page_title: Stereotype content model
section_title: Warmth
hierarchical_section_title: Stereotype content model / Dimensions / Warmth
caption_attribution_description: English: Chart created by me based on Fiske et al. (2002). '"A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow From Perceived Status and Competition." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (6): 878–902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878
context_page_description: In social psychology, the stereotype content model is a model, first proposed in 2002, postulating that all group stereotypes and interpersonal impressions form along two dimensions: warmth and competence.
  The model is based on the notion that people are evolutionarily predisposed to first assess a stranger's intent to either harm or help them and second to judge the stranger’s capacity to act on that perceived intention.
  Social groups and individuals that compete for resources with the in-group or self are treated with hostility or disdain. These groups and individuals fall along the low end of the warmth spectrum. While, social groups and individuals with high social status are considered competent, and are found at the high end of the competence dimension's spectrum. Thus, lack of perceived threat predicts warmth evaluation and salient status symbols predicts impressions of competence. The model was first proposed by social psychologist Susan Fiske and her colleagues Amy Cuddy, Peter Glick and Jun Xu.
context_section_description: Appraisals of warmth have a greater impact on interpersonal and intergroup relations than appraisals of competence. Warmth is, therefore, the primary dimension within the SCM. Assessments of an out-group or individual's potential threat level predicts the group or person's place along the warmth dimension's high/low spectrum. From an evolutionary perspective warmth is primary because having a keen understanding of a person’s competency is not as relevant if you already know that they are not trying to harm you. Early versions of the SCM predicted that intergroup or interpersonal competition drove ratings of warmth (low competition → high warmth; high competition → low warmth). In 2015, Kervyn, Fiske, and Yzerbyt expanded the SCM's original definition of threat also include to symbolic threats, based on Kinder and Sears (1981) Symbolic Racism theory, which steams from in-group fears over perceived threats to culture or value norms. In the same paper, Kervyn, Fiske, and Yzerbyt also broadened their concept of warmth and defined it as an umbrella term that encompasses both sociability and morality. This reconceptualization of warmth responded to earlier work by Leach, Ellemers, and Barreto (2007) who argued that the warmth dimension conflated two variables (1) sociability, which describes attributes such as cooperation and kindness, and (2) morality, describing an internal ethical sense. They proposed an alternative three dimension model, which retained competence and divides warmth into morality and sociability. Their plea for the importance of morality in intergroup perception was also echoed by Brambilla et al. (2011) and Brambilla et al. (2012). In addition to broadening the definition of warmth to include morality, Kervyn, Fiske, and Yzerbyt also countered that early theoretical definitions of warmth had, in fact, included adjectives related to morality even though morality measures were not included when warmth was later operationalized during empirical tests.
caption: Stereotype content model, adapted from Fiske et al. (2002): Four types of stereotypes resulting from combinations of perceived warmth and competence.
exif: {}