7.Inferior groups should stay in their place.
8.Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.
9.It would be good if groups could be equal.
10.Group equality should be our ideal.
11.All groups should be given an equal chance in life.
12.We should do what we can to equalize conditions
for different groups.
13.Increased social equality.14.We would have fewer problems if we treated people
more equally.
15.We should strive to make incomes as equal as
possible.
16.No one group should dominate in society.
Notes :
Items 9 /C016 reverse scored.
Copyright APA. Reproduced by permission.
Stereotype Content Model (SCM)
(Fiske et al., 2002 ).
Variable
The SCM measures specific biases directed toward systematic clusters of groups across society ( Cuddy, Fiske, &
Glick, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Fiske et al., 2002 ). The first dimension, perceived warmth, reflects the
group’s apparent intention for good or ill (friend /C0foe), and the second dimension, perceived competence, reflects
the group’s apparent ability to enact that intent (capability). Among the univalent combinations, the most obvious
ingroups and societal reference groups (e.g., middle class, citizens) appear high on both dimensions, whereas
extreme outgroups (drug addicts, homeless people) appear low on both dimensions. Among the ambivalent combi-
nations, some appear competent but cold (rich people, outsider entrepreneurs) and others warm but incompetent
(older people, disabled people). These quadrants vary in the groups they contain across societies, but the two
dimensions are predicted to array groups across space in a variety of settings. This is not an individual-difference
measure, but a description of reported intergroup reactions at the level of a society.
Description
SCM research proceeds in two steps. In Phase 1, a preliminary sample ( n5B30) from a given society lists
groups to three prompts ( Fiske et al., 2002 ). In Phase 2, the most important measures are the groups’ trait images
(stereotypes) on the fundamental dimensions of perceived warmth (warm, friendly, sincere, trustworthy) and
perceived competence (competent, capable, skilled, intelligent). These then generate the two-dimensional liking
(warmth) x respect (competence) space, with some groups typically high on both, others low on both, and still
others high on one but low on the other (originally the SCM used a subset of the listed traits, but recent work by
(Kervyn, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, in press ), suggests improved psychometrics with the additional ones included here).
The Phase 1 group-listing task established a method of selecting groups mentioned by at least 15 /C020% of the ini-
tial sample, to assure that the groups are commonly known. In Phase 2, trait ratings were factor analyzed across
participants, all of whom rated a given group, for each of 6 /C024 groups.
Sample
The first samples included 346 undergraduates from two state universities (Massachusetts and Colorado, aver-
age age 19 /C020 years), as well as 207 nonstudent adults from Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Florida
(mean age 35 /C078 years). Samples averaged 50 /C075% female, 66 /C084% White, and middle-class (where measured).
Sometimes (see articles’ methods), to prevent fatigue, randomly assigned participants have each rated half the
listed groups. Because group-level results are most relevant (each group receiving warmth and competence rat-
ings means), randomly assigned participants rate different groups and then the combined data sets are analyzed
together, especially feasible given the lack of individual differences on these measures of societal beliefs
(see below).
An American adult representative sample ( n5571; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007 ) generalized beyond earlier
student and nonstudent convenience samples. The two dimensions of intergroup perception appear to be univer-
sal across more than 30 nations ( Cuddy, Fiske, & Kwan, 2009; Durante, Fiske, Cuddy, & Kervyn, 2013 ) and
75 years ( Bergsieker, Leslie, Constantine, & Fiske, 2012; Durante, Volpato, & Fiske, 2010 ), as well as targets that
are individuals, subgroups, groups, nations, corporations, and species ( Brambilla, Carnaghi, & Ravenna, 2011;688 24. MEASURES OF STEREOTYPING AND PREJUDICE: BAROMETERS OF BIAS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT