Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

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.

Https

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.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jun;102(6):1214-38.
doi: 10.1037/a0027717. Epub 2012 Mar 26.

Stereotyping by omission: eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive

Hilary B Bergsieker  1 , Lisa M Leslie, Vanessa S Constantine, Susan T Fiske
Affiliations

Stereotyping by omission: eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive

Hilary B Bergsieker et al. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jun.

Abstract

Communicators, motivated by strategic self-presentation, selectively underreport negative content in describing their impressions of individuals and stereotypes of groups, particularly for targets whom they view ambivalently with respect to warmth and competence. Communicators avoid overtly inaccurate descriptions, preferring to omit negative information and emphasize positive information about mixed individual targets (Study 1). With more public audiences, communicators increasingly prefer negativity omission to complete accuracy (Study 2), a process driven by self-presentation concerns (Study 3) and moderated by bidimensional ambivalence. Similarly, in an extension of the Princeton Trilogy studies, reported stereotypes of ethnic and national outgroups systematically omitted negative dimensions over 75 years--as anti-prejudice norms intensified--while neutral and positive stereotype dimensions remained constant (Study 4). Multiple assessment methods confirm this stereotyping-by-omission phenomenon (Study 5). Implications of negativity omission for innuendo and stereotype stagnation are discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Likelihood of statements made to a casual acquaintance by vignette in Studies 1–3, respectively displayed in panels (a), (b), and (c). Error bars indicate ± 1 SE.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Omission by audience and vignette. Panels (a) and (b) respectively display statement-based omission in Studies 2 and 3, and panel (c) displays open-ended omission in Study 3. Error bars indicate ± 1 SE. Acq. = acquaintance.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Path analysis with self-presentation mediating the linear effect of audience publicity on statement-based (SB) omission versus accuracy and open-ended (OE) omission for participants describing ambivalent targets in Study 3. Coefficients are standardized regression betas. ***p < .001
Figure 4
Figure 4
Stereotype content trends over time with groups classified by 1932 stereotypic warmth and competence in Study 4. Panels (a) and (b) respectively display warmth and competence.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Stereotype content assessed with two methods in Study 5. Panel (a) reports stereotype content based on Katz-Braly adjectives selected for each group in 2000–2007 (range = 1–7) and panel (b) displays stereotype content SCM Likert scale ratings for each group (range = 1–5).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Allport GW. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books; 1954/1979.
    1. Ames DR, Bianchi EC, Magee JC. Professed impressions: What people say about others affects onlookers’ perceptions of speakers’ power and warmth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2010;46:152–158.
    1. Ames DR, Welch WT. The ecology of everyday first encounters: Prevalent circumstances and the impact of individual differences. 2011. Unpublished manuscript.
    1. Anderson NH. Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1968;9:272–279. - PubMed
    1. Armitage CJ. Beyond attitudinal ambivalence: Effects of belief homogeneity on attitude-intention-behaviour relations. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2003;33:551–563.

Publication types