Talk:Stereotype

message: Can a reputation result in a stereotype? For example, when someone asked why Italians have a stereotype as violent people the response was "After the brutalities of the Roman Empire (who nailed Jesus Christ to the Cross), the deceit and sneakiness of the Venetians doges and Maciavelli, the oppression of Mussolini and the violence and conspiratorial nature of the Mafia, that is the kind of reputation the Italians have earned." That sounds as if history makes stereotypes, or are the two concepts of stereotype and reputation interrealted? 69.143.105.191 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess there is much more. Is anybody willing to take the job? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Reputation of a type of individuals tends to be a stereotype (not "different from a stereotype"). The accuracy of stereotypes tends to be positive but imperfect. Therefore, stereotypes harm if considered completely accurate but make predictions more correct if considered imperfect and only used to the extent that the predictor lacks exact information. Based on research, people tend to use them that way, though not always. --Forp (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputation as opposed to Stereotype 

message: I plan on adding new information to the page as a project for my Social Psychology class.  My purpose is to better organize the page and provide more cited facts and relevant studies that contribute to the overall importance of stereotype within society.
The sections I plan to edit include:
The Introductory Paragraph - adding a new definition for stereotype as well as an introduction on the differences between prejudice, stereotype, and discrimination.  Also will add generalizations about the usage of stereotype.
Social Functions - I have new information to add about in-group and out-group justifications and differences under the social categorization subheading.  I find the functions section in general full of unnecessary information that is just confusing to follow, so I may attempt to better organize the section into more relevant features.
Effects - I am going to add another paragraph under the subheading Stereotype Effect in order to cite more experimental research and provide more information on the concept.  Also, the discrimination section is very weak and does not embody the importance of its relationship to stereotype, so I may add more information to that as well.
Role in Art and Culture - I believe this section is bringing down the rating due to its lack of citations, so I will attempt to find outside sources that describe the importance of stereotype in this setting.  If I am not able to, I believe the section needs to be deleted in order to provide the most accurate justification of stereotype - unless someone else would like to take over this responsibility.
I also have information regarding stereotype susceptibility with research involving children and socioeconomic status, but I am undecided where to place that as of now.
There are grammar mistakes (i.e. first sentence has a comma before the period, socialization is spelled wrong in "socialisation and upbringing", etc) that I will fix.  I also would like to reword some of the sentences in order to provide better clarity while keeping the same information as before (i.e. automatic behavioral outcomes section, etc). Dalesska (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Adding Additional Information  

message: The article appears to have been moved to solely deal with racial and behavioural stereotyping.
Where does it talk about "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing:" (OED)
For example, London can be seen as stereotypically "foggy", or New York as "dangerous at night" - why have these sterotypes not got a mention? Chaosdruid (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Chaosdruid. It is true that the article is concerned almost completely with stereotyping processes for human subject matter, while at times 'stereotype' be used in non-human contexts. Really though, I think this just reflects the dominant approach to stereotyping in the literature. That is, for quite understandable reasons, stereotyping has been primarily studied as something that is done to us / done to them. And I am ok with this. It seems like a pretty safe bet that the Wikipedia audience will be coming here looking for information on person stereotyping. That being said, if you wish to expand the article then go ahead. Just be sure to use reliable sources and not to create too much redundancy with the Categorical_perception article. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An article is not complete until it covers all factors relevant to the topic. "Things" are 50% of the definition according to the OED, so please, do go ahead and fix the article. I am merely pointing out this deficiency. I have plenty of things to do and am not an expert in this particular field. I can, however, apply myself to this topic later in the year if you cannot fix it. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems a little off 

message: I believe that the article comes up short with regard to its discussion of stereotype threats.  Stereotype threats, as in when someone perceives him or herself to be stereotyped and thus conforms to the given stereotype, is one topic that I hoped to read more about on the "stereotype" wiki page.  This section of the article was well-cited but could have gone into more detail, perhaps, into what types of effects are seen by stereotype threats.  The author of the article claims that stereotype threats can "undermine performance in a variety of domains", but the reader is left to imagine what those domains may be.  Also, what are the social implications of this undermined performance.  In the last sentence of the article, the author lists sports, business, and chess as "arenas" where stereotype threats have been studied, but fails to elaborate further.  Perhaps adding to this article should be placed on my to-do list.
-Sean  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seancascarano (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding stereotype threats 

message: Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article has been selected to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd like to ask the English Wikipedia community to join our efforts and improve the article before December 31, 2014 (any timezone); a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review in early 2015. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that editors can decide if and how to use them. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Primary School announcement

message: There were separate articles on Wikipedia about sexual stereotyping and stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans. Both of these articles were redirected to the stereotyping article, but this article has no information about these topics.
Should these articles be separated again, or should their contents be merged into the stereotyping article instead? Jarble (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this article there are Gender role#Gender stereotypes and Ethnic stereotype which are I think better targets for sexual stereotyping and stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans respectively.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; redirects changed.  Klbrain (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Two pages were improperly redirected to this one

message: In the paragraph about a study from 1976 documenting illusory correlation, the following passage occurs:
"Negative behaviors outnumbered positive actions and group B was smaller than group A, making negative behaviors and membership in group B relatively infrequent and distinctive. Participants were then asked who had performed a set of actions: a person of group A or group B. Results showed that subjects overestimated the frequency with which both distinctive events, membership in group B and negative behavior, co-occurred, and evaluated group B more negatively."
It seems the first line is wrong, and that it ought to read: "Negative behaviors were outnumbered by positive actions...". I have not corrected it myself because I am not familiar with the study in question.MelancholyRose (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the "illusory correlation" section 

message: Stereotypes in Consumer Behaviour seems to be better suited as a section in Stereotype, rather than being its own article. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 12:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose on the grounds that stereotyping is a large topic that should reasonably be dealt with over several pages. For example, we have Implicit stereotype and Ethnic stereotype; studies in consumer behaviour seem to be a distinct subset because of their relevance for commerce/business. Klbrain (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Stereotypes in Consumer Behaviour]] 

message: "However, this is only a fundamental psychological definition of a stereotype. Within psychology and spanning across other disciplines, there are different conceptualizations and theories of stereotyping that provide their own expanded definition. Some of these definitions share commonalities, though each one may also harbor unique aspects that may contradict the others."</br>
Okay, then why can't they be explained? The article sure is long enough for a longer lead and I really don't think saying "but that's only the basic definition and there are other definitions that are both similar and distinct" (but with a lot more fluff) is in any way useful. I'll add a template. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Uninformative lead

message: Hi Everyone! I can't find originations of stereotypes, Im working on a project and it would be nice if someone could help with this issue and see a new section added on the topic. Thanks! -Devin Haworth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:806:8200:2935:753C:73DA:A28A:8203 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originations of Stereotypes 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The change i made should not be changed 49.37.55.218 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not what stereotyping isn't, it is whether you have a source that says what you say it is.   Please read what it says here.  You have been asked several times to read Wikipedia policy and guidelines on this, please do so before asking further questions. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why stereotyping is not a general unscientific and irrational belief??? 

message: — Assignment last updated by MuthanaAlhadrab (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis

message: the results of the experiment show both black and white participants to take faster shooting decision when the target is black. wouldn't this contradict the in-group favouritism theory? 37.63.12.69 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  video game experiment - shooting decision 

message: The claim that stereotypes (or perhaps elements of them) can sometimes generally be accurate has seen some back-and-forth addition and reversion, involving both some sources that appear reliable and some claims of WP:FRINGE, and a request to take it to the talk page. So, I'll create this thread for that discussion and hope that the parties involved will use it.  We probably need to examine a) the sources being used, for reliability, b) whether they are being used accurately (no WP:OR), and c) whether they are contradicted by a preponderance of other RS material (since having a reputable publisher is not always a guarantee of reliable content, especially the more time passes since publication). That this question is highly politicized probably also needs to be kept in mind. The ArbCom designation of "race and intelligence" broadly construed as covered by WP:Contentious topics also has obvious implications here given the nature of many ethnic stereotypes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no strong opinion about its inclusion or omission and am happy to have a case put for its removal.  I simply have concerns about its removal without clear explanation about the issues with it.  I am not an expert, but it appears to be well sourced and not fringe.  If there is disagreement within reliable sources, I'm all for that being added. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible for this discussion to also cover some of Generalrelative's other removals of material as "fringe" without clear explanation of why it is, for example the papers published in Psychiatric quarterly, Neuropsychobiology, and Molecular Psychiatry in these edits?   AFAIK, there has never been a centralized discussion about all of these similar source removals, and this issue is larger than just one article. 173.246.210.93 (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be a matter for WP:RSN or WP:FRINGEN, since it's a multi-article conflict that involves behavioral claims. I think one would prefer the former, since the dispute also involves claims about whether particular sources are actually reliable (in particular subjects/contexts).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I understand. Would you be willing to start a discussion about the broader issue at RSN? I think it should be addressed, but you're more likely than me to handle all this in the correct way. 173.246.210.93 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not up to speed on what the alleged issue is. On a cursory examination, all three of these instances seem like they should be discussed individually on the talk pages of the relevant articles. I wouldn't take this to a noticeboard unless those discussions happen but fail to come to a consensus. But that's just me; I'm averse to noticeboard drama.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A few months ago there was an attempt to discuss the removals from an individual article on that article's talk page. But it was decided there that a discussion on one article's talk page can't overturn the consensus to consider "racial hereditarianism" a fringe theory, which is what all these source removals have been based on.  That's why the removals apparently can't be addressed one at a time, and the only way to address them is in a centralized discussion. But I also don't think I'm qualified to start such a discussion, so I'm hoping someone else could. 173.246.210.93 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As I had strongly suspected, this is deeply tied to race-and-intellegience matters. Not only are there the the ArbCom case and that RfC you mentioned, but also this one (May 2021) and this one (April 2020). That's at least 3 RfCs back-to-back in support of removing material like this, even if the publisher is arguably usually reliable, because our editors generally find that the viewpoint expressed in such material is so far outside the scientific mainstream that it counts as WP:FRINGE. Because WP:Consensus can change, we  have yet another centralized discussion (an RfC no. 4) about this, but I predict it would not budge from the position of the previous three, and I certainly won't be opening such an RfC. Knowing that this does so closely relate to R&I matters, I  have a dog in the fight now, so my own editorial interest in Wikipedia sticking to the actual science would be thwarted by opening yet another RfC to challenge the previous three.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't truly be "sticking to the actual science" when around 100 reliably published sources have been removed, including sources published by the American Psychological Association and in top journals such as Molecular Psychiatry and Nature Human Behavior, and when nobody has provided anything like that level of sourcing to support all those sources being fringe. In the absence of a similar quantity and quality of sources that say it's fringe, this looks like a situation where the opinions of Wikipedia editors are being given priority over the sources.WP:NPOV says "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" and "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." It seems like there should be some way uphold those parts of the policy. Are you completely sure the only way that's possible is making another RFC? And if someone were to do that, while explicitly spelling out that the "fringe" decision is in fact a decision about whether all those sources are allowed, do you really think the community would most likely continue to support removing them all? 173.246.210.93 (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think you have sufficient evidence to open yet another RfC about this, then be my guest. This should probably be done at WT:FRINGE or even at WP:VPPOL, not an obscure article talk page. I do think the community would continue to support removing this material, because "around 100" sources in a topic area with many thousands of published sources is basically nothing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I'll leave aside the off-topic complaints of the WP:CANVASSing IP . My contention is that when examining the balance of sources it's clear that "can sometimes be accurate" does not represent the balance of mainstream scholarship. If it's true then it's trivially true based on an overly broad definition of stereotype. Whereas most of the scholarship out there (and most of the sources cited in the "Accuracy" section) focus on the psychological mechanisms that create stereotypes through "illusory correlation" and confirmation bias. The only sources arguing otherwise appear to be a 1995 book by Yueh-Ting Lee et al. and a 2015 study –– which offers only qualified support –– by Lee Jussim et al. On the latter's potential biases, see his page on Rationalwiki, though of course take anything you read there with an appropriate number of grains of salt. But other than him, I don't see anyone really arguing for this position in the 21st century. The first ref, used to cite this claim in the lead, is a text book with no preview available and no page number, so I'm unable to verify what it says. Generalrelative (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For an outline of the mainstream point of view which has the twin virtues of being freely accessible and brief, see this overview, currently our ref #6. It discusses the "kernel of truth" hypothesis in context, showing by implication (it gets only a passing mention) what a minor role it plays in the way experts conceive of stereotypes –– or at least did in 2002 when this was published. I see no reason to suppose that this "kernel of truth" hypothesis has become any more mainstream since then. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Also, to answer 's question directly: Yueh-Ting Lee et al. is not a position statement of the American Psychological Association. It's a 1995 book published by them. Obviously it carries some weight, but not as much as more recent stuff and it does not outweigh the balance of other sources which appear to contradict its claims –– or at least the claim at issue here. Generalrelative (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Just a passing by comment: I haven't looked through the previous discussions, but someone on the misandry talk page listed a source a few days ago which mentions "stereotype accuracy hypothesis". I really haven't looked into more detail, and the journal doesn't seem to be of highest quality, but it seems to suggest that while it is not proven, it might not be fringe. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do actually look at it in detail though you will see that these authors state that their own conclusions run counter to this hypothesis. In academic work, you often need a hook –– some position to contradict or overturn –– and in this case the stereotype accuracy hypothesis serves as that hook. That's not an especially compelling form of evidence for the hypothesis being mainstream. Instead it's a low bar for scientific relevance. Generalrelative (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Well, despite where this discussion is heading, I see recent edits re-adding the idea that stereotypes are often correct, but I don't really have the energy right now to go on a reversion spree.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't ask you to. I appreciate you opening the thread, and your patience in engaging the IP above. Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Here is the most recent removed text on accuracy. As psychologists have been proved to have a very strong left-wing bias, it harms one's career to publish this kind of results. Therefore, one should not ignore these unless there is much better research with opposite results. --Forp (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This one source isn't enough for such a broad topic, and your accusations of political bias are not helping. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sometimes accurate" 

message: :Here is the most recent removed text on accuracy. As psychologists have been proved to have a very strong left-wing bias, it harms one's career to publish this kind of results. Therefore, one should not ignore these unless there is much better research with opposite results. --Forp (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This one source isn't enough for such a broad topic, and your accusations of political bias are not helping. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content: stereotype accuracy 

message: It is not only that stereotypes are produced by socialization or are types of prejudice but at the same time they are sometimes forced not only on children but by the peer group or society in general and if the individual tries to behave differently the sanctions can be harmful. Though if individuals fulfil the also negative expectations,  they also will be sanctioned. So there is no way out of this pressure (trap of stigmatisation). Tiredmoth (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP:NOT#FORUM. This isn't a place to theorize about the nature of stereotypes. This page exists for proposing changes to the article text and the reliable sources one has found to justify the changes (and for fixing other article problems like poor structuring, unclear passages, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  stereotypes