Stereotypes - Studies

Katz & Braly (1933) — Measuring Stereotype Content

METHOD: 100 white Princeton men listed traits typical of 10 ethnic groups.
RESULTS: High consensus, content stereotypically biased (e.g., African Americans = “lazy, musical”).
INTERPRETATION: Stereotypes were consensual, descriptive, and overtly negative in 1930s context.

Madon et al. (2001) — Stereotype Change Over Time

METHOD: Replicated Katz & Braly with modern sample.
RESULTS:
• Stereotypes became more favorable
• Consensus increased
INTERPRETATION: Stereotype content shifts with cultural and historical change.

Dasgupta & Asgari (2004) — College Context & Gender Stereotypes

AIM: Test whether gender stereotyping shifts in different college environments.
METHOD: Women at a women’s college vs. co-ed surveyed in year 1 and year 2.
RESULTS:
• Women’s college students became less stereotypical toward own group
• Effect linked to exposure to female faculty
INTERPRETATION: Contextual representation shapes automatic stereotypes.

Dovidio, Evans & Tyler (1986) — Processing Stereotype-Consistent Information

AIM: Compare speed of processing stereotype-consistent vs. inconsistent info.
METHOD: Race primes (“black/white”) followed by stereotype-relevant words.
RESULTS: Consistent stereotype information processed faster.
INTERPRETATION: Stereotypes act as schemas guiding cognitive efficiency.

Fiske et al. (2002) — Stereotype Content Model

FINDING: Stereotype structure can be reduced to warmth + competence.
INTERPRETATION: Groups stereotyped by perceived intentions (warmth) and ability (competence).

Deutsch, LeBaron & Fryer (1987) — Women & Benevolent Standards

METHOD: Participants rated warmth/happiness from descriptions with photos (smiling vs. not).
RESULTS:
• Women penalized more when not smiling
• Men unaffected or only slightly affected
INTERPRETATION: Benevolent stereotypes impose behavioral standards.

Steele & Aronson (1995)

AIM: Test racial stereotype threat on test performance.
METHOD: Black & white students took test with race made salient or not.
RESULTS:
• Black students performed worse when race primed
• White students unaffected or slightly benefited
INTERPRETATION: Threat of confirming stereotype impairs performance.

Spencer, Steele & Quinn (1999) — Gender & Math

METHOD: Math test labeled as diagnostic of gender differences vs. nondiagnostic.
RESULTS:
• No gender difference in nondiagnostic condition
• Women performed worse in diagnostic condition
INTERPRETATION: Gender stereotype threat depresses women’s math performance.

Aronson, Fried & Good (2002) — Mindset Intervention Against Threat

AIM: Reduce stereotype threat by changing beliefs about intelligence.
METHOD: Growth mindset vs. control conditions.
RESULTS: Growth mindset raised academic performance, enjoyment, and reduced threat.
INTERPRETATION: Beliefs about intelligence can buffer stereotype threat.