Where Stereotypes Come From and Stereotype Formation
Created | Updated Sep 29, 2009
Why are Jews good with money? Why are Kenyans fast runners? Why are Asians always so smart and such efficient workers? Perhaps a better question is why do these statements exist? Where do these stereotypes come from and how does mere myth transform into what appears to be the natural way of the world?
The world is filled with stereotypes – in and out, top to bottom. And while stereotypes may provide some humor, or even some guidance for interaction with others, their origins and how they form within our minds usually go without notice. Is it the media, what people see on the television and in movies? Or does this bias develop from within a person out of dislike for certain groups of people? Because society is merely an agreed upon collection of “texts” and the reading of these is an interactive process between a person and the text, the formation of stereotypes spawns both from what text a person is presented and from how a person processes and interprets it.
What is a "Stereotype"?
While there are varying definitions on what exactly a stereotype is, for the purposes of this entry, a stereotype is defined as an idea, image, or understanding of a social group abstracted from society, generally used to signify categorization, description or some sort of meaning about a social group or its members. Thus, stereotypes not only describe, but provide judgment or meaning as well. Although a definition of “stereotype” is a solid cornerstone to beginning to understand stereotypes, it is not enough to truly begin to delve into the complexities of how stereotypes are formed.
Identities
Understanding the formation of stereotypes first begins with the concept of “identities.” Stereotypes are rooted in identities such as race, ethnicity, social class, gender, sexuality, among others, and consequently allow users to create categories and differentiate between persons. However, science has proved that while genes may vary between individuals, there are actually very few natural, biological differences or separating factors between humans. Most of the differences expressed are, in fact, socially constructed and have social meanings applied rather than being natural or innate, biological divisions with inherent social implications. An example can be found in the words “sex” and “gender.” Although these two words are often used interchangeably in casual conversation, sex indisputably refers to the biological differences in the reproductive organs and processes between men and women, whereas gender usually describes the meanings that are socially constructed and assigned to each sex.
Concepts about gender (such as which activities and behaviors are appropriate for which sex) may vary from culture to culture, but sex does not. While it may be permissible for a girl to play sports with boys in one culture and not in another, it is universally recognized that the girl is female, regardless of her actions, behaviors, interests or the societal expectations for her gender. Her actual sex has no implications beyond the biological. Society merely applies a set of meanings (gender) to her sex. In short, it is logical to assert that stereotypes encapsulate these socially constructed differences between social groups, which leads to them being used to categorize, describe, or make judgments about a social group.
Where Stereotypes Come From
This better understanding of what a stereotype is now leads us to the earlier question of where stereotypes are found. Because stereotypes are social constructs, like the construction of any building, we must begin at the most basic, foundational level. But while construction teams excavate to install foundations, psychologists look to the overarching umbrella of society for their “foundations”. The foundations of stereotypes are the “texts” of society, which are any and all aspects of a culture, and which include typical concepts of culture (such as literature, art, music, and so on) but also anything else that may be viewed, heard, read, smelled, tasted, or touched and interpreted (everything ranging from conversations between parents, television ads, a teacher’s reprimanding glare, rules of a board game, and beyond).
However, because we interact with these texts, we are not passive viewers or “perceivers” as many researchers discuss in the results of their studies. Unlike the one-time construction of building foundations, we are active “readers” and we “read” texts each and every day.
In other words, we construct and reconstruct the psychological foundations in our lives constantly. At the most basic level of our processing, we associate symbols and sounds, which form what we know as language, with certain features, which then give those symbols and sounds meaning. Over time, with repeated exposure, the association between language and meaning become automatic. Thus, we read hundreds of thousands of texts everyday automatically and abstract meaning from these texts via personal experience and direct interaction.
Additionally and perhaps even more importantly, because a person cannot travel everywhere or know everything or meet everyone, we must also abstract meaning vicariously through a conglomeration of societal texts, which we, as a society, agree upon to be reality. Another way to look at it is this: Despite the different names each language and culture has for it, we all know what a “football” is. However, we reach this understanding not only through direct, personal, episodically encoded experience but also through vicarious, semantically encoded experience. Thus my understanding of “football” comes not only from playing with a football as a child or seeing footballs for sale at the store (direct experience), but from any time I’ve read the words “football” printed on a page, watched football on television, listened to a conversation about football, seen a photo of a player kicking the ball (vicarious experience), and so on. In other words, this is simply what my culture has agreed upon in understanding what a “football” is.
In the same way that every person agrees to think and act as though little colored slips of special paper called “money” actually have certain values, we as readers of societal texts have a substantial amount of control over the interpretation of a text and the power the text has to convey a message to us. The best simile for this process is as a constant game of tug-of-war with language being the rope linking reader to text. It is critical to note, though, that just as the rope can merely act as a link and never be a team on either side, language acts only as the signifier – not the signified. The reader controls what is signified and because each person has different experiences and beliefs, what one word signifies to one person does not necessarily mean it will signify the same concept to someone else. Also at work in the process of interpretation is an author’s desire to convey a message and the shared culture between readers and between the author and the readers – that agreed upon “societal reality”. This allows for a good amount of variation, while still maintaining relatively similar interpretations.
Taking this information and reflecting back on the agreed upon “societal reality,” text interpretation, and social constructs, this game of tug-of-war can quickly become highly unfair. Because language is the connection between a person and the text, repeated exposure to a particular text associated with a certain meaning leads only to a stronger bond between the two; the tug-of-war becomes one-sided; the association becomes automatic. When repeatedly presented with texts that signify people wearing turbans, long white or beige robes, and beards as people who commit acts of terrorism, not only does the link between that image and the concept of “terrorist” strengthen, it does so automatically whether the person agrees with the stereotype or not.
Category Accentuation Theory
Once a text is processed, stereotypes may begin to form. Tajfel’s Category Accentuation is a leading theory on the formation of stereotypes. He argues that stereotypes are formed via the exaggeration of intergroup differences and intragroup similarities, hence the term “category accentuation”. Perceptions of category boundaries and category exemplars contribute to this effect. While those that fit the category require no exaggeration for category accentuation to take occur, those that bolster intergroup differences and intragroup similarities only fuel category accentuation even more. Thus, seeing an 80 year-old man drive 90mph on the highway does relatively little to remove the stereotype that “old people” drive slowly, while witnessing an 80 year-old man drive 45mph on the highway would only reinforce the stereotype tenfold.
Illusory Correlation Theory
A second perspective on stereotype formation is Illusory Correlation. This theory contends that people perceive there to be an association between two different groups and two different behaviors, when really no relation exists. When presented with the information that members of Group A performed 18 positive and 8 negative behaviors and member of Group B performed 9 positive and 4 negative behaviors, participants rated Group A to be more favorable despite the ratio of positive to negative behaviors to be the exact same in each group. Thus, a correlation between group membership and desirability was made in the absence of any correlation at all. This indicates people overestimate the number of Group B’s negative behaviors and falsely ascribe the negative behaviors of Group A to Group B.
Attention Theory
Although category accentuation and illusory correlation are both highly relevant and practical theories in understanding stereotypes, a third theory entitled Attention Theory, is something of a combination of the other two theories and perhaps best expounds the entire process. Attention theory explains stereotype formation to be directly linked to attention shifting as follows: the features of majority groups are learned before the features of minority groups because the majority group naturally demands greater attention, usually due to size, frequency of exposure, or any other prioritizing factor. Thus, because the majority group is learned first, it is naturally associated with common attributes. Any learning of subsequent minority groups is, out of the natural disposition to accelerate learning, focused on differentiating the minority from the majority. Any infrequent distinguishing features or behaviors (contextually compared to the majority) that are displayed by the minority will garner much attention in order to aid this process.
Experiments
This use of shifting attention with categorization to accelerate learning is exemplified in the experiments of Medin and Edelson in 1988, which were cited and expanded upon by Sherman et al in 2009. In the experiment, participants first learn that Symptoms I and PC typically mark Disease C, which is quite frequent. Then participants are taught the Symptoms I and PR denote Disease R, which is rare. Although I was a symptom for both diseases (a common trait), PR always indicated Disease R, but never Disease C, while PC always indicated Disease C, but never Disease R.
Participants quickly learn that I is not a reliable indicator of R because it is already associated with C. Thus, rather than paying attention to I much at all, participants direct their attention to PR, the only certain indicator of R. In this way, participants save their previous knowledge and accelerate new learning. This leads then, to basically just the focusing solely on PR as the indicative symptom for R rather than dividing attention between the symptoms I and PC for Disease C. In consequence, the association between Disease R and its distinctive Symptom PR is stronger than the association of Disease C with its symptom PC greatly due to the allocation of attention.
Therefore discrimination between categories relies on this attention to members of a category, and so both minority members that exhibit common traits (e.g. Disease R exhibiting Symptom I) and majority members that exhibit rare traits (Disease C exhibiting Symptom PC) are accordingly given little attention, whereas members that display the traits associated with their category (Disease C exhibiting Symptom I; Disease R exhibiting Symptom PR) are given much attention. The majority or known group is learned first and thus functions as a default standard for comparison against other groups.
Final Thoughts
Because society is collection of agreed upon “texts” and reading these texts is an interactive process between a person and the text, stereotypes are formed both from what text a person is presented and from how a person processes and interprets it. And when a text is truly examined, like slicing an onion, slowly but surely deeper and deeper layers are revealed, deeper meanings are brought out. It might not be what is expected, it may not be what was initially thought. But then again, the onion can be diced and sautéed nicely with some garlic and mushrooms to accompany a sirloin steak. It’s a constant interchange of text, meaning, and interpretation, that game of tug of war between text and reader. Regardless, if an onion is left on the shelf it will surely rot. It is better then, to take that onion and make of it what you will.
