethnicities) must justify and reframe their decisions
(Buzzanell et al., 2005; Turner & Norwood, 2013; Wall, 2013). In our studies, this reframing
manifests in the supermom stereotype profile, which celebrates WMs’ ability to achieve family,
work, and life success. However, even this attempt at positively portraying WMs is met with
criticism in both motherhood scholarship and other stereotype profiles herein. Specifically,
supermoms are perceived as being overworked, overextended, and stressed because they are
expected to shift effortlessly from hardworking and determined career women to the patient,
involved, and family-oriented mother—without sacrificing time or quality in either domain
(Dillaway & Pare, 2008). In reality, the supermom profile represents a trade-off for WMs who,
despite having more competence than SAHMs, are perceived as less committed and effective than
SAHMs and less likeable on the job than men and working fathers (Cuddy et al., 2004; Gorman
& Fritzsche, 2002; Okimoto & Heilman, 2012). Adjacent to the ideal mother and supermom
profiles, are the “mompreneurs” (Ekinsmyth, 2014), SAHMs who coordinate work (e.g., online
businesses, blogs) around caregiving priorities and, as a result, acquire nontraditional character-
istics such as executives of the home, balancing work, family, and life, and work focused. Although
these stereotypes may represent feminist progress, the blurred lines between mothering and work
continue to elevate SAHMs’ social value and disparage WMs. This is especially true of those who
work outside the home for career advancement and personal fulfillment (versus financial neces-
sity). Yet, to further illustrate the ambivalent cognitions about mothers, “mompreneurs” are
perceived as lacking credibility because they are female business owners (Ekinsmyth, 2014).
This may explain WMs’ and nonmothers’ suspicions about SAHMs’ busy workloads and the
lazy, selfish, and lost stereotype profile. Given previous links between unmet idealized mother-
hood expectations and mothers’ guilt, stress, and anxiety (Henderson, Harmon, & Newman,
2016), altering motherhood discourse (e.g., supermom, “mompreneur”) does not appear to fully
eradicate the stigma mothers experience when they fail to portray the ideal mother stereotype.
The idealized motherhood revealed here is not just detrimental to mothers; it undermines all
women (e.g., childless women by choice, infertile women, substandard mothers) who have not
reached euphoria through perfect mothering (Douglas & Michaels, 2004). Although women now
occupy a significant portion of the workforce and Congress recently afforded them the right to equal
pay (Chu & Posner, 2013), a plethora of research has demonstrated how sexism—as both a hostile
and benevolent force—is directed at specific subgroups of women (e.g., Chinese men versus Chinese
women; male versus female college students; Chen, Susan, & Tiane, 2009; Szymanski, Devlin,
Chrisler, & Vyse, 1993). Our findings extend these trends by demonstrating how using ambivalent
belief systems used to categorize specific subgroups of mothers maintains oppressive societal
expectations of women and motherhood. Because both mothers and female nonmothers uphold
these oppressive social constructions, our studies demonstrate that sexism toward women is not a
men-only practice.
The stereotype trends also empirically evidence the tenacious norms of heteronormativity,
“women as primary caregiver,” and the collective “othering” of single mothers. First, although
several participants used neutral terms (e.g., partner), many others used heterosexual terms (e.g.,
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 69

husband) when stereotyping, suggesting that mothers are (only) heterosexual. Second, despite
prominent references to a romantic partnership, our sample did not often presume a parenting
partnership. Put differently, few considered the possibility of coparenting. As the exception, some of
the WM descriptions noted the egalitarian nature of households in which both parents work. Still, no
one mentioned stay-at-home fathers (SAHFs), and many mothers were explicitly identified as the
primary caregiver. So, we still see parenting described as “women’s work” more than “men’s work.”
Although one could argue that our study’s design may have amplified women’s roles over men’s
because this was its focus, the cultural discourse surrounding fathers who are the primary parent
(i.e., SAHFs) tends to refer to them as a type of surrogate mother (i.e., “Mr. Mom”; Vavrus, 2002).
Given the changing culture of fatherhood (Morman & Floyd, 2002), evolving stereotypes of fathers
(Banchefsky & Park, 2016), and the incongruent attitudes toward male and female stay-home parents
(Bridges et al., 2002), researchers should consider extending the findings discovered herein to
stereotypes of fathers. Third, all of the aforementioned points presume that mothers are romantically
attached to someone, and thus single mothers are absent from our participants’ cognitions about
today’s mothers. This “othering” of single mothers explains why this subgroup of mothers continues
to be scrutinized.
Although cognitively efficient for the social categorization process, stereotypes are overgenera-
lized beliefs about a social category that lead perceivers (i.e., out-group members) and targets (i.e.,
in-group members) of stereotypes down the “the road to bias” (Oakes, 2008). Given the malleability
of in-group/out-group distinctions (Turner et al., 1987), SAHMs and WMs are both perceivers and
targets of the stereotype profiles. As shifts to intergroup boundaries are easily instigated, researchers
might carefully attend to their measurements targeted at female groups in order to avoid priming a
different distinction (e.g., “male/female” versus “working mom, stay-at-home mom”) then that for
which their project is designed.
Our robust stereotype profiles were derived from the most prevalent SAHM and WM
stereotypes and, thus, represent the most typical members, or prototypes (Operario & Fiske,
2008), in each subgroup. Although prototypes are often unrealistic or even fictitious portrayals of
social groups, individuals use prototypes to evaluate group members’ association with their
groups (Operario & Fiske, 2008). As mothers categorize themselves and other mothers, they
are likely evaluating each other along these prototypes and thinking of each other in limited,
idealistic ways. These social comparisons only accentuate differences among mothers and reify
“mother war rhetoric” (Johnston & Swanson, 2004). When mothers allow themselves to be
distracted by unproductive debates about their differences, they divert attention away from real
issues families face (e.g., affordable healthcare, gay parents’ adoptive rights, the gendered wage
gap, quality child care, family leave policies; Zimmerman et al., 2008). Additionally, when
mothers focus on their social conflict instead of celebrating, appreciating, and learning from
their unique perspectives, their large social group loses vitality and becomes susceptible to out-
group discrimination. Although the associations between stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimina-
tion tend to be small (see Hecht, 1998), intergroup scholars assume these statistics are deflated
due to the implicit, uneasily measured ways that our prejudices manifest in mistreatment of out-
groups. As women’s representation increases in public contexts, we encourage mothers to remain
unified to ensure their unique worth and contributions are not discredited by childless women,
fathers (or men in general), policy makers, or each other. The next steps are to determine (a) the
specific communication behaviors these SAHM and WM stereotypes elicit—both from mothers
and nonmothers—and (b) the potential prosocial effects of using communication as a mechanism
for shifting in-group/out-group boundaries (e.g., from SAHMs and WMs subgroups to one,
superordinate group of “collective” mothers) to evoke more inclusive cognitions and behaviors
among women.
Although our results advance theoretical and practical knowledge for intergroup communication,
they must be interpreted in light of the following limitations. First, our design primed participants to
consider SAHMs and WMs in comparison to each other. Although these comparisons allow us to
70 K. G. ODENWELLER AND C. E. RITTENOUR

illuminate one “real world,” female intergroup phenomenon, we recognize that our design limits our
ability to generalize to other intergroup contexts. However, because all social group distinctions are
fluid, and groups are constantly being judged against other groups based on the present intergroup
dynamics (Turner et al., 1987), these comparisons are socially relevant given the current divisions
within mother communities. Second, we did not incorporate men as targets nor did we include them
as parent participants. Of course, such an analysis would offer powerful categorization comparisons
given that fathers occupy a unique position—as men in a dominant social group and fathers in a
nontraditional gender role—and today’s fathers are more involved in childrearing and gender
socialization (Odenweller, Rittenour, Myers, & Brann, 2013). Third, the majority of our participants
(even nonmothers) were primarily White women who, despite varied education and household
income levels, may be from privileged backgrounds due to their affiliation with a U.S. university and
access to English-speaking social media groups. Thus, the attitudes reported herein likely represent
Western portrayals of mothers (see Arendell, 2000) and may not be held by individuals who do not
match our participants’ demographics. Should researchers address these limitations in future works,
they might make additional progress toward understanding the “mommy wars” that plague relation-
ships among SAHMs and WMs.

Conclusion
A great gauge for feminism’s progress on family life is the quantification of the cognitions held
about mothers by those within (i.e., mothers) and those adjacent to this family role (i.e., non-
mothers). By assessing mothers’ and nonmothers’ stereotypes and attitudes, we provide a more
nuanced understanding of these mothers’ subgrouped identities and illuminate sexism surround-
ing the idealization of motherhood. Given the important ties between stereotypes and commu-
nication, we suggest future scholarship directly incorporate our stereotype profiles to determine
how prejudice is communicated and/or how communication can eradicate prejudice. In this way,
feminist scholarship and intergroup theorizing may be used to infuse mothers’ interactions to
ultimately put an end to the “mommy wars” and to build favorable interpersonal connections
among all mothers.

Notes
1. Items eliminated from the first iteration of the SAHM PCA due to not meeting minimum requirements were
the following: dedicated, determined, flexible, happy, hardworking, no free time, independent, knowledgeable,
multitasking, organized, overbearing, patient, strong, unknowledgeable, and warm. The items eliminated from
the second iteration were caring, privileged, and socially isolated. The items eliminated from the third iteration
were crafty and uninvolved.
2. Items eliminated from the first iteration of the WM PCA due to not meeting minimum requirements were the
following: aimless; balancing work, family, and life; caregiver; caring; happy; knowledgeable; lazy; loving;
organized; substandard mom; traditional; uninvolved in children’s lives; unknowledgeable; and warm. Items
eliminated from the second iteration were crafty, domestic, executives of the home, independent, selfish,
socially isolated, strong, work focused.

References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Perseus Books.
Arendell, T. (2000). Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade’s scholarship. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62, 1192–1207. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01192.x
Banchefsky, S., & Park, B. (2016). The “new father”: Dynamic stereotypes of fathers. Psychology Of Men & Masculinity,
17, 103–107. doi:10.1037/a0038945
Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile
sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 101, 62–77.
 SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 71

Bridges, J. S., Etaugh, C., & Barnes-Farrell, J. (2002). Trait judgments of stay-at-home and employed parents: A
function of social role and/or shifting standards? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 140–150. doi:10.1111/1471-
6402.00052
Buzzanell, P. M. (1995). Reframing the glass ceiling as a socially constructed process: Implications for understanding
and change. Communication Monographs, 62(3), 327–354.
Buzzanell, P. M., Meisenbach, R., Remke, R., Liu, M., Bowers, V., & Conn, C. (2005). The good working mother:
Managerial women’s sensemaking and feelings about work–family issues. Communication Studies, 56, 261–285.
doi:10.1080/10510970500181389
Chaudoir, S., & Quinn, D. (2010). Bystander sexism in the intergroup context: The impact of cat-calls on women’s
reactions towards men. Sex Roles, 62, 623–634. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9735-0
Chen, Z., Susan, F., & Tiane, L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex
Roles, 60, 765–778. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9585-9
Chu, A., & Posner, C. (2013, September). The state of women in America: A 50-state analysis of how women are faring
across the nation. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://cdn.americanprogress.org/
wp-content/uploads/2013/09/StateOfWomen-4.pdf
Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family
work. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62, 1208–1233.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice.
Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701–718. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
Dillaway, H., & Pare, E. (2008). Locating mothers: How cultural debates about stay-at-home versus working mothers
define women and home. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 437–464. doi:10.1177/0192513X07310309
Douglas, S. J., & Michaels, M. W. (2004). The mommy myth: The idealization of motherhood and how it has
undermined all women. New York, NY: Free Press.
Ekinsmyth, C. (2014). Mothers’ business, work/life and the politics of “mumpreneurship.” Gender, Place & Culture: A
Journal of Feminist Geography, 21, 1230–1248. doi:10.1080/0966369X.2013.817975
Erchull, M. J., Kliss, M., Wilson, K. A., Bateman, L., Peterson, A., & Sanchez, C. E. (2009). The feminist identity
development model: Relevant for young women today? Sex Roles, 60, 832–842.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
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, 473–489. doi:10.1111/0022-
4537.00128
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity
model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26.
doi:10.1080/14792779343000004
Gorman, K. A., & Fritzsche, B. A. (2002). The good-mother stereotype: Stay at home (or wish that you did!). Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2190–2201. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02069.x
Graham, C. W., Sorell, G. T., & Montgomery, M. J. (2004). Role-related identity structure in adult women. Identity: An
International Journal of Theory and Research, 4, 251–271. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0403_3
Hart, J., Hung, J. A., Glick, P., & Dinero, R. E. (2012). He loves her, he loves her not: Attachment style as a personality
antecedent to men’s ambivalent sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1495–1505. doi:10.1177/
0146167212454177
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS® system for factor analysis and structural equation
modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Hecht, M. L. (1998). Introduction. In M. L. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating prejudice (pp. 3–23). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Henderson, A., Harmon, S., & Newman, H. (2016). The price mothers pay, even when they are not buying it: Mental
health consequences of idealized motherhood Sex Roles, 74, 512–526. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0534-5
Hewstone, M., & Hamberger, J. (2000). Perceived variability and stereotype change. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 36, 103–124. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1398
Hummert, M. L., & Garstka, T. A. (1995). Judgments about stereotypes of the elderly. Research on Aging, 17(2), 168–189.
Hummert, M. L., Garstka, T. A., Shaner, J. L., & Strahm, S. (1994). Stereotypes of the elderly held by young, middle-
aged, and elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 49, 240–249. doi:10.1093/geronj/49.5.P240
Johnston, D. D., & Swanson, D. H. (2003). Invisible mothers: A content analysis of motherhood ideologies and myths
in magazines. Sex Roles, 49, 21–33. doi:10.1023/A:1023905518500
Johnston, D. D., & Swanson, D. H. (2004). Moms hating moms: The internalization of mother war rhetoric. Sex Roles,
51, 497–509. doi:10.1007/s11199-004-5460-x
72 K. G. ODENWELLER AND C. E. RITTENOUR

Johnston, D. D., & Swanson, D. H. (2006). Constructing the “good mother”: The experience of mothering ideologies
by work status. Sex Roles, 54, 509–519. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9021-3
Jones, E. E., Wood, G. C., & Quattrone, G. A. (1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in in-groups and
out-groups: The role of knowledge and evaluation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 523–528.
doi:10.1177/014616728173024
Kantrowitz, B., & Tyre, P. (2006, May 26). The fine art of letting go. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/
student-affairs/parents/images/TheFineArtofLettingGo.pdf
Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. J. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it”: Communication and the structuration
of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50–77.
Koropeckyj-Cox, T., Romano, V. R., & Moras, A. (2007). Through the lenses of gender, race, and class: Students’
perceptions of childless/childfree individuals and couples. Sex Roles, 56(7/8), 415–428. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-
9172-2
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Moore, J., & Abetz, J. (2016). “Uh oh. cue the [new] mommy wars”: The ideology of combative mothering in popular
U.S. newspaper articles about attachment parenting. Southern Communication Journal, 81, 49–62. doi:10.1080/
1041794X.2015.1076026
Morman, M. T., & Floyd, K. (2002). A “changing culture of fatherhood”: Effects on affectionate communication,
closeness, and satisfaction in men’s relationships with their fathers and their sons. Western Journal of
Communication, 66, 395–411. doi:10.1080/10570310209374746
Oakes, P. J. (2008). The root of all evil in intergroup relations? Unearthing the categorization process. In R. Brown & S.
L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (3rd ed., pp. 3–21). Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
Odenweller, K. G., Rittenour, C. E., Myers, S. A., & Brann, M. (2013). Father–son family communication patterns and
gender ideologies: A modeling and compensation analysis. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 341–358.
doi:10.1080/15267431.2013.823432
Okimoto, T. G., & Heilman, M. E. (2012). The “bad parent” assumption: How gender stereotypes affect reactions to
working mothers. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 704–724. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01772.x
Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2008). Stereotypes: Content, structures, processes, and context. In R. Brown & S. L.
Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (3rd ed., pp. 22–44). Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Osborne, J. W., & Fitzpatrick, D. C. (2012). Replication analysis in exploratory factor analysis: What it is and why it
makes your analysis better. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 17(15), 1–8.
Ruble, R. A., & Zhang, Y. B. (2013). Stereotypes of Chinese international students held by Americans. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 202–211. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.12.004
Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women
more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494
Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35, 245–266.
doi:10.1111/pops.12040
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20,
409–426.
Szymanski, L., Devlin, A., Chrisler, J., & Vyse, S. (1993). Gender role and attitudes toward rape in male and female
college students. Sex Roles, 29, 37–57. doi:10.1007/BF00289995
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin
(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup behavior (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-
categorization theory. New York, NY: Blackwell.
Turner, P. K., & Norwood, K. (2013). Unbounded motherhood: Embodying a good working mother identity.
Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 396–424. doi:10.1177/0893318913491461
Vavrus, M. D. (2002). Domesticating patriarchy: Hegemonic masculinity and television’s “Mr. Mom.” Critical Studies
in Media Communication, 19, 352–375.
Wade, M. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2006). The structure of female subgroups: An exploration of ambivalent stereotypes.
Sex Roles, 54, 753–765. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9043-x
Wall, G. (2013). “Putting family first”: Shifting discourses of motherhood and childhood in representations of mothers’
employment and child care. Women’s Studies International Forum, 40, 162–171. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2013.07.006
Williams, C. L. (2009). Talking ‘bout my revolution: Opting-out and the end of feminism. Sex Roles, 60(3–4), 287–290.
Zimmerman, T. S., Aberle, J. T., Krafchick, J. L., & Harvey, A. M. (2008). Deconstructing the “mommy wars”: The
battle over the best mom. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy: An International Forum, 20, 203–219. doi:10.1080/
08952830802264524

View publication stats