Meet the scourge of political correctness and individualist aspirations: the stereotype. It often, but not always comes in company of its brother and sister, prejudice and discrimination. It is by far not only a word to make the blood of minorities freeze, it is also the teasing paradox for the style-aware post-pop-cultural individual (“be different, but in-style, please!”) and a nuisance for anyone who would simply like to be taken for who they really are. Most probably thanks to its negative flavor it is part of the well-researched domain of cognitive biases within sociology and social psychology. But stereotypes can serve useful purposes. So I set out to explore the term, and made interesting observations.
First, beyond cultural implications – why do stereotypes work? And how do we use them?
The etymology of this term is very telling. A stereotype originally was “[…] a duplicate impression of an original typographical element, used for printing instead of the original.“ It was a practical innovation that enabled a faster processing of prints. If we take the metaphor as being quite true to its origin, this tells us a lot about the actual function of our abstract stereotypes, namely a faster processing of information.
Here, categorization comes in as a helpful concept to further approach the term. Since a stereotype helps the mind to categorize:
“Stereotypes, like other generalizations, frequently serve as mental shortcuts and are especially likely to be applied when people are busy or distracted (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991).” (S.Plous)
Furthermore,
“Stereotypes are selective filters. Supporting data is hoarded and information to the contrary is ignored.” (S.Vaknin)
Categories are a necessity for information processing as they provide storage units for information. In the case of stereotyping, the drawers within a defined unit (e.g. rednecks, Elvis imitators, the nerd next door, a snake) are labeled with outstanding content descriptions (e.g. do not behave, believe that “the King is alive”, always wears unfashionable T-Shirts, is poisonous). Plous points out that “when we observe the environment, we do not give equal weight to every element; instead, we are highly selective. Without even being aware of it, we automatically filter what we see in a way that gives greatest weight to whatever is most salient. […] Just as with categorical thinking, our focus on salient stimuli allows us to process a large amount of information efficiently. Yet also like categorical thinking, our focus on salient stimuli can lead to systematic distortions in perception [...]“
Plous’s quotes easily draw attention to the negative nature of stereotypes. But before we have a look at the problematic issues, a summary of the basic function can be made: a stereotype is a rough categorization of objects in an individual’s environment that is used for all members of that category until more specific information is available or required. Stereotyping per se is an economically organizing function of the brain.
This definition is neutral for a reason: a certain moral flavor was prevalent in my research results on this term.
The perception of stereotypes
Plous is not the only one approaching the topic from the concerned and problem-aware side, even many definitions stigmatize stereotype. Sam Vaknin and Lee, Jussim and McCauley, the authors of the 1995 psychological publication Stereotype Accuracy: Toward Appreciating Group Differences do also mention positive examples of it. They refer to the basic psychological function, e.g. “’nutshell stereotypes’” that “encapsulate information compactly and efficiently”(Vaknin) to ease the burden of an “information overload” (see above). Lee, among others, differentiate between positive/negative and accurate/inaccurate, stating that most research has been conducted on inaccurate negative stereotypes. (The article that provided this source should be handled with care. While the overtly conservative – and self-indulgent – author praised this book, I have limited myself to the scientific information displayed.)
During my research, it has been interesting to see how, albeit by respective framing, the spectrum of attitudes or subtexts ranged from “stereotypes are a bad thing” (Plous) to “what’s all the fuss, everyone knows when to discard them” (Derbyshire), via “they can be helpful if handled with care”(Vaknin). How sensible are such statements?
It looks like everyone will use a stereotype on several occasions as it serves a cognitive purpose and thus cannot be avoided. Consequently, making a stereotypical assumption is not necessarily something despicable. Becoming aware of when we actually use a stereotype is the only way to become able to reflect its validity. That very step is on the crossroads between economical storage and the various motivations for forming prejudice. (Think about it!)
Understanding and Handling
Keeping in mind the social implications of stereotypes, it is obvious why inaccurate stereotypes receive the greatest attention. Stereotyping is labeling. Labeling may ease judgments; judgments (of whatever type) may be used to make decisions or create an attitude. Beyond accuracy, it is the social stereotype that deserves careful consideration. My favorite chilly fingers phrase is “The So-and-sos always do this-and-that.” Or better even: “The So-and-sos are …”. A whole treatise can be written about social biases, which provide an insight into the psychological mechanisms at work in stereotyping and prejudicing.
(I recommend having a look at them, as they do help grasping the topic.)
As for stereotype awareness, there is reason to relax. Everyone knows some version of the categorical imperative. One should not hesitate to remind other people of it. And the next time I am about to utter a statement about someone, I will imagine going up to them and ask: “Excuse me, do you match this stereotype...?”
Read more on stereotypes in Felix Schuermann's article Race difference.
<< Home