The measurement of meaning

https://fidelum.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Warmth-Competence-2007.pdf

Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence

Individualism and collectivism

The stereotype content model (SCM) defines two fundamental dimensions of social perception, warmth and competence, predicted respectively by perceived competition and status. Combinations of warmth and competence generate distinct emotions of admiration, contempt, envy, and pity. From these intergroup emotions and stereotypes, the behavior from intergroup affect and stereotypes (BIAS) map predicts distinct behaviors: active and passive, facilitative and harmful. After defining warmth/communion and competence/agency, the chapter integrates converging work documenting the centrality of these dimensions in interpersonal as well as intergroup perception. Structural origins of warmth and competence perceptions result from competitors judged as not warm, and allies judged as warm; high status confers competence and low status incompetence. Warmth and competence judgments support systematic patterns of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions, including ambivalent prejudices. Past views of prejudice as a univalent antipathy have obscured the unique responses toward groups stereotyped as competent but not warm or warm but not competent. Finally, the chapter addresses unresolved issues and future research directions.

Warmth and Competence As Universal Dimensions of Social Perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map

Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior.

The stereotype content model (SCM) proposes potentially universal principles of societal stereotypes and their relation to social structure. Here, the SCM reveals theoretically grounded, cross-cultural, cross-groups similarities and one difference across 10 non-US nations. Seven European (individualist) and three East Asian (collectivist) nations (N=1,028) support three hypothesized cross-cultural similarities: (a) perceived warmth and competence reliably differentiate societal group stereotypes; (b) many out-groups receive ambivalent stereotypes (high on one dimension; low on the other); and (c) high status groups stereotypically are competent, whereas competitive groups stereotypically lack warmth. Data uncover one consequential cross-cultural difference: (d) the more collectivist cultures do not locate reference groups (in-groups and societal prototype groups) in the most positive cluster (high-competence/high-warmth), unlike individualist cultures. This demonstrates out-group derogation without obvious reference-group favouritism. The SCM can serve as a pancultural tool for predicting group stereotypes from structural relations with other groups in society, and comparing across societies.

/pdf/stereotype-content-model-across-cultures-towards-universal-235gnzvh4f.pdf

Stereotype content model across cultures: towards universal similarities and some differences.

One possible way of solving the problem with the cross-cultural validity of the indicators of public understanding of science is analysis of the latent structure of sets of statements used in previous surveys. The factor analysis of eighteen statements from Eurobarometer 224 (2005) reveals three stable replicable latent dimensions—Evaluation, Efficacy and Control. The Efficacy dimension was replicated in the data of thirty-four countries participating in the survey. This dimension was not replicated only in Northern Ireland. The Control dimension was not replicated only in East Germany, Turkey and Norway. It is shown that the Evaluation and Efficacy dimension correlate and form new second-order dimension ‘Science is for others’ vs ‘Science is for us’.

Valery Todorov

Papers

Stereotype content model across cultures: towards universal similarities and some differences.

In Search of the Universal Dimensions of Public Perception of Science

Bulgarian National Stereotypes and National Identity