Clausell & Fiske, 2005; Cuddy et al., 2009; Eckes, 2002; Fiske, Bergsieker, Russell, & Williams, 2009; Kervyn,
Fiske, & Malone, 2012; Lee & Fiske, 2006; Malone & Fiske, 2013; Sevillano & Fiske, under review ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients averaged .86, ranging from .94 to .67 ( Fiske et al., 2002 ).
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest reliability at the level of individual participants was not tested, but stereotype content stability has
been tested at the level of groups in American society over time ( Bergsieker et al., 2012 ). Consistent with chang-
ing norms about expressing prejudices, the negative dimensions for each group are no longer mentioned, but the
positive dimension (warmth or competence or both) is remarkably stable over 75 years, and the outgroups mostly
locate in the same warmth-by-competence quadrant over time.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Several frameworks and measures propose related dimensions for individual person perception ( Fiske et al.,
2007 ): social versus task dimensions for personality traits ( Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968 ), morality
versus competence for self and other descriptions ( Wojciszke, 1994 ), trustworthiness versus dominance in sponta-
neous trait inferences from faces ( Willis & Todorov, 2006 ). Together, these two dimensions account for 82% of the
variance in interpersonal impressions ( Wojciszke et al., 1998 ). Others propose similar dimensions for intergroup
and inter-nation relations (respectively, Alexander, Brewer, & Hermann, 1999 ;Phalet & Poppe, 1997 ; see Cuddy
et al., 2008 , for a discussion of the distinctions).
Not an individual-difference measure, SCM relates less clearly to known-groups analyses. However, observers
often wonder whether the SCM space depends on the respondent’s own group membership, the most plausible
prediction being ingroup-favoritism. In the original research, 280 Ftests (on rated competence, warmth, status,
and competition) across two-dozen groups per sample revealed only 8% significant differences by gender and
ethnicity of participants ( Fiske et al., 2002 ). Subsequent analysis of students’ favoring the ingroup students (where
mentioned) revealed slight ingroup favoritism in American and Belgian samples but not East Asian samples
(Cuddy et al., 2009 ). EU samples rating each other showed slight ingroup favoritism on their own nation’s
more positive dimension ( Cuddy et al., 2009 ). Because respondents report societal stereotypes, consensus is
mostly high.
Divergent/Discriminant
Although early SCM research included some negative as well as positive traits, to offset acquiescence response
bias, patterns across each separate group’s factor analyses showed negative items’ inconsistent use in describing
societal stereotypes (see Bergsieker et al., 2012 ). Order of presentation makes no detectable differences ( Fiske
et al., 2002 ).
The most frequently proposed alternative model comprises the semantic differential dimensions of evaluation,
potency, and activity (EPA; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957 ). A multi-dimensional scaling of 26 societal
groups found that one-, two-, and three-dimensional solutions were better predicted by SCM than EPA dimen-
sions ( Kervyn, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2013 ). Moreover, correlational and experimental designs predicted and demon-
strated that the two main EPA dimensions (evaluation and potency) run across stereotype content model
quadrants at roughly 45/C14angles.
Construct/Factor Analytic
In each study, two types of cluster analysis described the structure of the two-dimensional space. Following
Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1995) , first, hierarchical cluster analyses determine the best-fit number of
clusters, using agglomeration statistics. Second, k-means cluster analyses (parallel threshold method) assign
groups to clusters (cf. Blashfield & Aldenderfer, 1988 ). The first 2002 study had used traits derived from the
Conway, Pizzamiglio, and Mount (1996) gender-stereotype study of communality and agency: five competence
traits ( competent, intelligent, confident, competitive, independent ) and four warmth traits ( sincere, good natured, warm,
tolerant ). Even in the original SCM (2002) paper, items developed over studies, to increase reliability, but most
often became warm, friendly versus competent, capable .689 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT