universal dimensions of inequality: why … dimensions of inequality: why warmth and competence...

Universal Dimensions of Inequality:Inequality:

Why Warmth and Competence Matter to Social Work

Susan T. FiskeD t t f P h lDepartment of Psychology

Princeton University

O l 2 Ki d f P lOnly 2 Kinds of People

Friend or foe? With us or against?g Part of the problem or the solution Warm, friendly, trustworthy, sincereWarm, friendly, trustworthy, sincere

OK M b 4 Ki d f P lOK, Maybe 4 Kinds of People

Friend or foe? Warm, friendly, trustworthy, sincere, y, y,

Able or unable? Competent able skillful capable Competent, able, skillful, capable

Warmth x competence 4 clusters

PSYCHOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCHERS.

C St d P j diCase Study: Prejudices

Come in distinct types From society & stereotypes in mind From society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture

H f i di id l Happen for individuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination

Di ti t TDistinct Types

Friend or foe? = Warmth Able or unable? = Competence Able or unable? Competence Stereotype Content Model (SCM)

Warmth x competence Warmth x competence

Stereotype Content Model(C dd Fi k & Gli k Ad 2008 Fi k C dd & Gli k TiCS 2007 Fi k(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Advances, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, TiCS, 2007; Fiske et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002)

Lo Competence Hi Competence

Hi Warmth Pure favoritism

Lo Warmth Pure antipathyLo Warmth Pure antipathy

Stereotype Content Model(C dd Fi k & Gli k Ad 2008 Fi k C dd & Gli k TiCS 2007 Fi k(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Advances, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, TiCS, 2007; Fiske et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002)


Hi Warmth Ambivalence Pure favoritism

Lo Warmth Pure antipathy AmbivalenceLo Warmth Pure antipathy Ambivalence

St t C t t M d lStereotype Content ModelLo Competence Hi Competence

Hi Warmth

Lo Warmth poor welfareLo Warmth poor, welfare, homelessDisgustDisgust


Hi Warmth ingroup, allies, reference groupsreference groupsPride



Hi Warmth older, disabled, retarded

ingroup, allies, reference groupsretarded

Pityreference groupsPride



Hi Warmth older, disabled, retarded

ingroup, allies, reference groupsretarded

Pityreference groupsPride

Lo Warmth poor welfare Jews Asians richLo Warmth poor, welfare, homelessDisgust

Jews, Asians, rich, professionalsEnvyDisgust Envy

P j diPrejudices



SCM St diSCM Studies

[American] society’s opinions of groups Common groups nominatedg p Rate on

Warmth (warm, friendly, sincere)( , y, ) Competence (competent, skillful, capable) Social structure Emotions Behavior

Survey Method: Demographicsy g p(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, JPSP, 2007)

N = 571 Sex: 62% female, 38% male Sex: 62% female, 38% male Age: 18-85, mean 45

R i 20% NE 24% MidW 35% S 21% W Region: 20% NE, 24% MidW, 35% S, 21% W Edu: 7% HS-, 24% HS, 30% BA-, 39% BA+ Race: 77% White, 6% Black, 9% Hispanic

S l & R li bilitiScales & Reliabilities Competent capable = 81 Competent, capable .81 Warm, friendly = .83 Disgust, contempt = .60 Disgust, contempt .60 Admiration, pride = .80 Pity, sympathy = .71y, y p y Envious, jealous = .82 Cooperate, associate = .61p Fight, attack = .59 Help, protect = .60 Exclude, demean = .68

SCM: US Representative Sample p p(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, JPSP, 2007)

4 5

4

4.5

Elderly Christians

Housewives

PITY PRIDE

3.5

th

AmericansDisabled

Christians

Black professionals

Middle-class

IrishRetarded

Whites

3

War

mt

British

Asians

Poor blacksJews

Whites

Welfare

2.5 ArabsRich

Homeless

Feminists

WelfareTurks

DISGUST ENVY2

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Competence

DISGUST ENVY

U.S. Immigrants (Lee &Fiske, IJIR, 2006)

5

housewives

h Latino

SouthAmerican

elderly

IrishItalian

documented A iEuropean

Canadian

3rd generation

war

mt

d t d

poor Mexican African

Latino

farm workerEast European

Vietnamese RussianFrench

German

documented

Indian

Americanpstudents

Korean

Asian

Japanesetech industry

professionals1st generation

undocumented Middle Eastern

rich

ChineseAsian

homeless

1

1 5

competence

P j diPrejudices



P j diPrejudices

Come in distinct types From ideas of society & stereotypes in mind

Status competence Competition (low) warmth

Universal across culture Happen for individuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination

Social Context Group Stereotypep yp(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Adv in Exptl Soc Psy, 2008)

Correlations Competence Warmth

Status .77 ( 55 to 87) 12Status .77 (.55 to .87) .12

Competition

Social Context Group Stereotypep yp(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Adv in Exptl Soc Psy, 2008)

Correlations Competence Warmth

Status .77 ( 55 to 87) 12Status .77 (.55 to .87) .12

Competition .05 -.25 (.08 to -.48)

From US, EU, Latino, & Asian samples

Social Context Group Stereotypep yp(Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, GPIR, 2009)

Status Competition Competence Warmth

High HighHigh High

High LowHigh Low

Low High

Low Low

Social Context Group Stereotypep yp(Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, GPIR, 2009)

Status Competition Competence Warmth

High High 4 58 3 47High High 4.58 3.47

High Low 4.83 4.13High Low 4.83 4.13

Low High 2.80 3.35

Low Low 3.21 3.84

P j diPrejudices

Come in distinct types From ideas of society & stereotypes in mind

Status competence Competition (low) warmth

Universal across culture Happen for individuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discrimination

P j diPrejudices

Come in distinct types From ideas of society & stereotypes in mind From ideas of society & stereotypes in mind Universal across culture


G D t ( )German Data (Eckes, 2002)

American Students: 1932-2007(B i k L li C t ti & Fi k d i )(Bergsiecker, Leslie, Constantine, & Fiske, under review)

1932 20071932 2007

Italian Fascists (Durante, Volpato, & Fiske, EJSP, in press)


Hi Warmth ItaliansAryans

Lo Warmth Blacks JewsLo Warmth BlacksHalf castes

JewsEnglish

SCM: Universal or Culture-Bound? (Cuddy, Fiske, Kwan, Glick, et al., BJSP, 2009)

Warmth x competence map Collective warmth (harmony) > (individual) competence?

Many groups mixed Result of multi-cultural, egalitarian values?g Unnecessary in homogeneous, hierarchical cultures?

Ingroup favoritism outgroup derogationg p g p g No ingroup love prejudice?

SCM: Japanese data (Cuddy et al., BJSP, 2009)

High

ChildrenFriends

Japanese

FamilyWomen

My clubs

Elderly

Disabled Hometown

mth

LC-HW

Full members

Civil servantsMen

Entertainers

My co.Office wrkrs

Odd-jobbers

Poor My univ.

Students

War

m

HHC-LLW

HC-LWLC-LW1

Professionals

Homeless

Low

LC-LW2

CompetenceLow High

SCM: Hong Kong data(Cuddy et al., 2009)

C h ild re n

C h r is t ia n s

H ig h

L C -H W

C h in e s e

E ld e r lyF o re ig n e rs

M a r r ie dM e n ta l ly i l l

S tu d e n ts

C o lle g e g ra d s

W o m e nA s ia n sm

th

A d u lts

B lu e -c o lla r

C h in e s e

H Klo c a ls

J a n ito rsM e n

F ilip in o m a id sP o o r

P ro fe s s io n a lsS in g le s

C o lle g e g ra d s

U n e m p lo y e d

W h ite -c o lla r

Y o u th s

War

m

M C -M W

Im m ig ra n ts

M a in la in d e rsP a k is ta n i

R ic h

U n e m p lo y e d

L o w

L C -L W H C -L W

C o m p e te n c e H ig hL o w

SCM: South Korean data(Cuddy et al., 2009)

H ig h

C h ild re n

E ld e r ly

H o u s e w iv e sM in is te rs

L C -H W

B lu e -c o lla rB u d d h is ts

S tu d e n ts

E ld e r ly

E m p lo y e e sJ u n io r h ig h

M id d le c la s s

M e n

P ro te s ta n tsT e a c h e rs

W o m e n

War

mth

H C -L W 1

E m p lo y e rs

I lle g a lim m ig ra n ts

In te lle c tu a ls

M e rc h a n ts

P ro te s ta n ts

P ro fe s s io n a lsP o o r

P u b licfu n c t io n a r ie sU n e m p lo y e d

W C

L C -L W

R ic hL o w

H C -L W 2

Low

C o m p e te n c eL o w H ig h

Ingroup Favoritism g p(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Adv in Exptl Soc Psy, 2008)

Sample Positivity

Western (2 U.S., Belgium) .29 - .49

Asian (Japan, Hong Kong, S. Korea) .02 - .18

Positivity averages across warmth & competence, which show same patterns.

P j diPrejudices


But outgroup prejudices without ingroup favoritism But outgroup prejudices without ingroup favoritism Happen for individuals In distinct regions of brain Predict distinct patterns of discriminationp

P j diPrejudices



Intergroup Perception → Person Perception(Russell & Fiske EJSP 2008)(Russell & Fiske, EJSP, 2008)

Individual competition & status →pindividual warmth & competence

M th dMethods

Participants: Princeton Undergrads (n=46) Cover: National Impression Formation Study

h th i i f f diff ton how synthesize info from different sources Interact & form impression of another student Background (status) Background (status) “Subliminal” info Game (competition) Rate warmth & competence

2 (status) x 2 (competition)

Competition Perceived WarmthWarmth(Russell & Fiske, EJSP, 2008)

6.5

7

1-9)

5.5

6

ngs

(Sca

le:

4.5

5

arm

th R

atin

4

4.5

Competitive Condition Non-CompetitiveCondition

Wa

Condition

Status Perceived Competence(Russell & Fiske, EJSP, 2008)

6.5

7

g (1

-9)

5.5

6

ce R

atin

4.5

5

mpe

tenc

4

High Status Target Low Status Target

Co

Status CompetenceI t lli I d (SAT GPA)on Intelligence Index (SAT, GPA)

0.4

0.6

GPA

)

0

0.2

ex (S

AT

&

High Status

-0.2

01

genc

e In

de High StatusLow Status

-0.6

-0.4

Inte

llig

P j diPrejudices



Pride Envy Pity DisgustPride Envy Pity Disgust

1 2 3 4

Emotion Ratings in Scanner(Harris & Fiske, Psych Science, 2006)

0 80.9

1

0.50.60.70.8

port

ion

0 10.20.30.4

Pro

p

00.1

pride envy pity disgust

EmotionEmotion

SCAN 101SCAN 101

Medial Prefrontal Cortex Social cognition, theory of mind, social affect

Dispositional attributions about people(Harris, Todorov, & Fiske, NeuroImage, 2006) Not ambiguous attributions Not objects doing same actions

(Harris & Fiske, Social Cognition, 2008)

“Social valuation”

Pride

MPFC: Social CognitionPride

Y: 55

EEnvy

Y: 14

Pity

Y: -19

Disgust: No MPFC, not Social

Y: 32

Y: 42

Y: 52

Y: 62

Di l i & Di iDisclaimer & Digression

What I said: Differentiated prejudicesdistinct activationsp j

What I did NOT say: Prejudice is inevitable wired in Prejudice is inevitable, wired in

Brief empirical digression:N l ti ti d d i l t t Neural activation depends on social context

G l St d H thGoal Study Hypotheses

Nonsocial goal no MPFC Individuating goal MPFC Individuating goal MPFC Categorization goal amygdala, MPFC

Instructions(Harris & Fiske, SCAN, 2007)

Shown for 2 sec. at the beginning of each block of 12 faces

Stimuli & Design (H i & Fi k SCAN 2007)(Harris & Fiske, SCAN, 2007)

+

11 sec.

1 sec.

2 sec.

Dot: No MPFC, not Social y: 32

y: 42y: 42

y: 62

y: 52

y: 62

MPFC Activation: Social Cognition

Vegetable task

8 38 32x: 8, y: 38, z: 32

Age taskAge task

x: 5, y: 42, z: 30

“Rehumanization”(Harris & Fiske, SCAN, 2007)

Dehuman.Targets

Human.Targets

Dehumanization:Denying a Mind to Others

Prejudices MPFC activation

Pride .47

Envy 57Envy .57

Pity .52

Di 34Disgust .34

Dehumanization:Denying a Mind to Others

Prejudices MPFC activation

Attributed mind

Likely

interaction

Pride .47 .78 .27

Envy 57 66 14Envy .57 .66 .14

Pity .52 .35 ‐.24

Di 34 26 43Disgust .34 .26 ‐.43

Disgusting groups also less articulate, intelligent, less typically human(Harris & Fiske, 2006 & under review)

Oth Ki d f D h i ti ?Other Kinds of Dehumanization?

Dehumanization Theory (Haslam): Dehumanization as disgusting animals Dehumanization as disgusting animals

(e.g., vermin such as rodents, insects) Dehumanization as objects Dehumanization as objects

(e.g., tools, machines, robots)

St t C t t M d lStereotype Content ModelLow Competence High Competence

High Warmth

older, disabled, retarded

ingroup, allies, reference groupsWarmth retarded

Pity

reference groups

Pride

Low poor welfare Jews Asians richLow Warmth

poor, welfare, homeless

Disgust (Vermin)

Jews, Asians, rich, feminists, vamps

Envy (Objects)Disgust (Vermin) Envy (Objects)

F l S bt ( )Female Subtypes (Eckes, 2002)

Hypotheses (Cikara, Eberhardt, & Fiske, under review)

For heterosexual men sexualized women have For heterosexual men, sexualized women have instrumental value, so they will:

Recognize bodies of sexualized women Not faces

Deactivate social cognition network Correlated with hostile sexism

P ti i t & D i Participants & Design (Cikara et al.)

21 h t l l t d t• 21 heterosexual male students

I d d t i blIndependent variables:• 2 (bikini/clothed) X 2 (female/male target)

Dependent variables:• BOLD response• BOLD response• Surprise face & body recognition• Hostile Sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996)Hostile Sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996)

S l Sti liSample Stimuli

20 each, 10 foils

B d R itiBody Recognition

Fgender(1,20) = 17.78, p < .001, ηp2 = .47; Fclothing(1,20) = 11.33, p < .005, ηp

2 = .36

Hostile Sexism & Whole Brain: Deactivation of Social Cognition Network

Mitchell, 2008

William’s test t(19) = 2 9 p < 005 one tailedWilliam s test t(19) = 2.9, p < .005, one-tailed

HS C l ti ithi PFCHS Correlation within mPFC

0.004

0.005

mat

e

HS & = .38 0.002

0.003

r Est

immPFCBA 10

HS & = -.59 0

0.001

0 00am

eter

BA 1033 voxels

(19) 59 010 002

-0.001

01 2 3 4

Para

r(19) = -.59, p = .01-0.002

Fi t Thi d P V b IATFirst v. Third Person Verb IAT

First Person Verbs use

Third Person Verbs uses

push pull

pushes pullsp

squeeze turn

p squeezes turns u

fold grasp

turns folds grasps grasp grasps

IAT R ltFemale

P ti i t

IAT ResultsMale

P ti i t graspParticipantsParticipants grasp

grasps

graspsgrasps

grasp

t(9)= 1.39, p = nst(15) = -2.22, p < .05, ηp2 = .25

Sexualized Female Bodies (Cikara et al., under review)

Remembered best Associated with first-person actions Sexism de-activates mPFC

Social cognition network

Possible neural signatures for unique prejudices

P j diPrejudices


H f i di id l Happen for individuals In distinct regions of brain

But depends on social goals Predict distinct patterns of discriminationp

P j diPrejudices



SCM: US Representative Samplep p(Cuddy et al., JPSP, 2007)

4 5 help

4

4.5

Elderly Christians

Housewives

PITY PRIDEhelp, protect

3.5

th

AmericansDisabled

Christians

Black professionals

Middle-class

IrishRetarded

Whitesexclude, cooperate,

3

War

mt

British

Asians

Poor blacksJews

Whites

Welfare

exclude, demean associate

2.5 ArabsRich

Homeless

Feminists

WelfareTurks

DISGUST ENVYattack, 2

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Competence

DISGUST ENVYfight

Predicting Discrimination: US Surveyg y(Cuddy et al., JPSP, 2007)

0.6

0.7

stereotypes boostemotions boost

0.4

0.5

nAdj R

Squ

are

0.2

0.3

Cha

nge in

0

0.1

Active Facilitation Active Harm Passive Facilitation Passive Harm

B h i O i t tiBehavior Orientation

O ll C l M d lOverall Causal Model

Social Structure Stereotypes(W th

Emotions(Di t Pit

Behavior(A ti(Competition,

Status)(Warmth, Competence)

(Disgust, Pity,Envy, Pride)

(Active,PassiveHelp &Harm)Harm)

P j diPrejudices



I li tiImplications

Not all biases are equivalent Most stereotypes are ambivalent Most prejudices create mixed emotions Most discrimination includes both help & harm

People don’t know this Automatic = unconscious Automatic unconscious Ambiguous = hard to detect Ambivalent = mixed Ambivalent mixed

Monitor overall patterns

U S C ll b tU.S. Collaborators

Tiane Lee, Ann Marie Russell, Mina Cikara, Princeton Lasana Harris, New York University Amy Cuddy, Harvard Business School Cara Talaska, Eastern Michigan University

P C i ll U i i f R h Peter Caprariello, University of Rochester Virginia Kwan, Alex Todorov, Princeton University

P t Gli k L U i it Peter Glick, Lawrence University Jennifer Eberhardt, Stanford University

Shelly Chaiken Berkeley CA Shelly Chaiken, Berkeley CA

I t ti l C ll b tInternational Collaborators Britain: J Oldmeadow Britain: J. Oldmeadow Belgium: S. Demoulin, J-Ph. Leyens, V. Yzerbyt Bulgaria: K. Petkova & V. Todorov China: V. Kwan & M. Bond Costa Rica: V. Smith-Castro & R. Perez France: J-C. Croizet Germany: R. Ziegler Israel: N. Rouhana Italy: F. Durante, D. Capozza, C. Volpato Japan: M. Yamamoto & T. T. Htun

Korea: H J Kim Korea: H-J. Kim Netherlands: E. Sleebos & N. Ellemers Norway: J. Perry Portugal: J Vala Portugal: J. Vala South Africa: A. Akande Spain: R. Rodriguez Bailon, E. Morales, & M. Moya Wales: G. Maio

Thank youy

RSF Project: E U & S DEnvy Up & Scorn Down

E & di id Envy & scorn divide us What? Who? Where? Where? Why?

(comparison informs identifies & protects) (comparison informs, identifies, & protects) When? How to harness for good

universal dimensions of inequality: why … dimensions of inequality: why warmth and competence...

Documents