Oftentimes, the words “stereotyping” and “prejudice” are employed interchangeably, but this constitutes incorrect usage of the terms. In fact, it is really the case that stereotyping is the backbone of prejudice. In short, stereotypes are commonly held beliefs about a group including their appearance, behavior, intelligence, and abilities. Prejudice is more concerned with attitudes, both positive and negative, that people have about these groups (Vescio & Weaver, 2013). This essay describes their differences and how both processes play out in society, sometimes with very detrimental effects.
Let us begin with stereotyping and examine its origins. Ivan Pico (2017), in his article “Do You Know the Difference between Stereotype and Prejudice?” defines stereotype as a consensus of opinion regarding the characteristics attributed to a group. According to an article “Prejudice and Stereotyping” by Vescio and Weaver (2013), “prejudice and stereotyping are generally considered to be the product of adaptive processes that simplify an overly complex world so that people can devote more cognitive resources to other tasks”. People have a tendency to attribute to another person some characteristics which are perceived to be shared with the characteristics of the group the other person are associated with. Stereotypes are rooted in a culture in which we live and are experienced by us during family and school socialization, and shown to us through media including books, movies, television, and newspapers. Although we receive these stereotypes in these different ways, we should not automatically assume that they are necessarily true.
Fortunately, these stereotypes can change over time. This can take place when we receive information that contradicts the stereotype. However, it can also occur when cultural norms experience change. Examples of the latter include commonly held perceptions of the role of and the abilities of African-Americans and women in the United States in the nineteenth century compared to the present. Taking one example from gender stereotyping, Eagly and Steffen (1984) found that the stereotyping of women came more from the traditional roles of caregiver and homemaker rather than any intrinsic female properties. Similarly, women seen as compliant derived more from their typically occupying subordinate status positions while employed. Another example could be taking a socio-economic group that represented an economically disadvantaged position in society and labeling them stupid and lazy. Stereotypes cannot be underestimated in their impact because they affect our academic performance, the careers we chose to pursue, our experiences at work, and the amount we are paid for the work we perform (Stangor, 2014).
In 1976, Hamilton and Gifford in 1976 conducted an experiment (as cited in Foster, 2013). They formed two groups, A and B, with twice as many people in Group A as in Group B. What they found was that in categorizing behavior as either “desirable” or “undesirable”, more instances of undesirable behavior were attributed to the numerically smaller B group. This is an example of an illusory correlation because it is the relative size of the smaller group to the bigger group that causes the instances of undesirable behavior to be linked with them. If you take the results of this experiment and project it to nations around the world both now and historically, there are many instances where the majority group makes judgments and attributes blame to the minority group. A classic example of this would be Nazi Germany blaming Jewish people for the shortcomings experienced in the country.
How does stereotyping differ from prejudice? Stanger (2014) describes prejudice as an unjustifiable negative attitude toward an outgroup or toward the members of that outgroup. What distinguishes prejudice from a stereotype is that prejudice is a reaction to a belief. For example, the stereotype that women are the best-qualified candidates to perform nursing duties could cause an otherwise well qualified male candidate to be eliminated in the selection process. Another example is that of a vegetarian not liking someone because they are a meat eater. People can be aware of stereotypes without endorsing them and without any feelings of prejudice.
Why is this important beyond being academic exercises in semantics? In fact, the consequences of stereotyping and prejudice can be extremely serious. The motivation to study these topics sprang from the awful mistreatment of certain groups in history including African-Americans, Jews, women, and homosexuals (Vescio & Weaver, 2013). Prejudice against a group can even be state-sanctioned as in the case of Russia enacting a series of laws against the LGBT community. It is not surprising that following this, violence was enacted on gay teenagers there including in some cases, torture and death (Stangor, 2014). The study of stereotypes and prejudice is now evolving from such obvious, conscious, negative attitudes and overtly discriminately behavior to attitudes that could be considered positive and not obviously or overtly prejudiced.
How do we change the stereotypes and prejudices that do cause so much damage to people and society? Gurwitz and Dodge (1977), in an experiment involving stereotypes of female golfers, found that changing stereotypes can come from an accumulation of inconsistent information, and even more effective, a few very striking counterexamples. It is not an easy process and some stereotypes are easier to change than others.
One only has to look at the politically divided situation in the United States to see the insidious effects of stereotyping and prejudice—red vs. blue, urban vs. rural, Republican vs. Democrat, pro-life vs. pro-choice—the list goes on and on. Lives are now at stake as the Florida school shooting starkly demonstrated. Unless both sides of the gun debate can keep their prejudices in check and find some common ground to hold an honest debate with the other side on this very complex issue, progress will not be made and the shootings will continue.
Reference List:
Eagly, A.H. & Steffen, V.J. (1984) Gender stereotypes from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Northwestern University, Northwestern Scholars. Retrieved fromhttps://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/gender-stereotypes-stem-from-the-distribution-of-women-and-men-in-2
Foster, C. (2013). Social psychology: Stereotyping and prejudice. Organizational Development. Retrieved from http://organisationdevelopment.org/tag/hamilton-and-gifford/
Pico, I. (2017). Do you know the difference between stereotype and prejudice? Priscopico. Retrieved from https://psicopico.com/en/sabes-las-diferencias-estereotipo-prejuicio/
Stangor, C., n.d., Principles of Social Psychology. BC Open Textbooks. Principles of Social Psychology, 1st International Edition, Chapter 11. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/part/chapter-12-stereotypes-prejudice-and-discrimination/
Vescio, T. & Weaver, K. (2013), Prejudice and Stereotyping. Oxford Bibliographies. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199828340-0097
We are proud of our SOCIAL INTEREST GROUPS—WEEKLY PHONE CALLS to discuss, gain insights, build communities— and help solve some of the most difficult challenges the world has today. Calls are for Members Only (although you can join the first call for free). Not yet a member of The Good Men Project? Join below!
All levels get to view The Good Men Project site AD-FREE. The $50 Platinum Level is an ALL-ACCESS PASS—join as many groups and classes as you want for the entire year. The $25 Gold Level gives you access to any ONE Social Interest Group and ONE Class–and other benefits listed below the form. Or…for $12, join as a Bronze Member and support our mission, and have a great ad-free viewing experience.
Register New Account
Please note: If you are already a writer/contributor at The Good Men Project, log in here before registering. (Request new password if needed).
◊♦◊
ANNUAL PLATINUM membership ($50 per year) includes:
1. AN ALL ACCESS PASS — Join ANY and ALL of our weekly calls, Social Interest Groups, classes, workshops and private Facebook groups. We have at least one group phone call or online class every day of the week.
2. See the website with no ads when logged in!
3. MEMBER commenting badge.
*** ANNUAL GOLD membership ($25 per year) includes all the benefits above — but only ONE Weekly Social Interest Group and ONE class.
*** ANNUAL BRONZE membership ($12 per year) is great if you are not ready to join the full conversation but want to support our mission anyway. You’ll still get a BRONZE commenting badge, and you can pop into any of our weekly Friday Calls with the Publisher when you have time. This is for people who believe—like we do—that this conversation about men and changing roles and goodness in the 21st century is one of the most important conversations you can have today.
♦◊♦
We have pioneered the largest worldwide conversation about what it means to be a good man in the 21st century. Your support of our work is inspiring and invaluable.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
My name is Steve King and having grown up in a Los Angeles beach suburb, I have now lived in the Philippines for six years. Being retired, I now have lots of time to indulge one of my hobbies which is both creative and freelance writing. I also love reading, watching news/sports/movies, traveling, exercising, playing piano, and playing with my dogs.
