essay against stereotypes

• Teaching Resources
• Upcoming Events
• On-demand Events

How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do: An Introduction to Stereotype Threat

• facebook sharing
• email sharing

"Stereotypes are one way by which history affects present life," social psychologist Claude Steele says in this video about the history of stereotypes and how negative stereotypes impact us today.

[JONATHON LYKES] I remember when I felt like I had no voice. Before I faced history, before college was a choice. It was my freshman year of high school when I took my first Facing History course. They taught me about identity, community and choosing to participate. Now I'm involved in my community because I chose to participate. Because I used to feel like my words were like the crooked figures hidden under the barcodes that are pasted on the beaten backs of books that I was never supposed to read.

My words, numbered. Because I used to wonder, how do they see me, how do I see them. For I noticed that there's this thing called perception that gives people the opportunity for exception or on the flip side, to be in the circle of rejection, or different type of sections in groups of cliques making fun of that person and talking bad about this person. So I ask you, what is your outlook on things? All these different stereotypes and all types of legal rights being violated because you look this way and you act that way and you're telling me it's OK to give a blind eye to the less fortunate simply because they're beneath you. Test.

[CLAUDE STEELE] You know, I often say that people experience stereotype threat several times a day. And the reason is that we have a lot of identities. Our gender, our race, our age. And about each one of those identities that I mentioned, there are negative stereotypes. And when people are in a situation for which a negative stereotype about one of their identities is relevant to the situation, relevant to what they're doing, they know they could be possibly judged or treated in terms of that stereotype. They don't know whether they are or not, but they know they could be.

And if the situation is important, that prospect starts to threaten them and upset them and distract them and can affect performance right there in the situation. And so you could find yourself kind of adjusting and deflecting, doing things that would deflect being seen by the stereotype. And it can affect their willingness or their interest in staying in that area of life where that kind of stereotype is relevant.

[JONATHON LYKES] Test. You, in a dark suburban alley alone see a Black man, looks like he's far away from home. Fear runs down your spine and your thoughts roam as you say in your mind, this little Black boy is up to no good and should be picked up by the police. But would you believe that that boy was me and what they didn't see was I was coming home from youth group. So tell me why the mode of pre-determined thought towards me. I'm not in that percentile. We're trying to be all that we can be. And they still stone me with their misconceptions about Black men.

They tend to understand and assume I'm into to misconjugated verbs, oversized pants, and hip hop.

[SONJA SOHN] The year the schools were integrated I was bussed uptown 20 miles. I was in a school with white kids. And on the first day of school they sectioned us all off and they called out groups one, two, three, and four and you went and stood in lines. And I'm seeing all the white kids in one line. And I knew that I had tested pretty high on tests before because I used to study by myself in my school the year before.

And so I knew what line I was going in. And I went into that line filled with the white kids. And that year things changed for me. I lost a lot of confidence. And I was under stereotype threat. I was scared to raise my hand because I couldn't be wrong. Not the Black girl who lived downtown.

[CLAUDE STEELE] I'm a social psychologist and experimentalist and so we've done experiments to test whether or not stereotype threat can have effect on something that we tend to think of as pretty hard-wired like your performance on a cognitive exam or a standardized test. So one simple experiment was to bring women and men into the laboratory one at a time and give them a very difficult math test, a math test that we knew would cause frustration.

And even though everything was the same for the men and for the woman-- the room, the items on the test, the experimenter-- for men, as they went along doing the test and experienced frustration, they could worry that they're not as good at math as they maybe thought they were. But they wouldn't be worried that they were confirming some group-based limitation of ability. But for women, in the same situation, as they start to experience frustration, some part of their brain might worry, am I confirming the stereotype about women having limited math ability? Is that what's going on here?

And that worry, since these are women who we-- women and men-- who we selected for being very committed to math and very good at it, that worry for that kind of person can be upsetting and distracting and can interfere with their performance right there in the testing situation. And that's exactly what happened. Women did considerably worse than the men. However, and here's the good news, we eventually came up with an idea that would take stereotype threat out of that situation.

We simply told them the following: Look, you may have heard that women are not as good at difficult standardized tests. But that's not true for this particular standardized test. The test that you're taking today is a test on which women always do as well as men. So the subtext of that little statement is, look, the frustration you're having on this test has nothing to do with your being a woman. Now we've taken this extra pressure that women might have in this situation out of the situation. They're no longer under the pressure of confirming or being seen to confirm something, some limitation, that's out there in the stereotypes of our society about women lacking math ability.

And if that's what's been depressing their performance earlier, now their performance should go up to match that of equally skilled men. And that is exactly what happened. With that little sentence, women's performance matched that of men.

So some forms of this threat are pretty minor and almost humorful, and other forms of this threat are really poignant. One thing to say in a Facing History context is that stereotypes is one way by which history affects present life, because stereotypes are built up over the history of a society. And they can have an impact on people's functioning in the immediate, present situations, and are big factors in the way our society functions. Who goes into what kinds of fields. Who enjoys what kinds of work. These things are driven, in big part, by these by these kinds of threats.

"I often say that people experience stereotype threat several times a day," Steele goes on to say. "The reason is that we have a lot of identities – our gender, our race, our age. And about each one of those identities…there are negative stereotypes. And when people are in a situation for which a negative stereotype about one of their identities is relevant to the situation, relevant to what they’re doing, they know they could be possibly judged or treated in terms of that stereotype."

Facing History educators explore the impact of stereotypes in many of the histories we study. In personal stories, we can see how stereotypes impact the decisions individuals and communities make, and the effects those decisions have.

Studies show  that 94 % of Facing History students are more likely to recognize the dangers of stereotyping. Here are some resources that might help you discuss stereotyping in American or world history classes, or in electives that look at identity and difference:

A Convenient Hatred: The History of Antisemitism  explores the roots of antisemitism and includes case studies from different chapters in world history.

Becoming American: The Chinese Experience  looks at the history of Chinese immigration to America, and the ways in which stereotypes impact our understanding of national identity.

Common Core Writing Prompts and Strategies: A Supplement to Civil Rights Historical Investigations  contains teaching strategies that meet the Common Core State Standards and require that students “do” history – gather evidence from primary documents, use evidence to make claims about the past, and apply what they learn to their own lives today – as they explore the history of stereotypes against different races in American society.

Crimes Against Humanity and Civilization: The Genocide of the Armenians  takes an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the Armenian Genocide during World War I, when the Armenian people were persecuted for their religion, identity, and culture.

Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do  is Dr. Steele’s book exploring the power of stereotyping in shaping the behavior of individuals.

Don't miss out!

• download classroom materials
• view on-demand professional learning
• and more...

Explore our educator resources to keep the conversation going.

You might also be interested in…, echoes of the holocaust: eugenics and disability in the time of the holocaust, fragility of freedom: discussing holocaust memorial day 2024 in the classroom, the art of listening – video testimony and the study of history, paragraph 175 & the origins of the pink triangle, holocaust remembrance day: a time for reflection and learning, what's wrong with jojo rabbit, using survivor testimony in the classroom, in partnership with generation 2 generation, collective memory: educational approaches to commemorating trauma.

Sep 18, 2024 | 7 - 8:15pm EDT

Today is the #WeNeedBlackTeachers Day of Action

How to build an affirming classroom in the face of anti-trans legislation, 6 resources for teaching about 9/11, on existing: a personal reflection, donate now and together we'll build a better world, inspiration, insights, & ways to get involved.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

How Do Stereotypes Shape Your Judgment?

Stereotypes are widespread but fixed ideas about specific groups of people. If the stereotype is negative, research suggests, it may lead us to consciously or subconsciously avoid or limit contact with entire groups of people—and negative experiences with a stereotyped group can reinforce this avoidant behavior.

A recent paper explores the impact of avoidance on reinforcing stereotypes through a series of studies. Their results reveal how stereotypes can prevent us from accurately perceiving a reality that never stops changing.

In the first experiment, participants chose if they wanted to interact with an alien species. If they chose to interact, the alien could either grant the participant a point (a positive experience) or take a point away (a negative experience).

Each group of aliens had differently colored skin, like green or blue. Most were seen multiple times, but throughout the task the alien faces were slowly replaced, even as they maintained the same skin color. To prime the development of stereotypes, researchers told participants to try to determine which aliens were more likely to give points and which were more likely to take points away, based on their interactions.

Participants played nine rounds. In the beginning of the game, one group of aliens was more likely to give points, while the other was more likely to take points away. By rounds six to nine, the cooperative behavior began to shift such that by the final round, aliens of both groups were cooperating equally. This blurred the once clearly defined stereotype lines.

How did that affect the participants? In the beginning rounds, they were more willing to interact with the group of aliens that were more cooperative; in other words, unsurprisingly, positive interactions increased the likelihood of future interactions. As the faces of the aliens changed and the cooperative tendencies became more equitable between alien groups, participants still continued to approach the initially more cooperative alien group more than the other.

This showed how powerful first impressions can be. Participants developed a kind of stereotype in those initial interactions, one that overrode the evidence provided by later interactions.

For a second experiment, the researchers tried to answer this question: What happens when we notice repeated contradictions to our stereotypes? In this case, one group of aliens gradually changed their behavior, while the other stayed constant. The results of this experiment were somewhat counterintuitive: As the behavior of one alien group changed, participants modified their interactions with the other whose behavior stayed the same.

Why? In the paper, the researchers speculate that “changes in the composition of one group serve as a signal to participants that the other group is also going to change, causing them to adjust their behavior toward the other group even in the absence of any actual change in that group’s behavior.” Put differently, changes in the stereotyped behavior of one group can cause us to rethink the accuracy of the stereotype for another group—and perhaps to question the validity of stereotypes in general.

What if we are presented with information that disconfirms the stereotype about a group?

In a third experiment, the researchers varied the rate of change of the behavior of the uncooperative group from virtually non-cooperative to extremely cooperative as they progressed through the rounds of the game.

Participants were split into two groups. Group one only knew if the alien would give or take away points if they interacted with the alien (non-feedback group). If participants in group two decided not to interact with an alien, they were informed of its point intentions anyway (feedback group). 

The results suggest that it takes a lot to change ingrained stereotypes. “When changes in the [uncooperative] group were only moderate, participants did not update their beliefs regardless of the type of feedback they received and initial learning persisted,” write the researchers. Thus, when faced with only slight changes in the behavior of the uncooperative group, participants did not update their beliefs. It was only when the aliens demonstrated a drastic change in behavior did participants start to interact with them more. Under these conditions, participants in the feedback group interacted at a faster rate than those in the non-feedback group.

This research highlights how negative stereotypes can cause us to avoid entire groups—and how negative experiences can serve to reinforce our stereotypes. But it highlights something else, as well: how stereotypes limit our ability to perceive an ever-changing reality.

This research suggests that new experiences have to provide a drastic departure from stereotyped beliefs in order to change behavior toward a group. This can potentially create other tropes that may be equally damaging, even if positive—as with, for example, the “model minority” or “Black exceptionalism” stereotypes. These experiments can also remind us that experiences create their own biases. As the researchers note: “A perceiver who wishes to form accurate beliefs must be aware that their experiences may be biased.”

If a positive recommendation comes from this study, it’s that mindfulness and self-awareness are essential to forming accurate ideas about people. As we move through the world, we need to ask ourselves: Am I avoiding certain groups of people? Why? Are past experiences or beliefs warping my awareness of what is happening right here, right now?

About the Author

Shanna B. Tiayon

Shanna B. Tiayon, Ph.D. , also known as “The Wellbeing Dr.,” is a writer, speaker, and trainer working in the area of well-being. Currently, Shanna is the owner of WellbeingWorks , LLC, a boutique well-being firm bringing together the best interdisciplinary knowledge in the areas of social psychology, human resources, research, and training design.

You May Also Enjoy

How Challenging Stereotypes Can Save Black Lives

Fighting Stereotypes Is Good for All Students

Why Gender Stereotypes Are So Hard to Fight at Work

How to Beat Stereotypes by Seeing People as Individuals

The Subtle Way Cultural Bias Affects Job Interviews

How Adults Communicate Bias to Children

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Code Switch

• School Colors
• Perspectives

The Code Switch Podcast

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Hear Something, Say Something: Navigating The World Of Racial Awkwardness

Listen to this week's episode.

We've all been there — having fun relaxing with friends and family, when someone says something a little racially off. Sometimes it's subtle, like the friend who calls Thai food "exotic." Other times it's more overt, like that in-law who's always going on about "the illegals."

In any case, it can be hard to know how to respond. Even the most level-headed among us have faltered trying to navigate the fraught world of racial awkwardness.

So what exactly do you do? We delve into the issue on this week's episode of the Code Switch podcast, featuring writer Nicole Chung and Code Switch's Shereen Marisol Meraji, Gene Demby and Karen Grigsby Bates.

We also asked some folks to write about what runs through their minds during these tense moments, and how they've responded (or not). Their reactions ran the gamut from righteous indignation to total passivity, but in the wake of these uncomfortable comments, everyone seemed to walk away wishing they'd done something else.

Aaron E. Sanchez

It was the first time my dad visited me at college, and he had just dropped me off at my dorm. My suitemate walked in and sneered.

"Was that your dad?" he asked. "He looks sooo Mexican."

Aaron E. Sanchez is a Texas-based writer who focuses on issues of race, politics and popular culture from a Latino perspective. Courtesy of Aaron Sanchez hide caption

He kept laughing about it as he left my room.

I was caught off-guard. Instantly, I grew self-conscious, not because I was ashamed of my father, but because my respectability politics ran deep. My appearance was supposed to be impeccable and my manners unimpeachable to protect against stereotypes and slights. I felt exposed.

To be sure, when my dad walked into restaurants and stores, people almost always spoke to him in Spanish. He didn't mind. The fluidity of his bilingualism rarely failed him. He was unassuming. He wore his working-class past on his frame and in his actions. He enjoyed hard work and appreciated it in others. Yet others mistook him for something altogether different.

People regularly confused his humility for servility. He was mistaken for a landscape worker, a janitor, and once he sat next to a gentleman on a plane who kept referring to him as a "wetback." He was a poor Mexican-American kid who grew up in the Segundo Barrio of El Paso, Texas, for certain. But he was also an Air Force veteran who had served for 20 years. He was an electrical engineer, a proud father, an admirable storyteller, and a pretty decent fisherman.

I didn't respond to my suitemate. To him, my father was a funny caricature, a curio he could pick up, purchase and discard. And as much as it was hidden beneath my elite, liberal arts education, I was a novelty to him too, an even rarer one at that. Instead of a serape, I came wrapped in the trappings of middle-classness, a costume I was trying desperately to wear convincingly.

That night, I realized that no clothing or ill-fitting costume could cover us. Our bodies were incongruous to our surroundings. No matter how comfortable we were in our skins, our presence would make others uncomfortable.

Karen Good Marable

When the Q train pulled into the Cortelyou Road station, it was dark and I was tired. Another nine hours in New York City, working in the madness that is Midtown as a fact-checker at a fashion magazine. All day long, I researched and confirmed information relating to beauty, fashion and celebrity, and, at least once a day, suffered an editor who was openly annoyed that I'd discovered an error. Then, the crush of the rush-hour subway, and a dinner obligation I had to fulfill before heading home to my cat.

Karen Good Marable is a writer living in New York City. Her work has been featured in publications like The Undefeated and The New Yorker. Courtesy of Karen Good Marable hide caption

The train doors opened and I turned the corner to walk up the stairs. Coming down were two girls — free, white and in their 20s . They were dancing as they descended, complete with necks rolling, mouths pursed — a poor affectation of black girls — and rapping as they passed me:

Now I ain't sayin she a golddigger/But she ain't messin' with no broke niggas!

That last part — broke niggas — was actually less rap, more squeals that dissolved into giggles. These white girls were thrilled to say the word publicly — joyously, even — with the permission of Kanye West.

I stopped, turned around and stared at them. I envisioned kicking them both squarely in their backs. God didn't give me telekinetic powers for just this reason. I willed them to turn around and face me, but they did not dare. They bopped on down the stairs and onto the platform, not evening knowing the rest of the rhyme.

Listen: I'm a black woman from the South. I was born in the '70s and raised by parents — both educators — who marched for their civil rights. I never could get used to nigga being bandied about — not by the black kids and certainly not by white folks. I blamed the girls' parents for not taking over where common sense had clearly failed. Hell, even radio didn't play the nigga part.

I especially blamed Kanye West for not only making the damn song, but for having the nerve to make nigga a part of the damn hook.

Life in NYC is full of moments like this, where something happens and you wonder if you should speak up or stay silent (which can also feel like complicity). I am the type who will speak up . Boys (or men) cussing incessantly in my presence? Girls on the train cussing around my 70-year-old mama? C'mon, y'all. Do you see me? Do you hear yourselves? Please. Stop.

But on this day, I just didn't feel like running down the stairs to tap those girls on the shoulder and school them on what they damn well already knew. On this day, I just sighed a great sigh, walked up the stairs, past the turnstiles and into the night.

Robyn Henderson-Espinoza

When I was 5 or 6, my mother asked me a question: "Does anyone ever make fun of you for the color of your skin?"

This surprised me. I was born to a Mexican woman who had married an Anglo man, and I was fairly light-skinned compared to the earth-brown hue of my mother. When she asked me that question, I began to understand that I was different.

Robyn Henderson-Espinoza is a visiting assistant professor of ethics at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif. Courtesy of Robyn Henderson-Espinoza hide caption

Following my parents' divorce in the early 1980s, I spent a considerable amount of time with my father and my paternal grandparents. One day in May of 1989, I was sitting at my grandparents' dinner table in West Texas. I was 12. The adults were talking about the need for more laborers on my grandfather's farm, and my dad said this:

"Mexicans are lazy."

He called the undocumented workers he employed on his 40 acres "wetbacks." Again and again, I heard from him that Mexicans always had to be told what to do. He and friends would say this when I was within earshot. I felt uncomfortable. Why would my father say these things about people like me?

But I remained silent.

It haunts me that I didn't speak up. Not then. Not ever. I still hear his words, 10 years since he passed away, and wonder whether he thought I was a lazy Mexican, too. I wish I could have found the courage to tell him that Mexicans are some of the hardest-working people I know; that those brown bodies who worked on his property made his lifestyle possible.

As I grew in experience and understanding, I was able to find language that described what he was doing: stereotyping, undermining, demonizing. I found my voice in the academy and in the movement for black and brown lives.

Still, the silence haunts me.

Channing Kennedy

My 20s were defined in no small part by a friendship with a guy I never met. For years, over email and chat, we shared everything with each other, and we made great jokes. Those jokes — made for each other only — were a foundational part of our relationship and our identities. No matter what happened, we could make each other laugh.

Channing Kennedy is an Oakland-based writer, performer, media producer and racial equity trainer. Courtesy of Channing Kennedy hide caption

It helped, also, that we were slackers with spare time, but eventually we both found callings. I started working in the social justice sector, and he gained recognition in the field of indie comics. I was proud of my new job and approached it seriously, if not gracefully. Before I took the job, I was the type of white dude who'd make casually racist comments in front of people I considered friends. Now, I had laid a new foundation for myself and was ready to undo the harm I'd done pre-wokeness.

And I was proud of him, too, if cautious. The indie comics scene is full of bravely offensive work: the power fantasies of straight white men with grievances against their nonexistent censors, put on defiant display. But he was my friend, and he wouldn't fall for that.

One day he emailed me a rough script to get my feedback. At my desk, on a break from deleting racist, threatening Facebook comments directed at my co-workers, I opened it up for a change of pace.

I got none. His script was a top-tier, irredeemable power fantasy — sex trafficking, disability jokes, gendered violence, every scene's background packed with commentary-devoid, racist caricatures. It also had a pop culture gag on top, to guarantee clicks.

I asked him why he'd written it. He said it felt "important." I suggested he shelve it. He suggested that that would be a form of censorship. And I realized this: My dear friend had created a racist power fantasy about dismembering women, and he considered it bravely offensive.

I could have said that there was nothing brave about catering to the established tastes of other straight white comics dudes. I could have dropped any number of half-understood factoids about structural racism, the finishing move of the recently woke. I could have just said the jokes were weak.

Instead, I became cruel to him, with a dedication I'd previously reserved for myself.

Over months, I redirected every bit of our old creativity. I goaded him into arguments I knew would leave him shaken and unable to work. I positioned myself as a surrogate parent (so I could tell myself I was still a concerned ally) then laughed at him. I got him to escalate. And, privately, I told myself it was me who was under attack, the one with the grievance, and I cried about how my friend was betraying me.

I wanted to erase him (I realized years later) not because his script offended me, but because it made me laugh. It was full of the sense of humor we'd spent years on — not the jokes verbatim, but the pacing, structure, reveals, go-to gags. It had my DNA and it was funny. I thought I had become a monster-slayer, but this comic was a monster with my hands and mouth.

After years as the best of friends and as the bitterest of exes, we finally had a chance to meet in person. We were little more than acquaintances with sunk costs at that point, but we met anyway. Maybe we both wanted forgiveness, or an apology, or to see if we still had some jokes. Instead, I lectured him about electoral politics and race in a bar and never smiled.

• code switch

Essay on Stereotypes

Students are often asked to write an essay on Stereotypes in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Stereotypes

What are stereotypes.

Stereotypes are fixed beliefs about a particular group of people. They are often negative and oversimplified. Stereotypes can be based on race, gender, religion, or nationality.

How Stereotypes are Formed

Stereotypes are often formed from personal experience. For example, if someone has a negative experience with a member of a particular group, they may start to believe that all members of that group are negative. Stereotypes can also be formed from the media. If people see negative images of a particular group on TV or in movies, they may start to believe that those images are true.

The Dangers of Stereotypes

Stereotypes can be dangerous because they can lead to discrimination. When people believe that a particular group of people is negative, they may be less likely to interact with them or give them opportunities. Stereotypes can also lead to violence. If people believe that a particular group of people is dangerous, they may be more likely to attack them.

Breaking Down Stereotypes

Stereotypes can be broken down by education and contact. When people learn about different cultures and meet people from different backgrounds, they start to realize that stereotypes are not true.

250 Words Essay on Stereotypes

A stereotype is a fixed idea or belief about a particular group or person. It is often an oversimplified, inaccurate, and prejudiced generalization. Stereotypes can be positive, negative, or neutral. They can be about a person’s age, gender, race, religion, occupation, or any other group affiliation.

How Stereotypes are Formed?

Stereotypes are often formed through socialization, the process of learning the values, beliefs, and behaviors of a particular culture or group. Children learn stereotypes from their parents, teachers, peers, and the media. They may also learn stereotypes by observing the behavior of others.

Impact of Stereotypes

Stereotypes can have a negative impact on individuals and groups. They can lead to discrimination, prejudice, and social inequality. Stereotypes can also affect the way people think about themselves and their place in society.

Stereotypes can be challenged through education, awareness, and contact with diverse groups of people. It is important to teach children about the dangers of stereotypes and to help them develop critical thinking skills. It is also important to provide opportunities for people to interact with people from different backgrounds.

Stereotypes are harmful overgeneralizations that can lead to discrimination and prejudice. It is important to challenge stereotypes by learning about the dangers of prejudice and by promoting diversity and inclusion.

500 Words Essay on Stereotypes

What is a stereotype.

A stereotype is an idea about a person or a group of people that is not true for all the people in the group. It is like a label that we sometimes put on people based on their race, gender, age, religion, or other characteristics. Stereotypes can be positive or negative, but they are always harmful because they are not true.

How Do Stereotypes Form?

Stereotypes can form for many reasons. One reason is that we are all born with a tendency to categorize things. This helps us to make sense of the world around us by putting things into groups. However, sometimes we can over-categorize and start to think that everyone in a group is the same. This is where stereotypes come from.

Another reason stereotypes can form is through the media. The media often portrays people in certain ways, and these portrayals can reinforce stereotypes. For example, if we see a lot of images of women in the media who are thin and beautiful, we may start to think that all women should look that way.

Stereotypes can also be harmful to the people who are stereotyped. They can make people feel like they don’t belong or that they are not good enough. This can lead to low self-esteem and depression.

How to Challenge Stereotypes

The best way to challenge stereotypes is to learn more about the people who are stereotyped. When we get to know people as individuals, we start to realize that they are not all the same. We also need to be aware of our own stereotypes and challenge them when they come up.

Stereotypes are harmful because they are not true and they can lead to discrimination and prejudice. We can challenge stereotypes by learning more about the people who are stereotyped and by speaking out against stereotypes when we see or hear them. We can also support organizations that are working to break down stereotypes.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

As we transition our order fulfillment and warehousing to W. W. Norton, select titles may temporarily appear as out of stock. We appreciate your patience.

On The Site

Photo by Clarke Sanders on Unsplash

Challenging Stereotypes about Black Women

July 6, 2020 | yalepress | African American Studies

Melissa V. Harris-Perry —

Eliza Gallie was a free black woman living in Petersburg, Virginia, before the Civil War. She was divorced, owned property, and had financial resources that made her unusual among free blacks in the Confederate South. In 1853 Gallie was arrested and charged with stealing cabbages from a white man’s garden. Autonomous and assertive, she could afford to fight back against the scurrilous claim. She employed several aggressive attorneys who argued her case. But a Southern, white, male legal system declared her guilty and sentenced her to be publicly whipped on her bare back. Historian Suzanne Lebsock reminds us, “She was helpless in the end, the victim of the kind of deliberate humiliation that for most of us is past imagining.”

In 2002 historian Chana Kai Lee, not yet forty years old, was a tenured professor at the University of Georgia and the author of an award-winning biography of civil rights leader Fannie Lou Hamer. Complications from lupus caused two severe strokes within a week. Though she was left with disabled speech and diminished physical capacities, her department chair insisted that to keep her job, Lee must immediately return to the classroom. Her physician wrote multiple letters explaining the severity of Lee’s condition, but she was pressured to resume teaching because “the state is concerned about sick leave abuse.” Reflecting on the humiliating and physically impossible task of addressing a large classroom only weeks after a stroke, Lee saw herself as victimized by familiar stereotypes about black women. “Images of a ‘welfare cheat’ kept playing in my head. Ph.D. or no Ph.D., tenure or no tenure, I was just like the rest of those lazy black folks: I’d do anything for a cheap ride. I’d take advantage of any situation. I’d exaggerate and manipulate good, responsible, white folks who played by the rules, all to avoid my responsibilities.”

Lee’s stroke and its humiliating aftermath occurred more than 150 years after Eliza Gallie was publicly flogged for supposedly stealing a white man’s cabbage. The country was a profoundly different place in 2002 from what it was in 1853. Black women are no longer enslaved, and they enjoy the constitutional assurance of full citizenship. Centuries of struggle, sacrifice, and achievement have altered basic economic, political, and social realities for black women in vast and meaningful ways. Being required to limp and slur in front of dozens of college students is horrifying, but it is not the same as being publicly whipped. Lee was forced by economic necessity to return to work. Gallie lived in fear of racial murder against which there was no reasonable protection in the United States in 1853. Their experiences are not the same.

Yet there is a thin but tenacious thread connecting Gallie to Lee. Each is a woman of relative economic privilege and freedom. Powerful white institutions subjected both to public humiliation and physical suffering. As a historian, Chana Kai Lee interprets her experience of punishment as resulting from the practice of stereotyping black women as welfare cheats. The jurors in antebellum Petersburg, Virginia, were willing to convict Gallie in part because they believed black women to be dishonest and criminal, willing to steal white men’s property even if they owned their own. The two women are linked across centuries of change by a powerful web of myth that punishes individual black women based on assumptions about the group. Their stories are painfully familiar to many African American women who feel that they continue to be mistreated and humiliated as a result of lies told, and widely accepted, about black women as a group. They force us to consider how and why American governments, American popular culture, and even black communities have contributed to the humiliation of African American women. Their experiences also lead us to ask what resources black women use for psychic self-defense and how successful they are.

Although historical myths are seldom imported wholesale into the contemporary era, they are meaningfully connected to twenty-first-century portrayals of black women in public discourse. African American women who exercise their citizenship must also try to manage the negative expectations born of this powerful mythology. Like all citizens, they use politics to lay claim to resources and express public preferences; but sister politics is also about challenging negative images, managing degradation, and resisting or accommodating humiliating public representations.

From  Sister Citizen  by Melissa V. Harris-Perry. Published by Yale University Press in 2013. Reproduced with permission.

Melissa V. Harris-Perry  is the Maya Angelou Presidential Chair, Executive Director of the Pro Humanitate Institute, and founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Center, at Wake Forest University. Her previous book,  Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought , won the 2005 W. E. B. Du Bois Book Award from the National Conference of Black Political Scientists and 2005 Best Book Award from the Race and Ethnic Politics Section of the American Political Science Association.

Further Reading:

Recent Posts

• The Imperial Origins of Big Data
• Ep. 138 – Around the World in Public Art
• A Most Normal Election Cycle
• Divided Democracy—The Past is (Frighteningly) Never Dead
• The Petit Network
• Surely but Slowly: NATO Adapts to Strategic Competition

Sign up for updates on new releases and special offers

Newsletter signup, shipping location.

Our website offers shipping to the United States and Canada only. For customers in other countries:

Mexico and South America: Contact W.W. Norton to place your order. All Others: Visit our Yale University Press London website to place your order.

Notice for Canadian Customers

Due to temporary changes in our shipping process, we cannot fulfill orders to Canada through our website from August 12th to September 30th, 2024.

In the meantime, you can find our titles at the following retailers:

• Barnes & Noble
• Powell’s
• Seminary Co-op

We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding.

Shipping Updated

Learn more about Schreiben lernen, 2nd Edition, available now. 

Where Bias Begins: The Truth About Stereotypes

Stereotyping is not limited to those who are biased. we all use stereotypes all the time. they are a kind of mental shortcut..

By Annie Murphy Paul published May 1, 1998 - last reviewed on June 9, 2016

Psychologists once believed that only bigoted people used stereotypes. Now the study of unconscious bias is revealing the unsettling truth: We all use stereotypes, all the time, without knowing it. We have met the enemy of equality, and the enemy is us.

Mahzarin Banaji doesn't fit anybody's ideal of a racist. A psychology professor at Yale University, she studies stereotypes for a living. And as a woman and a member of a minority ethnic group, she has felt firsthand the sting of discrimination . Yet when she took one of her own tests of unconscious bias. "I showed very strong prejudices," she says. "It was truly a disconcerting experience." And an illuminating one. When Banaji was in graduate school in the early 1980s, theories about stereotypes were concerned only with their explicit expression: outright and unabashed racism, sexism, anti-Semitism. But in the years since, a new approach to stereotypes has shattered that simple notion. The bias Banaji and her colleagues are studying is something far more subtle, and more insidious: what's known as automatic or implicit stereotyping, which, they find, we do all the time without knowing it. Though out-and-out bigotry may be on the decline, says Banaji, "if anything, stereotyping is a bigger problem than we ever imagined."

Previously, researchers who studied stereotyping had simply asked people to record their feelings about minority groups and had used their answers as an index of their attitudes. Psychologists now understand that these conscious replies are only half the story. How progressive a person seems to be on the surface bears little or no relation to how prejudiced he or she is on an unconscious level—so that a bleeding-heart liberal might harbor just as many biases as a neo-Nazi skinhead.

As surprising as these findings are, they confirmed the hunches of many students of human behavior. "Twenty years ago, we hypothesized that there were people who said they were not prejudiced but who really did have unconscious negative stereotypes and beliefs," says psychologist lack Dovidio, Ph.D., of Colgate University "It was like theorizing about the existence of a virus, and then one day seeing it under a microscope."

The test that exposed Banaji's hidden biases—and that this writer took as well, with equally dismaying results—is typical of the ones used by automatic stereotype researchers. It presents the subject with a series of positive or negative adjectives, each paired with a characteristically "white" or "black" name. As the name and word appear together on a computer screen, the person taking the test presses a key, indicating whether the word is good or bad. Meanwhile, the computer records the speed of each response.

A glance at subjects' response times reveals a startling phenomenon: Most people who participate in the experiment—even some African-Americans—respond more quickly when a positive word is paired with a white name or a negative word with a black name. Because our minds are more accustomed to making these associations, says Banaji, they process them more rapidly. Though the words and names aren't subliminal, they are presented so quickly that a subject's ability to make deliberate choices is diminished—allowing his or her underlying assumptions to show through. The same technique can be used to measure stereotypes about many different social groups, such as homosexuals, women, and the elderly.

THE UNCONSCIOUS COMES INTO FOCUS

From these tiny differences in reaction speed—a matter of a few hundred milliseconds—the study of automatic stereotyping was born. Its immediate ancestor was the cognitive revolution of the 1970s, an explosion of psychological research into the way people think. After decades dominated by the study of observable behavior, scientists wanted a closer look at the more mysterious operation of the human brain. And the development of computers—which enabled scientists to display information very quickly and to measure minute discrepancies in reaction time—permitted a peek into the unconscious.

At the same time, the study of cognition was also illuminating the nature of stereotypes themselves. Research done after World War II—mostly by European emigres struggling to understand how the Holocaust had happened—concluded that stereotypes were used only by a particular type of person: rigid, repressed, authoritarian. Borrowing from the psychoanalytic perspective then in vogue, these theorists suggested that biased behavior emerged out of internal conflicts caused by inadequate parenting .

The cognitive approach refused to let the rest of us off the hook. It made the simple but profound point that we all use categories—of people, places, things—to make sense of the world around us. "Our ability to categorize and evaluate is an important part of human intelligence ," says Banaji. "Without it, we couldn't survive." But stereotypes are too much of a good thing. In the course of stereotyping, a useful category—say, women—becomes freighted with additional associations, usually negative. "Stereotypes are categories that have gone too far," says John Bargh, Ph.D., of New York University. "When we use stereotypes, we take in the gender , the age, the color of the skin of the person before us, and our minds respond with messages that say hostile, stupid, slow, weak. Those qualities aren't out there in the environment . They don't reflect reality."

Bargh thinks that stereotypes may emerge from what social psychologists call in-group/out-group dynamics. Humans, like other species, need to feel that they are part of a group, and as villages, clans, and other traditional groupings have broken down, our identities have attached themselves to more ambiguous classifications, such as race and class. We want to feel good about the group we belong to—and one way of doing so is to denigrate all those who who aren't in it. And while we tend to see members of our own group as individuals, we view those in out-groups as an undifferentiated—stereotyped—mass. The categories we use have changed, but it seems that stereotyping itself is bred in the bone.

Though a small minority of scientists argues that stereotypes are usually accurate and can be relied upon without reservations, most disagree—and vehemently. "Even if there is a kernel of truth in the stereotype, you're still applying a generalization about a group to an individual, which is always incorrect," says Bargh. Accuracy aside, some believe that the use of stereotypes is simply unjust. "In a democratic society, people should be judged as individuals and not as members of a group," Banaji argues. "Stereotyping flies in the face of that ideal."

PREDISPOSED TO PREJUDICE

The problem, as Banaji's own research shows, is that people can't seem to help it. A recent experiment provides a good illustration. Banaji and her colleague, Anthony Greenwald, Ph.D., showed people a list of names—some famous, some not. The next day, the subjects returned to the lab and were shown a second list, which mixed names from the first list with new ones. Asked to identify which were famous, they picked out the Margaret Meads and the Miles Davises—but they also chose some of the names on the first list, which retained a lingering familiarity that they mistook for fame. (Psychologists call this the "famous overnight-effect.") By a margin of two-to-one, these suddenly "famous" people were male.

Participants weren't aware that they were preferring male names to female names, Banaji stresses. They were simply drawing on an unconscious stereotype of men as more important and influential than women. Something similar happened when she showed subjects a list of people who might be criminals: without knowing they were doing so, participants picked out an overwhelming number of African-American names. Banaji calls this kind of stereotyping implicit, because people know they are making a judgment—but just aren't aware of the basis upon which they are making it.

Even further below awareness is something that psychologists call automatic processing, in which stereotypes are triggered by the slightest interaction or encounter. An experiment conducted by Bargh required a group of white participants to perform a tedious computer task. While performing the task, some of the participants were subliminally exposed to pictures of African-Americans with neutral expressions. When the subjects were then asked to do the task over again, the ones who had been exposed to the faces reacted with more hostility to the request—because, Bargh believes, they were responding in kind to the hostility which is part of the African-American stereotype. Bargh calls this the "immediate hostile reaction," which he believes can have a realeffect on race relations. When African-Americans accurately perceive the hostile expressions that their white counterparts are unaware of, they may respond with hostility of their own—thereby perpetuating the stereotype.

Of course, we aren't completely under the sway of our unconscious. Scientists think that the automatic activation of a stereotype is immediately followed by a conscious check on unacceptable thoughts—at least in people who think that they are not prejudiced. This internal censor successfully restrains overtly biased responses. But there's still the danger of leakage, which often shows up in non-verbal behavior: our expressions, our stance, how far away we stand, how much eye contact we make.

The gap between what we say and what we do can lead African-Americans and whites to come away with very different impressions of the same encounter, says Jack Dovidio. "If I'm a white person talking to an African-American, I'm probably monitoring my conscious beliefs very carefully and making sure everything I say agrees with all the positive things I want to express," he says. "And I usually believe I'm pretty successful because I hear the right words coming out of my mouth." The listener who is paying attention to non-verbal behavior, however, may be getting quite the opposite message. An African-American student of Dovidio's recently told him that when she was growing up, her mother had taught her to observe how white people moved to gauge their true feelings toward blacks. "Her mother was a very astute amateur psychologist—and about 20 years ahead of me." he remarks.

WHERE DOES BIAS BEGIN?

So where exactly do these stealth stereotypes come from? Though automatic-stereotype researchers often refer to the unconscious, they don't mean the Freudian notion of a seething mass of thoughts and desires, only some of which are deemed presentable enough to be admitted to the conscious mind. In fact, the cognitive model holds that information flows in exactly the opposite direction: connections made often enough in the conscious mind eventually become unconscious. Says Bargh: "If conscious choice and decision making are not needed, they go away. Ideas recede from consciousness into the unconscious over time."

Much of what enters our consciousness, of course, comes from the culture around us. And like the culture, it seems that our minds are split on the subjects of race, gender, class, sexual orientation . "We not only mirror the ambivalence we see in society, but also mirror it in precisely the same way," says Dovidio. Our society talks out loud about justice, equality, and egalitarianism, and most Americans accept these values as their own. At the same time, such equality exists only as an ideal, and that fact is not lost on our unconscious. Images of women as sexobjects, footage of African-American criminals on the six o'clock news,—"this is knowledge we cannot escape," explains Banaji. "We didn't choose to know it, but it still affects our behavior."

We learn the subtext of our culture's messages early. By five years of age, says Margo Monteith, Ph.D., many children have definite and entrenched stereotypes about blacks, women, and other social groups. Adds Monteith, professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky: "Children don't have a choice about accepting or rejecting these conceptions, since they're acquired well before they have the cognitive abilities or experiences to form their own beliefs." And no matter how progressive the parents, they must compete with all the forces that would promote and perpetuate these stereotypes: peer pressure , mass media, the actual balance of power in society. In fact, prejudice may be as much a result as a cause of this imbalance. We create stereotypes--African-Americans are lazy, women are emotional—to explain why things are the way they are. As Dovidio notes, "Stereotypes don't have to be true to serve a purpose."

WHY CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG?

The idea of unconscious bias does clear up some nettlesome contradictions. "It accounts for a lot of people's ambivalence toward others who are different, a lot of their inconsistencies in behavior," says Dovidio. "It helps explain how good people can do bad things." But it also prompts some uncomfortable realizations. Because our conscious and unconscious beliefs may be very different—and because behavior often follows the lead of the latter—"good intentions aren't enough," as John Bargh puts it. In fact, he believes that they count for very little. "I don't think free will exists," he says, bluntly—because what feels like the exercise of free will may be only the application of unconscious assumptions.

Not only may we be unable to control our biased responses, we may not even be aware that we have them. "We have to rely on our memories and our awareness of what we're doing to have a connection to reality," says Bargh. "But when it comes to automatic processing, those cues can be deceptive." Likewise, we can't always be sure how biased others are. "We all have this belief that the important thing about prejudice is the external expression of it," says Banaji. "That's going to be hard to give up."

One thing is certain: We can't claim that we've eradicated prejudice just because its outright expression has waned. What's more, the strategies that were so effective in reducing that sort of bias won't work on unconscious beliefs. "What this research is saying is that we are going to have to change dramatically the way we think we can influence people's behaviors," says Banaji. "It would be naive to think that exhortation is enough." Exhortation, education , political protest—all of these hammer away at our conscious beliefs while leaving the bedrock below untouched. Banaji notes, however, that one traditional remedy for discrimination—affirmative action—may still be effective since it bypasses our unconsciously compromised judgment.

But some stereotype researchers think that the solution to automatic stereotyping lies in the process itself. Through practice, they say, people can weaken the mental links that connect minorities to negative stereotypes and strengthen the ones that connect them to positive conscious beliefs. Margo Monteith explains how it might work. "Suppose you're at a party and someone tells a racist joke—and you laugh," she says. "Then you realize that you shouldn't have laughed at the joke. You feel guilty and become focused on your thought processes. Also, all sorts of cues become associated with laughing at the racist joke: the person who told the joke, the act of telling jokes, being at a party, drinking." The next time you encounter these cues, "a warning signal of sorts should go off—`wait, didn't you mess up in this situation before?'—and your responses will be slowed and executed with greater restraint."

That slight pause in the processing of a stereotype gives conscious, unprejudiced beliefs a chance to take over. With time, the tendency to prevent automatic stereotyping may itself become automatic. Monteith's research suggests that, given enough motivation , people may be able to teach themselves to inhibit prejudice so well that even their tests of implicit bias come clean.

The success of this process of "de-automatization" comes with a few caveats, however. First, even its proponents concede that it works only for people disturbed by the discrepancy between their conscious and unconscious beliefs since unapologetic racists or sexists have no motivation to change. Second, some studies have shown that attempts to suppress stereotypes may actually cause them to return later, stronger than ever. And finally, the results that Monteith and other researchers have achieved in the laboratory may not stick in the real world, where people must struggle to maintain their commitment to equality under less-than-ideal conditions.

Challenging though that task might be, it is not as daunting as the alternative researchers suggest: changing society itself. Bargh, who likens de-automatization to closing the barn door once the horses have escaped, says that "it's clear that the way to get rid of stereotypes is by the roots, by where they come from in the first place." The study of culture may someday tell us where the seeds of prejudice originated; for now, the study of the unconscious shows us just how deeply they're planted.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Stereotypes and Their Effects Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Common stereotypes.

Stereotypes refer to misleading perceptions labeled against a group of people or a certain way of doing things, which are flawed, and that misrepresent reality (Stangor, 2000, p.24).

Common stereotypes include negative perceptions against certain religions, gender, ethnic groups or a certain race. Stereotypes have adverse effects on victims. They encourage hatred, irresponsible behaviors, aggressiveness, lack of self-control and diminish motivation of individuals in certain situations (Stangor, 2000, p.28). Stereotypes are unethical and should be discouraged.

Three common stereotypes include the perception that Muslims are terrorists, Christians are ignorant, and that women are less intelligent than men. These stereotypes are unjustified because they lack scientific evidence to validate them.

They result from hatred and superiority complex by individuals or groups of individuals who harbor negative attitudes towards certain individuals or social groups (Stangor, 2000, p.43). Stereotypes are either positive or negative. However, they are baseless and unethical because they lack evidence to validate them.

The stereotype that Muslims are terrorists propagates the perception that Muslims are evil people and always act to destroy the world and harm people (McGarty et al, 2002, p.73). The media has played a significant role in propagating this stereotype. Individuals who perpetuate the stereotype claim that Islam supports murder in its teachings.

This stereotype is flawed because a decision to commit a crime is motivated by personal values and character, and not an individual’s religion (McGarty et al, 2002, p.75). In addition, the teachings of Islam condemn murder and instead encourage peace. This stereotype leads to hatred and religious intolerance, which cause religious and political wars.

Another common stereotype is that Christians are ignorant. People who propagate this stereotype believe that Christians are ignorant because they ignore the validity of science (Chunnel, 2010, par3). In addition, they claim that Christians are evil because the Bible contains many stories that talk of war and violence.

This stereotype is flawed because there are so many Christians who believe in science. Christians who do not believe in science do so because they choose to believe what Christianity teaches without investigating to find the truth. Even though their Christian beliefs may contribute towards their refutation of science, not all Christians are ignorant. This stereotype causes religious intolerance and persecution.

The stereotype that women are less intelligent than men is a gender stereotype that is held by many people. People use the traditional concept of division of roles based on gender to propagate the stereotype (McGarty et al, 2002, p.79). Women were given easy tasks such as cooking, washing and taking care of children. On the other hand, men handled difficult tasks such as fending for their families and cultivation.

Men’s ability to handle difficult tasks is the foundation of this stereotype. The stereotype is unfounded because in today’s society, gender roles have changed and women are handling tasks that were considered masculine (McGarty et al, 2002, p.80). In addition, women have equal potential to success as me do. The large number of women in leadership roles is a proof that women are as intelligent as men are, and they can achieve whatever men can achieve.

Stereotypes refer to misleading perceptions labeled against a group of people or a certain way of handling responsibilities, which are flawed, and that misrepresent reality. Common stereotypes include perceptions against certain religions, gender, ethnic group or certain race. Stereotypes have lasting negative effects on victims. Common consequences of stereotyping include hatred, aggressiveness and lack of self-control.

Chunnel, A. (2010). Stereotypes in Religions . Web.

McGarty, C., Yzerbty, V., and Spears, R. (2002). Stereotypes as Explanations: The Formation of Meaningful Beliefs about Social Groups . London: Cambridge University Press.

Stangor, C. (2000). Stereotypes and Prejudice: Key Readings . New York: Psychology Press.

• “Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish” by Steve Jobs
• Social Survey: Men and Women on Sexual Intent
• Earnings Management Definition, Methods, Laws
• Testing Methodologies to Validate Functionalities
• Self-Control: Individual Development Plan
• Definite Visions of Gender Theory
• Gender is not only learned, but also has a strong biological factor to it
• Gay Marriage and Decision Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
• Gay Denied their ‘Rights’ in Australia
• Social Issues Affecting Women
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, November 30). Stereotypes and Their Effects. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-and-their-effects/

"Stereotypes and Their Effects." IvyPanda , 30 Nov. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-and-their-effects/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Stereotypes and Their Effects'. 30 November.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Stereotypes and Their Effects." November 30, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-and-their-effects/.

1. IvyPanda . "Stereotypes and Their Effects." November 30, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-and-their-effects/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Stereotypes and Their Effects." November 30, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotypes-and-their-effects/.

The terrifying power of stereotypes – and how to deal with them

Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University

Disclosure statement

Magdalena Zawisza receives funding from British Academy, Innovate UK and Polish National Science Centre.

Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

From “girls suck at maths” and “men are so insensitive” to “he is getting a bit senile with age” or “black people struggle at university”, there’s no shortage of common cultural stereotypes about social groups. Chances are you have heard most of these examples at some point. In fact, stereotypes are a bit like air: invisible but always present.

We all have multiple identities and some of them are likely to be stigmatised. While it may seem like we should just stop paying attention to stereotypes, it often isn’t that easy. False beliefs about our abilities easily turn into a voice of self doubt in our heads that can be hard to ignore. And in the last couple of decades, scientists have started to discover that this can have damaging effects on our actual performance.

This mechanism is due to what psychologists call “ stereotype threat ” – referring to a fear of doing something that would confirm negative perceptions of a stigmatised group that we are members of. The phenomenon was first uncovered by American social psychologists in the 1990s.

In a seminal paper, they experimentally demonstrated how racial stereotypes can affect intellectual ability. In their study, black participants performed worse than white participants on verbal ability tests when they were told that the test was “diagnostic” – a “genuine test of your verbal abilities and limitations”. However, when this description was excluded, no such effect was seen. Clearly these individuals had negative thoughts about their verbal ability that affected their performance.

Black participants also underperformed when racial stereotypes were activated much more subtly. Just asking participants to identify their race on a preceding demographic questionnaire was enough. What’s more, under the threatening conditions (diagnostic test), black participants reported higher levels of self doubt than white participants.

Nobody’s safe

Stereotype threat effects are very robust and affect all stigmatised groups. A recent analysis of several previous studies on the topic revealed that stereotype threat related to the intellectual domain exists across various experimental manipulations, test types and ethnic groups – ranging from black and Latino Americans to Turkish Germans. A wealth of research also links stereotype threat with women’s underperformance in maths and leadership aspirations .

Men are vulnerable, too. A study showed that men performed worse when decoding non-verbal cues if the test was described as designed to measure “social sensitivity” – a stereotypically feminine skill. However, when the task was introduced as an “information processing test”, they did much better. In a similar vein, when children from poorer families are reminded of their lower socioeconomic status, they underperform on tests described as diagnostic of intellectual abilities – but not otherwise. Stereotype threat has also been shown to affect educational underachievement in immigrants and memory performance of the elderly .

It is important to remember that the triggering cues can be very subtle. One study demonstrated that when women viewed only two advertisements based on gender stereotypes among six commercials, they tended to avoid leadership roles in a subsequent task. This was the case even though the commercials had nothing to do with leadership.

Mental mechanisms

Stereotype threat leads to a vicious circle . Stigmatised individuals experience anxiety which depletes their cognitive resources and leads to underperformance, confirmation of the negative stereotype and reinforcement of the fear.

Researchers have identified a number of interrelated mechanisms responsible for this effect, with the key being deficits in working memory capacity – the ability to concentrate on the task at hand and ignore distraction. Working memory under stereotype threat conditions is affected by physiological stress, performance monitoring and suppression processes (of anxiety and the stereotype).

Neuroscientists have even measured these effects in the brain. When we are affected by stereotype threat, brain regions responsible for emotional self-regulation and social feedback are activated while activity in the regions responsible for task performance are inhibited.

In our recent study, published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience , we demonstrated this effect for ageism. We used electroencephalography (EEG), a device which places electrodes on the scalp to track and record brainwave patterns, to show that older adults, having read a report about memory declining with age, experienced neural activation corresponding to having negative thoughts about oneself. They also underperformed in a subsequent, timed categorisation task.

Coping strategies

There is hope, however. Emerging studies on how to reduce stereotype threat identify a range of methods – the most obvious being changing the stereotype. Ultimately, this is the way to eliminate the problem once and for all.

But changing stereotypes sadly often takes time. While we are working on it, there are techniques to help us cope. For example, visible, accessible and relevant role models are important. One study reported a positive “Obama effect” on African Americans. Whenever Obama drew press attention for positive, stereotype-defying reasons, stereotype threat effects were markedly reduced in black Americans’ exam performance.

Another method is to buffer the threat through shifting self perceptions to positive group identity or self affirmation. For example, Asian women underperformed on maths tests when reminded of their gender identity but not when reminded of their Asian identity . This is because Asian individuals are stereotypically seen as good at maths. In the same way, many of us belong to a few different groups – it is sometimes worth shifting the focus towards the one which gives us strength.

Gaining confidence by practising the otherwise threatening task is also beneficial, as seen with female chess players . One way to do this could be by reframing the task as a challenge .

Finally, merely being aware of the damaging effects that stereotypes can have can help us reinterpret the anxiety and makes us more likely to perform better. We may not be able to avoid stereotypes completely and immediately, but we can try to clear the air of them.

• Stereotypes
• black stereotypes

Service Centre Senior Consultant

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

July 8, 2020

Stereotypes Harm Black Lives and Livelihoods, but Research Suggests Ways to Improve Things

Management researcher Modupe Akinola explains on how stereotypes hurt Black Americans and what we can do to counter them

By Katy Milkman & Kassie Brabaw

Modupe Akinola speaks on stage at the New York Times 2015 DealBook Conference at the Whitney Museum of American Art on November 3, 2015, in New York City.

Neilson Barnard Getty Images

The Black Lives Matter protests shaking the world have thankfully brought renewed attention not just to police brutality but to the broader role of racism in our society. Research suggests some roots of racism lie in the stereotypes we hold about different groups. And those stereotypes can affect everything from the way police diagnose danger to who gets interviewed for jobs to which students get attention from professors. Negative stereotypes harm Black Americans at every turn. To reduce their pernicious effects, it’s important to first understand how stereotypes work and just how pervasive they are.

Modupe Akinola , an associate professor at Columbia Business School, studies racial bias, workforce diversity and stress. Recently, Katy Milkman , a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, got to chat with Akinola about how stereotypes are formed, how they affect consequential decisions and how we can combat negative stereotypes .

[ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ]

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Let’s start at the beginning. What is a stereotype?

A stereotype is a snap judgment we make about a person or about a thing that can influence our decision-making. Every day we get millions and millions of bits of information in our head that associate good and bad with certain people or groups or things. And anytime we then see those people, groups or things, that association comes immediately to our mind.

Why do you think we do this?

We’re processing so much information all the time; we need these mental shortcuts to allow us to navigate the world. If not, we wouldn’t be able to function, quite frankly. We have to make quick judgments to make life easier and to simplify. But any type of shortcut can have its pros and cons.

Could you talk about some of the research connecting stereotyping with racism?

One of my favorite sets of studies examines stereotyping as it relates to policing. I grew up in New York City. And we heard a lot about Amadou Diallo, who was an unarmed Black man who was shot by police, because they thought he was carrying a gun—when in actuality, he raised his hand, and he had a wallet.

Joshua Correll, [now at the University of Colorado Boulder], and his colleagues wanted to look at whether the stereotypes associating Black people with danger could play a role in how a mistake like that could be made. The news we see regularly shows crime rates being higher for certain populations, mostly minority populations,. And so this creates an automatic stereotype that a Black man would be more linked to danger than a white man, because you don’t see those same associations for white people.

Correll came up with a computerized shooter bias exercise that showed pictures of targets, Black and white men, carrying objects, either weapons or regular objects like a Coke can or a wallet. When you saw a person and the object, you had to click on whether or not to shoot. He found that civilians were more likely to shoot unarmed Black men, relative to unarmed white men and even armed white men, which was attributed to the stereotypes associating Black people with danger.

I found that study fascinating, because it showed just how powerful these associations can be. I did some follow-up research, because I wanted to see if stress affects that decision-making process. I stressed out police officers and had them engage in the shooting exercise.

The interesting thing is: I saw that under stress, officers were more accurate. They were able to discern whether to shoot an armed Black man and did that better in terms of not shooting unarmed Black men. However, they were less likely to shoot armed white men, which I think demonstrates the power of stereotypes, because there isn’t a stereotype of white and danger.

Stereotypes work in two ways: they can harm some groups, and they can protect others.

Are there any other studies about stereotyping that you think people might find illuminating?

My favorite are audit studies, where you observe real-world behavior. There have been audit studies where people go to car dealerships to see if people are treated differently and about who gets mortgages and things like that.

One audit study was testing ads in the newspaper, which were advertising entry-level positions. [The researchers] sent candidate résumés to these job ads, which were identical, and changed the names on the résumés to signal race. “Lakisha” and “Jamal” were Black-sounding names that were tested and pretested to ensure they would signal race versus a name like “Catherine,” which would be a more white-sounding name. They waited to see who called back for which candidates. The Lakishas and Jamals received fewer callbacks for an interview than the white-sounding names.

Again, this behavior is attributed to stereotypes. We make presumptions and snap judgments about who might be more qualified for a job, who might do well in a job, even in the context of identical information.

Would you be willing to describe a little bit of the work we’ve done together on the role of stereotyping in academia?

Certainly. We—you, I and Dolly Chugh [of the Stern School of Business at New York University]—wanted to see if racial or gender stereotypes impact the pathway to academia. As you’re applying or thinking about getting a Ph.D., often you’ll reach out to a professor and ask, “Are you taking graduate students?” or “Can I learn more about your research?” We get these e-mails, all the time, asking for time on our schedule. And we wanted to see if professors would differentially respond to these requests, depending on the race and gender of the requester.

We sent e-mails to around 6,500 professors across the country, at both private and public universities. We sent these e-mails that were identical, except we varied the race and gender of the name of the applicant.

These e-mails said, “Dear professor so-and-so, I’ll be on campus on XYZ day, on a Monday or Tuesday, and was wondering if I could take some time to learn about your research.” The names on these e-mails were Chinese names, Indian names, African-American-, Latino- and white-sounding names. We pretested all these names to ensure that they did signal the race and gender we thought they would.

We expected to see more stereotyping or discrimination (i.e., fewer responses) to nonwhite males when asked to meet next week versus today. Why? Today everyone’s pretty busy, and so there’s no time for the stereotypes or snap judgments to come into your mind about who might be a more qualified student, who you might want to respond to and meet with.

However, in a meeting request for next week, you might go through more scrutiny about whether the candidate is worthy of your time. We thought that’s when stereotypes would set in. Maybe for some categories, it’s “Do they have English-language proficiency?” For other categories, given the lack of minorities in academia in general, there might be the question of “Can they cut it?”

As we predicted, we did find fewer responses for all of the other categories, relative to the responses to white males, for a meeting request for next week. The question then was whether we’d see this when we matched the race and the gender of the professor with the race and the gender of the student. We still found that requests for next week, regardless of the race of the professor, are lower for candidates other than white males.

As an African-American professor, in the early days of my teaching, I’d often find myself setting up to teach a class, and somebody, usually a prospective student, would come in and say, “I’d like to sit in and learn more about this class. Where’s the professor?” They would say that to me as I was setting up, looking like the professor—on the computer, getting everything ready. That, for me, was a perfect example of how stereotypes can play a role.

The stereotype of what a professor looks like—an older white man with gray hair—is one of the factors that might make somebody come in, see a person at the podium preparing for work and wearing a suit, and ask who the professor is. I love those moments, in some ways, because one of the ways in which you change people’s stereotypes is by having counter-stereotypical exemplars.

Let’s talk more about that. How can we combat stereotypes or try to reduce the harm they cause?

I think one of the ways we can reduce the harm of stereotypes is just being aware. Sometimes you’ll be walking down the street, and you’ll make a snap judgment and not even realize it. But I think one of the critical aspects is noticing, “Oh wow, that came up for me. That’s interesting,” and thinking, “Where did that come from?” We can change our behavior when we’re more aware that our behavior is being influenced by stereotypes.

The other way is by being exposed to counter-stereotypical exemplars. As an African-American, female professor, a student’s mere exposure to me means that the next time they go into a classroom with an African-American woman setting up, or someone else who might defy the stereotype of what a professor looks like, they won’t automatically say, “Where’s the professor?”

I often tell my students they have a beautiful opportunity to be the walking, breathing and living counter-stereotypical exemplars in their work environments. I ask them to think about the stereotypes that exist about them, the stereotypes that exist about people around them, the stereotypes that exist about people on their teams— and to realize that, every day, they have the opportunity to defy those stereotypes.

Katy Milkman is a behavioral scientist and James G. Dinan Professor of Operations, Information and Decisions at the Wharton School . She is co-director of the Behavior Change for Good Initiative .

Kassie Brabaw is a journalist writing about health, relationships and astronomy. Find her work at Health, SELF.com, Women’s Health, VICE.com and Space.com.

Women Fighting Stereotypes and Systemic Discrimination in STEM

While half the world is female, fewer than 30 percent of the world’s Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) professionals are women.

Earth Science, Engineering, Mathematics

Women in a Science Lab

While half the world is female, less than 30 percent of the world’s Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) professionals are women.

Photograph by Lightfield Studios Inc./Alamy Stock Photo

Science is the  systematic ,  evidence -based study of how the natural world works. Presumably, this  objective  pursuit would be free of  bias  and welcoming to those with the desire and talent to pursue it, but that has not always been true for women. While about half the human  population  is female, fewer than 30 percent of the world’s Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) professionals are women.

Women with research positions in academic STEM do their jobs well. They publish at a similar rate as men with their research having roughly the same impact, according to this study by UNESCO : https://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/women-science. However, women’s STEM careers are often less productive than men’s STEM careers because women’s careers are shorter and they have higher dropout rates, according to the March 2020 paper. Each year, women have nearly a 20 percent higher chance of leaving  academia  than men do.

Gender representation in STEM differs by field. Women often outnumber men in  biological  fields. However, men far outnumber women in physics, computer science, and engineering.

Like other male-dominated jobs in the United States, science and engineering received a huge  influx  of women with the onset of World War II. With huge numbers of men away fighting, women were encouraged to enter spaces they had been excluded from. When the war ended and men returned to the  work force , women were expected to leave the lab and the office. But some women fought to remain in STEM. American women in STEM justified their positions as assets to the nation as it fought the  Cold War .

Fighting for their place in the world of STEM has been even tougher for Black and brown women. That is not to say that Black, Indigenous, and other women of color have not made their mark on science. Katherine Johnson, a Black woman, made the calculations to ensure U.S. astronaut John Glenn orbited Earth and returned safe. Sarah Al-Amiri led a team of fellow Arab women in placing an orbiter around Mars, making the United Arab Emirates just the fifth country to do so.

All too often these achievements are the  exception , not the  norm . Historically, there have been legal, social, and cultural barriers to entry and advancement in these fields. Studying and working in STEM has been traditionally marketed as men’s work. Systemic discrimination, unconscious bias , and sexual harassment can also prematurely ends women’s STEM careers.

In the United States, women are 47 percent of the employed  civilian   work force , but only 25 percent of the STEM work force . In the U.S., women of every  ethnicity  are underrepresented in STEM jobs, except for Asian women. Asian women make up 4.3 percent of STEM occupations while accounting for 2.8 percent of the employed work force . White women are about 32 percent of the work force , but about 17 percent of those working in STEM.

Those numbers are bleaker for Black and brown American women. Latinas comprise 6.7 percent of the work force , but just 1.7 percent of STEM jobs. Black women account for 6.0 percent of the work force and 2.2 percent of STEM occupations . Women who self-identified by other racial designations, such as Indigenous or Pacific Islander, were too few to be analyzed . A similar breakdown is seen with the attainment of STEM bachelor’s degrees with Black and Latina women earning fewer than their  proportion  of STEM degrees.

The U.S. is not exceptional with its lack of women in the STEM work force. Worldwide, women make up just over 29 percent of STEM researchers. There are just 17 nations where women make up the majority of STEM researchers.

As technology advances, more STEM professionals are sought out. Nations receive an economic boost with added STEM workers, making them appealing to governments. In the United States alone, STEM work accounts for 69 percent of the gross domestic product. This calculation includes many jobs that don’t require a college degree, like X-Ray technician.

The lack of women in STEM fields doesn’t just hurt society, but women themselves. STEM occupations are highly valued professions with higher salaries than other careers. Yet when compared to men, women in STEM are paid less.

The need is so high it often outpaces the ability of employers to fill them. Women of color are a huge part of the world’s people and talent pool. By underutilizing Black and brown women in these positions, their respective nations are losing out on their skills and  perspective . Research shows upping diversity improves problem solving, which is a key to any STEM job.

NOTE: While we recognize neither sex nor  gender  is a  binary , data used to study STEM and sex is limited to such. Thus, this story will be using these limited terms.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Manager

Program specialists, last updated.

January 26, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

Women make up more than half of the labor force in the United States and earn almost 60 percent of advanced degrees, yet they bring home less pay and fill fewer seats in the C-suite than men, particularly in male-dominated professions like finance and technology.

This gender gap is due in part to “occupational sorting,” with men choosing careers that pay higher wages than women do, labor economists say. For example, women represent only 26 percent of US workers employed in computer and math jobs, according to the Department of Labor.

New research identifies one reason women might be shying away from certain professions: They lack confidence in their ability to compete in fields that men are stereotypically believed to perform more strongly in, such as science, math, and technology.

Women are also more reluctant to share their ideas in group discussions on these subjects. And even when they have talent—and are actually told they are high-achievers in these subjects—women are more likely than men to shrug off the praise and lowball their own abilities.

This weak self-confidence may hold some women back as they count themselves out of pursuing prestigious roles in professions they believe they won’t excel in, despite having the skills to succeed, says Harvard Business School Assistant Professor Katherine B. Coffman .

“Our beliefs about ourselves are important in shaping all kinds of important decisions, such as what colleges we apply to, which career paths we choose, and whether we are willing to contribute ideas in the workplace or try to compete for a promotion,” Coffman says. “If talented women in STEM aren’t confident, they might not even look at those fields in the first place. It’s all about how good we think we are, especially when we ask ourselves, ‘What does it make sense for me to pursue?’”

Coffman has recently co-written an article in the American Economic Review as well as two working papers, all aimed at studying men’s and women’s beliefs about their own abilities.

“Women are more likely than men to shrug off the praise and lowball their own abilities.”

What she found, in essence, is that gender stereotypes distort our views of both ourselves and others—and that may be especially troubling for women, since buying into those stereotypes could be creating a bleak self-image that is setting them back professionally.

Here’s a snapshot of findings from all three research studies:

Women are less confident than men in certain subjects, like math

In a study for the journal article Beliefs about Gender , Coffman and her colleagues asked participants to answer multiple-choice trivia questions in several categories that women are perceived to have a better handle on, like the Kardashians, Disney movies, cooking, art and literature, and verbal skills. Then they were quizzed in categories considered favorable for men, such as business, math, videogames, cars, and sports.

Respondents were asked to estimate how many questions they answered correctly on tests, and to guess the performance of a random partner whose gender was revealed. Both men and women exaggerated the actual gender performance gaps on average, overstating the male advantage in male-typed domains as well as overstating the female advantage in female-typed questions. And in predicting their own abilities, women had much less confidence in their scores on the tests they believed men had an advantage in.

“Gender stereotypes determine people’s beliefs about themselves and others,” Coffman says. “If I take a woman who has the exact same ability in two different categories—verbal and math—just the fact that there’s an average male advantage in math shapes her belief that her own ability in math is lower.”

Women discount positive feedback about their abilities

In an experiment for Coffman’s working paper Stereotypes and Belief Updating , participants completed a timed test of cognitive ability in five areas: general science, arithmetic reasoning, math knowledge, mechanical comprehension, and assembling objects. They were asked to guess their total number of correct answers, as well as how their performance compared to others. A woman who actually had the same score as a man estimated her score to be 0.58 points lower, a statistically significant gap. Even more surprising, even after participants were provided with feedback about how they performed, this gender gap in how well they perceived they did continued.

In a second study participants were asked to guess how they performed on a test in a randomly assigned subject matter and to predict their own rank relative to others completing the same test. The researchers then provided participants with feedback about their performance. They found that both men and women discounted good news about their scores in subjects that their gender was perceived to have more trouble with.

Stereotypes play on our minds so strongly that it becomes tougher to convince people of their talent in fields where they believe their gender is weak, Coffman says.

“A policy prescription to correct a confidence gap in women might be: Let’s find talented women and tell them, ‘Hey, you’re good at math. You got a really good score on this math test,'" she says. “But our results suggest that this feedback is less effective in closing the gender gap than we might hope. It’s harder than we thought to convince women in male-typed fields that they’ve performed well in these fields.”

It’s unclear whether women would feel better about their abilities if they received repeated rounds of positive feedback, rather than one piece of good news. “I’d be interested to find out if the gender bias gets smaller over time, once a woman has heard that she’s good at math over and over again,” Coffman says. “You might have to encourage women a few times if you want to close these gaps.”

"Our work suggests a need for structuring group decision-making in a way that assures the most talented members both volunteer and are recognized for their contributions, despite gender stereotypes.”

It's important to note, Coffman says, that these studies also show that men have less confidence than women in their ability to shine in fields dominated by women. “It’s not that women are simply less confident; what we find consistently is that individuals are less confident in fields that are more stereotypically outside of their gender’s domain,” Coffman says.

Women hold back on expressing ideas on ‘male topics’

In a third paper, Gender Stereotypes in Deliberation and Team Decisions, Coffman and colleagues studied how teams discuss, decide on, and reward ideas in a group.

The research team compared the behavior of two groups that had free-form discussions in response to questions that varied in the amount of “maleness” of the topic. In one group, the gender of each participant was known, and in the other group, the gender of speakers was not identifiable. They found that men and women had the same ability to answer the questions, yet once again, gender stereotypes warped people’s responses.

As the “maleness” of the question increased, women were significantly less likely than men to self-promote their ideas within the group when their gender was known, particularly in cases where only one woman was talking with a bunch of men. But in the groups where gender was unknown, no gender differences were found in terms of how much women and men talked up their ideas or were recognized by others for their input.

The researchers even found that stereotypes seemed to play a role in the way outside evaluators rated the contributions of each group member after reading transcripts of the conversations. Without knowing the gender of speakers, these evaluators were significantly more likely to guess that participants who came across in the transcripts as “warm,” or friendly, were female and that a negative or critical participant was male—even though researchers found no actual differences in how men and women in the group communicated. Male raters also were significantly less likely to believe that speakers who were judged as “competent” were female. In addition, warmer participants, particularly warmer women, were less likely to be rewarded for their input in the discussions.

Speak up for success

To achieve professional success, people must voice opinions and advocate for their ideas while working in decision-making teams, so it’s a problem if women are staying quiet when it comes to male-typed subjects—and if their ideas are appreciated less when they do express them, Coffman says.

“Our work suggests a need for structuring group decision-making in a way that assures the most talented members both volunteer and are recognized for their contributions, despite gender stereotypes,” the paper says.

It’s also important for managers to be aware of how confidence gaps may impact the workplace, particularly in professions long dominated by men, and to realize that women may need extra encouragement to express their ideas or to throw their hat in the ring for a promotion, Coffman says.

“I would encourage business leaders to think about how [workers’ confidence levels] impact the processes in their organizations,” Coffman says. “I would say providing extra feedback is a good start. If you as an employer see talent somewhere, reaching out to make sure the person is encouraged, recognized, and rewarded—not just once, but repeatedly—could be a helpful thing to do.”

With this new data on gender stereotyping, Coffman and her colleagues hope their work will help inform future research to piece together answers to some puzzling questions, like why men and women alike believe that men will perform better than women in some domains and what interventions can be considered to close this gender gap in self-confidence.

“Stereotypes are pervasive, widely-held views that shape beliefs about our own and others’ abilities, likely from a very young age,” Coffman says. “Until we can change these stereotypes, it’s essential to think about how we can better inoculate individuals from biases induced by stereotypes, helping people to pursue fulfilling careers in the areas where their passions and talents lie.”

Dina Gerdeman is senior editor at Harvard Business School Working Knowledge.

Image: Willbrasil21

Related Reading:

Women Receive Harsher Punishment at Work Than Men Sponsorship Programs Could Actually Widen the Gender Gap Gender-Diverse Companies Thrive Only Where Diversity is Embraced

Related reading from the Working Knowledge Archives

Women at Work

What do you think of this research?

How much intuition goes into your own decision making? Share your insights below.

• 25 Jun 2024
• Research & Ideas

Rapport: The Hidden Advantage That Women Managers Bring to Teams

• 11 Jun 2024
• In Practice

The Harvard Business School Faculty Summer Reader 2024

How transparency sped innovation in a $13 billion wireless sector.

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

• 27 Jun 2016

These Management Practices, Like Certain Technologies, Boost Company Performance

• Equality and Inequality
• Organizational Culture
• Groups and Teams
• Prejudice and Bias

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Heidi Burgess

Originally published October 2003.  "Current Implications" added in June, 2017.

For shorter summaries of the key ideas, see our Things YOU Can Do To Help Post   Break Down Negative Stereotypes  and the Infographic  Infographic: Give People a Chance to Surprise You .

Current Implications

Stereotypes, particularly negative characterizations are extremely prevalent and problematic in U.S. politics and culture these days.  The left still sees the right as  corrupt, stupid, selfish, racist, sexist, homophobes.  The right likewise paints the left as corrupt, stupid, selfish, elitist, intolerant "takers" (as opposed to "makers.")  More...

What Stereotypes Are

Stereotypes (or "characterizations") are generalizations or assumptions that people make about the characteristics of all members of a group, based on an image (often wrong) about what people in that group are like. For example, one study of stereotypes revealed that Americans are generally considered to be friendly, generous, and tolerant, but also arrogant, impatient, and domineering. Asians, on the other hand, are expected to be shrewd and alert, but reserved. Clearly, not all Americans are friendly and generous; and not all Asians are reserved. But according to this study, others commonly perceive them this way.[1]

Why Stereotypes Matter

Stereotyping is especially prevalent -- and problematic -- in conflicts. Groups tend to define themselves according to who they are and who they are not . And "others," especially "enemies" or "opponents" are often viewed in very negative ways. The opponent is expected to be aggressive, self-serving, and deceitful, for example, while people in one's own group are seen in generally positive ways. Similarly, if problems occur, blame is often placed on "the enemy," while one's own contribution to the problem is ignored. For example, problems may be attributed to the opponent's lack of cooperativeness, not one's own; or the enemy's aggressiveness, not their fear of one's own aggressive stance. Even similarities between parties can be viewed differently: one's own competitiveness may be seen in a positive light as "tough, effective negotiating," while the opponent's competitive actions are seen as "hostile and deceptive."

Such stereotypes tend to be self-perpetuating. If one side assumes the other side is deceitful and aggressive, they will tend to respond deceitfully and aggressively themselves. The opponent will then develop a similar image of the first party and respond deceptively, thus confirming the initial stereotype. The stereotypes may even grow worse, as communication shuts down and escalation heightens emotions and tension.

The Positive Side of Stereotypes

Although stereotypes generally have negative implications, they aren't necessarily negative. Stereotypes are basically generalizations that are made about groups. Such generalizations are necessary: in order to be able to interact effectively, we must have some idea of what people are likely to be like, which behaviors will be considered acceptable, and which not.

For example, elsewhere in this system there is an essay about high-context and low-context cultures. People in low-context cultures are said to be more individualistic, their communication more overt, depending less on context and shared understandings. High-context cultures are more group-oriented. Their communication is more contextually based, depending more on shared understandings and inferences.

Such generalizations are, in essence, stereotypes. They allow us to put people into a category, according to the group they belong to, and make inferences about how they will behave based on that grouping. There will still be differences between individuals from one culture, and with the same individual in different situations. But the stereotype is reasonably accurate, so it is useful. Stereotypes are only a problem when they are inaccurate, especially when those inaccuracies are negative and hostile.

What Can Be Done to Deal with Negative Stereotypes:

The key to reversing negative stereotypes is to contradict them, in direct interactions between people, in the media, and through education.

Between Individuals . Once people get to know a person from "the other side," they often will determine that the other is not nearly as bad as they originally had assumed. (Though sometimes they might find out they are just as bad -- or even worse!)

More often, however, people really are much more reasonable than their stereotypes would suggest. In that case, getting to know people personally helps to break down negative images. This is especially true when people determine that they actually have things in common with people from the other side. Such things can range from enjoying the same music, hobbies, or sports, to having the same worries about children or aging parents.

Even when people learn that they share fear or sadness, they can begin to understand each other more. When they come to understand that the other is afraid of being hurt, or losing a loved one in war, just as they are, that brings people together. Such shared emotions make people seem human, while stereotypes typically " dehumanize " people. Likewise, shared emotions make empathy possible, which opens the door to new forms of interaction and trust building , at least among the individuals involved.

Depending on the context and other interactions, the image of the group as a whole may become more positive as well. (At other times, people rationalize that their one new acquaintance is "not like the others.") But even learning that one person can deviate from the stereotype is a start. The challenge then is to expand such transformative experiences beyond the individuals involved to larger groups, communities, and eventually whole societies.

Developing such mutual understanding is the goal of many intervention efforts in war-torn areas, and in places rocked by social unrest. Dialogue groups and problem-solving workshops are two common ways of doing this. So are joint projects such as war-reconstruction efforts, children's programs, recreational programs, medical programs -- any kind of program that brings individuals from opposing groups together in a cooperative venture. Although they have additional goals beyond the breaking of stereotypes, working together cooperatively can do much to break down negative images people hold of the "enemy."

In the Media. The media also plays an important role in both perpetuating and in breaking down stereotypes. If they characterize particular groups of people in certain ways, their viewers (or readers) are likely to do the same. So if a movie -- or the motion picture industry in general -- characterizes a group of people negatively, they are likely to be perpetuating negative stereotypes and making conflicts worse. If they emphasize the positive aspects of groups that contradict prevalent stereotypes, they can have a significant role in building mutual understanding.

In Education. Educational institutions and teaching materials also have the opportunity to affect stereotypes, and hence influence inter-group relations. Efforts to teach about different cultures, and the history of different racial or ethnic groups can help build inter-group understanding if it is done in an effective and sympathetic way.

However, the opposite is also true. If textbooks teach about the treachery and villainous actions of the enemy, this, obviously, will only perpetuate stereotypes from one generation to the next, entrenching the conflict for many years to come. This does not mean that history should be ignored. The holocaust, for example, did occur and must be acknowledged. But it can be acknowledged as a grave mistake that is now recognized as a mistake, rather than painted as "typical" or "acceptable" behavior.

What Individuals Can Do to Breakdown Negative Stereotypes

Changing stereotypes is largely the job of individuals. Each of us should examine the assumptions that we make about others and ask ourselves where those assumptions come from. Upon what information are they based? Are they based on personal experiences with others? In what context? Might "the other" be different in different situations? Are your assumptions based on things you have heard from others? Learned from the TV or movies? Learned in school? Is it possible that some of your negative images are wrong -- at least for some people?

In most cases, the answer to that last question is likely to be "yes." Even in the most escalated conflicts, not all of the "enemy" is as vicious and immutable as they are often assumed to be. Most groups have moderates and extremists , people who are willing to listen and work with the other side, and those who are not. Rather than assuming all of "the enemy" are evil and unwilling to hear your concerns, try to get to know people as individuals. Just as that will reduce the stereotypes you hold of others, it is also likely to reduce the stereotypes others hold of you.

What the Media Can Do

Steps the media can take to reduce stereotypes are dealt with elsewhere in this system, but fundamentally, it is important that the media paint as accurate a picture of both sides of a conflict as is possible. This generally means painting a complex picture. While extremists tend to make the most noise and hence the most news, the media can do much to lessen conflict by focusing attention on moderates and peacebuilders as well. Heartwarming stories of reconciliation can replace or at least stand side-by-side with heart-wrenching stories of violence and loss. Showing that there is hope -- helping people visualize a better life in a better world -- is a service the media can do better than any other institution, at least on a large scale.

What the Educational System Can Do

This, too, is dealt with elsewhere in this system, but the educational system (teachers, schools, textbooks) needs to also try to paint a fair and accurate picture of the conflict and the different people involved, being aware that different sides of a conflict will view ( frame ) what is happening very differently. Through stories, discussions, and exercises, teachers can help students (of all ages and levels) understand the complexity of the conflicts that surround them, and develop age- and situation-appropriate responses to the current conflicts in their homes, communities, and nations. To the extent that classrooms contain students from both sides of the conflict, teachers can help students learn to understand and appreciate each other better, while protecting the safety (physical and emotional) of those on both sides. If the classroom only contains one group, reaching such intergroup understandings is harder, but still worth the effort through books and articles, discussions, TV and movies, and when available, online exercises (such as those provided in the links below).

Stereotypes, particularly negative characterizations are extremely prevalent and problematic in U.S. politics and culture these days.  The left still sees the right as  corrupt, stupid, selfish, racist, sexist, homophobes.  The right likewise paints the left as corrupt, stupid, selfish, elitist, intolerant "takers" (as opposed to "makers.") These stereotypes make it practically impossible to befriend, relate to, or understand the other side enough to work with them or live in harmony with them. 

The same dynamics appears in almost all escalated conflicts, and if allowed to go to far, results in catastrophe.  Before and during the Rwandan genocide, Tutsi's were referred to as "cockroaches" "rats," and "enemies."  Jews, similarly, were seen as non-human or less than human "enemies" by the perpetrators of the Holocaust, so too were the Blacks who were captured in Africa and brought to the Americas as slaves seen as less than human.  (Even the U.S. Constitution validated such beliefs by counting slaves as 3/5 people!) 

One hopes that the U.S. has not and would not go to such extremes again  But we are currently seeing it happen with respect to Muslims who are, apparently, not deserving of the same rights as other people according to Trump and some of his followers.  We saw it with respect to Mexicans during Trump's campaign, where he accused them of being criminals and rapists.  Both groups now are under siege, Mexicans and other undocumented immigrants fearing deportation daily, and Muslims increasingly being attacked and even killed for their religious beliefs.  

It's time to turn this pathology around.  Both this article and the linked article on Enemy Images  have suggestions about ways such negative stereotypes can be combated.  It is incumbent upon everyone who wants a safe, secure America to enact such measures wherever possible.

--Heidi Burgess, June, 2017.

Back to Essay Top

[1] Breslin, J. William. 1991. "Breaking Away from Subtle Biases" in Negotiation Theory and Practice, eds. J. William Breslin and Jeffrey Rubin (Cambridge, Mass., U.S.: Program on Negotiation Books, 1991), 247-250.

Use the following to cite this article: Burgess, Heidi. "Stereotypes / Characterization Frames." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: October 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/stereotypes >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Guy and Heidi Burgess Talk with David Eisner about Threats to Democracy and How to Address Them -- The Burgesses talked with David Eisner about what he thinks the threats to democracy are, and how (and when) we might respond to them. We agreed, citizen involvement in governance is key.
• Updating Our Impartiality Discussions - Part 1 -- The Burgesses update their 2-year old discussion of impartiality, adding to it Martin Carcasson's notion of "principled impartiality" which adds in quality information and "small-d" democracy.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of September 1, 2024 -- More in our regular set of links from readers, about colleague's activities, and from outside news and opinion sources.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability, the Conflict Information Consortium, or the University of Colorado.

Beyond Intractability Essay Copyright © 2003-2017 The Beyond Intractability Project, The Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado; All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission. All Creative Commons (CC) Graphics used on this site are covered by the applicable license (which is cited) and any associated "share alike" provisions.

"Current Implications" Sections  Copyright © 2016-17 Guy Burgess  and  Heidi Burgess All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources. Inquire about Affordable Reprint/Republication Rights .

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage and Landings Pages

Privacy Policy

Contact Beyond Intractability or Moving Beyond Intractability    The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium , University of Colorado  580 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA -- Phone: (303) 492-1635 --  Contact

Powered by  Drupal

Racism, bias, and discrimination

Racism is a form of prejudice that generally includes negative emotional reactions to members of a group, acceptance of negative stereotypes, and racial discrimination against individuals; in some cases it can lead to violence.

Discrimination refers to the differential treatment of different age, gender, racial, ethnic, religious, national, ability identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, and other groups at the individual level and the institutional/structural level. Discrimination is usually the behavioral manifestation of prejudice and involves negative, hostile, and injurious treatment of members of rejected groups.

Adapted from the APA Dictionary of Psychology

Resources from APA

Racial Equity Action Plan Progress and Impact Report

Update on APA’s efforts toward dismantling systemic racism in psychology and society

Empowering youth of color

The psychologist is one of 12 global leaders who received a $20 million grant from Melinda French Gates.

Implicit theories concerning the intelligence of individuals with Down syndrome

Think professionals who work with people with disabilities are immune to bias? Think again

Combating stigma against patients

How clinicians can overcome bias and provide better treatment

More resources about racism

What APA is doing

Race, ethnicity, and religion

APA Services advocates for the equal treatment of people of all races, religions, and ethnicities, as well as funding for federal programs that address health disparities in these groups.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion

Inclusive language guidelines

APA’s commitment to addressing systemic racism

APA’s action plan for addressing inequality

APA’s apology to people of color in the U.S.

Confronting past wrongs and building an equitable future

Perspectives on Hate

The Psychology of Hate

Contextual Social Psychology

Multicultural Therapy

Stigma of Disease and Disability

Magination Press children’s books

Lulu the One and Only

Something Happened in Our Town

Algo Le Pasó a Mi Papá

Bernice Sandler and the Fight for Title IX

There's a Cat in Our Class!

Journal special issues

Foundational Contributions of Black Scholars in Psychology

Recentering AAPI Narratives as Social Justice Praxis

Dismantling Racism in the Field of Psychology and Beyond

Police, Violence, and Social Justice

Racial Justice in the Criminal Justice and Legal Systems

Ethnic psychological associations

• American Arab, Middle Eastern, and North African Psychological Association
• The Association of Black Psychologists
• Asian American Psychological Association
• National Latinx Psychological Association
• Society of Indian Psychologists

Related resources

• Protecting and Defending our People: Nakni tushka anowa (The Warrior’s Path) Final Report (PDF, 8.64MB) APA Division 45 Warrior’s Path Presidential Task Force (2020)
• Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) Antiracism / Antioppression email series
• Society of Counseling Psychology (APA Division 17) Social justice resources
• Talking About Race | National Museum of African American History and Culture Tools and guidance for discussions of race
• InnoPsych therapists of color search

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Editorial: The psychological process of stereotyping: Content, forming, internalizing, mechanisms, effects, and interventions

Baoshan zhang.

1 School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an, China

Fengqing Zhao

2 School of Education, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

Fangfang Wen

3 School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

Junhua Dang

4 Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Magdalena Zawisza

5 Department of Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Stereotype is a pervasive and persistent human tendency that stems from a basic cognitive need to categorize, simplify, and process the complex world. This tendency is a precondition for social bias, prejudice, and discrimination. Amid the COVID-19 outbreak, the discrimination, exclusion, and even hostility caused by stereotypes have increasingly become an important social issue that concerns political and social stability. Therefore, the current issue focuses on a broad spectrum of research addressing four main themes: (1) the psychological processes involved in forming and internalizing social stereotypes, (2) the negative consequences of stereotypes, (3) the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying stereotypes, and (4) the interventions addressing the consequences of negative stereotypes in this era with changes and challenges. Specifically, the Research Topic consists of 13 papers by 54 scholars that target stereotypes among different social groups, including males and females, older people and young generation, minority races, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), people with mental health problems, juvenile transgressors, refugees, and Asian-Americans during COVID-19 outbreak. These studies are conducted in culturally diverse countries including Brazil, China, Germany, Hungary, and the USA, contributing to a more holistic picture of contemporary stereotypes.

1. The forming of social stereotypes

Negative stereotypes from the public may be influenced by our knowledge about and psychological distance to the target group, beliefs of group malleability, beliefs in the implicit change of traits, and moral values. For instance, Caldas et al. tested whether people's knowledge and proximity to the circumstances associated with juvenile transgression would influence their opinions about the proposal for reducing the age of criminal majority in Brazil. They investigated the passers-by in a public square and workers from the juvenile justice courts and found that people were more likely to hold negative stereotypes of juvenile delinquents if they were far from them. Paskuj and Orosz focused on the refugees as the most typically vulnerable group in turbulent international times, and they found that group malleability beliefs were negatively linked to dehumanization tendencies and threats perceived from migrants in Hungary. Protzko and Schooler examined a more general negative stereotype of youth also known as the “kids these days effect” (KTD effect). In two studies with American adults, belief in whether a trait changes over the lifespan was associated with such prejudices. In addition, Lai et al. focused on three cues linked to women's perceived high long-term mating value and reported that Chinese women displaying “sexually attractive” cues were perceived to have lower moral values. Moreover, they were stereotyped as having lower levels of humanness than women displaying “beautiful” facial cues or “virtuous” behavioral cues, which in turn led to lower mating opportunity.

Culture also plays an essential role in stereotype formation. Li M. et al. targeted stereotypes toward high-power individuals and revealed that people influenced by Confucianism held positive stereotypes of competence and warmth for senior high-power individuals. This finding is inconsistent with the traditional proposition that high-power individuals tend to be stereotyped as having high competence and low warmth. This might be because high-power individuals under Confucian culture are expected to have great social responsibility and concern for the wellbeing of others. Furthermore, new stereotypes emerged as a result of COVID-19 in the global context. COVID-19 is a threat to physical health, and mental health, and various reports have indicated that COVID-19 is closely related to stigma and discrimination. Two studies examined the stereotypes related to COVID-19. Zhao et al. found that the prevalence of COVID-19-related negative stereotypes was low in China. Besides, the more people know about COVID-19, the fewer negative stereotypes associated with COVID-19 they reported. Daley et al. on the other hand reported that Asian-Americans were facing increasing challenges from different ethnic groups on social issues related to COVID-19 in the United States, and the increasing tendency to blame China for the pandemic was associated with stereotyping Asian people as more foreign.

2. The consequences of negative stereotypes

People's negative stereotypes will influence their behavioral inclinations toward the target groups, and even the law-making at a general level. For instance, Wen et al. tested space-related stereotypes associated with people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). They found that people who held negative stereotypes toward the spaces occupied by PLWHA were more resistant to visit such spaces, and people's threat perception and community evaluation mediated the effects of such space-related stereotypes on community-approaching willingness. In addition, Caldas et al. found that the more distant people were from juvenile transgressors, the more they held negative stereotypes toward juvenile transgressors and agreed with the law-making proposal for reducing the age of criminal conviction in Brazil.

Vulnerable groups may internalize the negative stereotypes and be influenced by them. Gärtner et al. tested the self-stereotyping of people with mental illness and found that negative stereotypes of their warmth and competence dimensions led them to develop negative emotions and thus exhibit higher levels of active or passive self-harm than mentally healthy people. In addition, Li J. et al. were interested in the gender self-stereotyping among college students and noted that gender self-stereotyping was positively correlated with relational and personal self-esteem and further correlated with higher life satisfaction only in the male sample. That is, gender self-stereotyping was associated with a higher level of self-esteem and life satisfaction among male students, while this effect did not hold for women.

3. The neurocognitive mechanisms of stereotypes

The neurocognitive mechanisms of stereotypes were explored by Wu and Zhao . They used RS-fMRI degree centrality (RSDC), a graph theory-based network analysis, to detect how negative stereotypes work in the brain. In a test of math-related stereotypes among female university students, they found that the RSDC of different brain regions was affected, reflecting that stereotypes are the result of the action of the brain network as a whole. For instance, a decrease in RSDC in the left hippocampus is a response to stereotype-related stress, and an increase in RSDC in the posterior parietal region (PPC) is a reflection of self-relevant processes induced by stereotypes.

4. The interventions addressing the consequences of negative stereotypes

Finally, two studies tested interventions against negative stereotypes via intergenerational contact and cognitive training. Long et al. found that simply intergenerational contact, or even just imagining it, reduced negative stereotypes of older people and increased perspective-taking toward older people among young adults. Chen et al. used the traditional IAT to compare the effect of multiple vs. single cognitive training on aging stereotypes in 12–13-year-olds. They found that multiple training tasks and additional intervention training sessions are recommended as they could significantly prolong the positive effects of the intervention.

Overall, these 13 papers discussed various aspects of stereotype formation, consequences, mechanisms, and interventions. We hope these papers will inspire future researchers in developing theories and conducting new interventions against negative effects of stereotypes. Since the current era of “black swan incidents” and related social challenges create perfect conditions for stereotypes to thrive and intensify, researchers should continue exploring the psychological mechanisms behind emerging social stigma and negative stereotypes. Especially, the development of neuroscience will provide further opportunities to study the brain mechanisms of stereotypes from a more microscopic perspective. This combined with macroscopic psychosocial mechanisms will provide new ways of addressing the severe dangers of negative stereotypes across contexts, countries and times and benefit targeted interventions and policy making.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Effects of female gamer stereotypes on cyber aggression against female gamers: The influence of virtual world on human behavior and psychology

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, index terms.

Social and professional topics

User characteristics

Cultural characteristics

Recommendations

The playing motivations of male and female gamers and the effects of stereotypes on their motivations in honor of kings.

Honor of Kings (HoK) is one of the most popular mobile games worldwide. To understand why players actively engage with digital games, it is essential to focus on their gaming motivations. However, no previous studies were found to have ...

Tracing female gamer identity. An empirical study into gender and stereotype threat perceptions

It seems that women stand outside game culture resulting in a low gamer identity profile. A nuanced and detailed examination of how gender identity and threatening experiences tap into their play practices has hitherto been lacking however. The present ...

Male and female robots

A population of male and female robots evolves in an environment in which to remain alive they must eat the food contained in the environment and to reproduce they must mate with a robot of the opposite sex. The only difference between male and female ...

Information

Published in.

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Permissions, check for updates.

• Research-article
• Refereed limited

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View Options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

View options.

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Share this Publication link

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

Advertisement

Tim Sheehy Was Recorded Using Racist Stereotypes About Native Americans

Mr. Sheehy, a Republican, is the nominee for a Senate seat in Montana, where Indigenous residents make up about 6 percent of the population.

• Share full article

By Kellen Browning

• Sept. 3, 2024

Tim Sheehy, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Montana, made comments perpetuating racist stereotypes about Native Americans during private fund-raisers last year, according to recordings of the events published by a local news outlet late last week and obtained by The New York Times.

In one recording, Mr. Sheehy, a cattle rancher and businessman, can be heard saying that he had participated in roping and branding cattle on the Crow Reservation, in southeastern Montana, and that it was “a great way to bond with all the Indians out there, while they’re drunk at 8 a.m.” In another clip, he said that he had ridden in a Crow parade, and that “they’ll let you know whether they like you or not, there’s Coors Light cans flying by your head.”

At a campaign event in Shelby, Mont.

By making these remarks, Mr. Sheehy not only used stereotypes, but he also waded into the complex history of Native American tribal dynamics in Montana, where Indigenous residents make up about 6 percent of the population. The state has seven reservations and 12 tribes.

Native Americans say that they have long been forgotten in political discussions and that basic needs on reservations, including water, electricity and health care, have been ignored by leaders of both major political parties.

In Montana, some Native Americans said they were appalled but not surprised by Mr. Sheehy’s comments, first reported by The Char-Koosta News, which covers the Flathead Indian reservation in the northwestern part of the state.

Calvin Lime, who lives on the Blackfeet reservation in northern Montana, said the remarks were a “slap in the face,” and especially unfortunate because the Crow Tribe was one of the most outspokenly pro-Trump tribes . (Mr. Sheehy received the endorsement of former President Donald J. Trump in the Republican primary.)

“For them to bring him there, work with him, they’re happy, they’re promoting him, but behind closed doors they’re the drunken Indian,” Mr. Lime said. “Behind closed doors, you’re actually getting looked at as a lesser-than.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Sheehy’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for Senator Jon Tester, the Democratic incumbent locked in a tight race with Mr. Sheehy, declined to comment.

At a rodeo fund-raiser

Native Americans in Montana have been a key voting bloc for Mr. Tester, who is in his third term, but local Native American leaders say that Democrats cannot take their votes for granted. Some suggested that Montana Republicans like Representative Ryan Zinke had made progress in improving the perception of Republicans among the state’s tribes, but Mr. Sheehy’s comments may have jeopardized that, said Alexandra Lin, a former member of the Montana Democratic Party who is Indigenous.

“Representative Zinke and Senator Daines have begun to understand these really important demographic groups and have been investing in them,” Ms. Lin said, referring to Steve Daines, the state’s Republican senator, “and it’s surprising that Sheehy is not doing this.”

Kellen Browning is a Times reporter covering the 2024 election, with a focus on the swing states of Nevada and Arizona. More about Kellen Browning