Laboratorium voor
Experimentele
Sociale
Psychologie
K.U.Leuven
Departement Psychologie
Guido Peeters
Self-Other anchored evaluations
Of national stereotypes
Internal Report No 5
May 1993
Mailing address:
Guido Peeters
LESP
Tiensestraat 102
B-3000 LEUVEN, Belgium
e-mail: guido.peeters@psy.kuleuven.be
1
Self-Other Anchored Evaluations of National Stereotypes
Abstract
National stereotypes drawn from the literature were plotted against two
evaluative dimensions connected (in previous studies) with social value
orientations and referred to as: SP (Self Profitability or good/bad for
the self) and OP (Other Profitability or good/bad for the other). In
study 1, 108 stereotypes were plotted using a standardized procedure
involving translation of stereotype trait terms into the native
language of judges who rated the terms for SP and OP. Study 2 was a
reinterpretation and statistical reanalysis of data published in a
study on national characteristics (Peabody, 1985). Convergent results
from both studies suggest that positive and negative stereotypes are
not simply contrasted as opposite poles of a general good/bad
dimension. Specifically, positive stereotypes tended to be marked by SP
(associated with an individualistic value orientation) and the negative
ones rather by OP (associated with aggression). Further, SP valences of
stereotypes were more stable than OP valences which fluctuated as a
function of changing international relationships. Finally, the SP
dimension differentiated between enemy stereotypes contrasting
"respected" versus "despised" enemy images.
-------------------------Note. This paper was prepared in 1992 and presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Belgian Psychological Society, Ghent, May 28, 1993.
Thanks are due to Suzanne Gabriels for her able assistance in study 1.
2
Self-Other Anchored Evaluations of National Stereotypes
In general stereotypes have pronounced evaluative meanings or good-bad
connotations which are considered to have high psychological
significance. However it is not clear how this psychological
significance is to be conceived of. The reason may reside in the lack
of an appropriate theory of evaluative meaning. For instance, trait
dimensions obtained by factor analysis are often defined as
"evaluative" on the mere basis of an intuitive appreciation of the
good-bad character of some representative traits. Hence in the present
paper evaluative meanings of national stereotypes are analysed in the
light of a more elaborate theory referred to as the relativistic
evaluative-meaning concept (Peeters, 1979, 1982, 1986) and some
psychological implications will be explored.
The Relativistic Evaluative-Meaning Concept.
The evaluative categorization of an object as "good" or "bad" is
called "relative" because related to (a) descriptive attributes of the
object on the one side and (b) evaluative norms or standards held by
the evaluating subjects on the other hand. It follows that evaluative
meanings accorded to the attributes may vary over evaluated objects as
well as over evaluating subjects. For instance, "cold" may be positive
when attributed to beer, but negative when attributed to coffee, at
least as far as current evaluative standards concerning beer and coffee
imply that the former should be cold while the latter should be hot.
However, some subjects may hold different evaluative standards and for
instance, like their coffee cold. Hence, the evaluative meaning of a
descriptive term such as "warm" depends on both the term's referent and
the evaluative standard held by the evaluating subject.
At a first glance one might conclude from this theory that
evaluative meanings should be very unstable because varying over
context. Elsewhere (Peeters, 1979) the theory is shown to account for
certain instabilities observed in studies on evaluative meaning,
indeed, but it points to stabilities as well. For instance, it defines
a class of terms that convey directly the agreement or disagreement of
the referent with an evaluative standard without explicit reference to
descriptive attributes. Similar direct evaluative meanings are carried
by terms such as good, bad, favourable, unfavourable, etc. and they are
very stable. Indeed, "good" means "good" except if two incompatible
evaluative standards are applied as it was noticed yet by Rommetviet
(1968) observing that "good" weather for swimming may be "bad" weather
for fishing. However, high constancy is not limited to the "direct"
type of evaluative meaning but can be observed for the "indirect" type
as well, specifically in cases where evaluative standards are stable in
time and across evaluating subjects. Hence the question arises whether
some very widespread, perhaps universal, evaluative standards could be
designated. Adages such as "Everyone to his taste" seem to deny it.
Fortunately evaluative standards are not based on taste only. More
constant evaluative standards may reflect the adaptive value of
perceived objects and their attributes. In this way the positive
evaluation of "edible" as an attribute of "food" may be universal.
It was further demonstrated that when the object of the evaluation
is a person, the adaptive value of an attribute of the person can be
defined from two perspectives: that of the self and that of the other.
Both perspectives were associated with universal evaluative standards
involving universal evaluative categories or "dimensions" referred to
as self-profitability or "SP"and other- profitability or "OP".
Self-profitability (SP) refers to the perceived adaptive
consequences of an attribute for the self which means: for the
individual who has the attributes. Other-profitability (OP) refers to
3
the perceived adaptive consequences of the attribute for the other
person who has to deal with the individual who has the attribute. As
perceived consequences can be either positive (enhancing good
adaptation) or negative (detracting from good adaptation), SP and OP
constitute two bipolar evaluative dimensions: (a) +SP or "good for
self" against -SP or "bad for self" and (b) +OP or "good for other"
against -OP or "bad for other". self-profitable (+SP) attributes are
associated with positive consequences, while negative (-SP) ones with
negative consequences. For instance, high cleverness may be
categorized as +SP in that it seems unconditionally good for the clever
person him- or her-self while it seems ambiguous for the the other.
Cleverness that belongs to a friend may be +OP but belonging to an
enemy it would be -OP. Generosity, however, may be categorized as +OP
in that it seems unconditionally good for the other while ambiguous for
the self. Indeed, generosity may be +SP if it is reciprocated, but -SP
if it is exploited by the other.
The measurement of SP and OP.
As this issue has been extensively dealt with in another paper
(Peeters, in press) we shall confine ourselves to some points
concerning two methods used for assessing SP and OP values of traits
and referred to as "Claeys method" and "Peeters method".
The Claeys method simply measures the SP and OP values of a trait by
asking judges to rate how (dis)advantageous the trait is, respectively
for the person who has that trait (SP) and for the other with whom that
person is in contact (OP). This method is very reliable, Cronbach alpha
for the agreement between nine judges amounting to .96 for both the SPand the OP-ratings of 280 traits (De Boeck & Claeys, 1988, cit. in
Peeters, in press). Further, the method seems valid for measuring OP
but not SP of traits with relatively extreme OP values. Apparently high
OP seems to involve secondary or conditional SP that is confounded with
the primary unconditional SP we are interested in. Thus the SP ratings
of traits are only valid if the traits are rated neutral for OP.
The Peeters method requires subjects to match traits with given sets
of "key-traits" each set being representative of one pole of one
dimension, either SP or OP. It is evident that similar sets of
key-traits can be selected using the Claeys method. For instance if a
trait is rated neither advantageous nor disadvantageous for the "other"
but very advantageous (versus disadvantageous) for the "self", then it
may make an excellent +SP (versus -SP) key-trait.
SP and OP values of target traits have been measured using rating
scales marked by sets of key-traits completed with specifications about
the traits' advantageousness for either "self" or "other". For
instance, the SP rating scale is presented in fig. 1. Judges were
asked to rate to which extent the target trait belonged to either the
left or the right set. Notice that the key-traits are translated from
Dutch and may not be suited for other language-culture communities
where appropriate key-traits can be defined using the Claeys method as
described higher.
OP-values were obtained by a similar scale contrasting an -OP set
(intolerant, selfish, impassive, untrustworthy, suspicious--traits
disadvantageous for the socius in the first place) against a +OP set
(tolerant, generous, sensitive, trustworthy,trusting--traits
advantageous for the socius in the first place).
Correlations between small groups of judges who rated the same lists
of traits have been found to range from .67 to .86 for SP and from .87
to .95 for OP (Peeters, in press). This means that also the Peeters
method is quite reliable, but more for measures of OP than of SP.
4
WEAK
POWERFUL
AMBITIONLESS
AMBITIOUS
SHY
SELF-CONFIDENT
CLUMSY
PRACTICAL
SLOW
QUICK
(Traits that are disadvan(Traits that are advantatageous for the own self
geous for the own self in
in the first place)
the first place)
:_____________________________________________:
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
Fig. 1. The SP rating scale.
Psychological significance of SP and OP.
Although SP and OP may not by far exhaust the possible range of
evaluative meaning categories, they may have high theoretical and
practical relevance. First of all, being self-other anchored categories
they may be prominent because strong self-other anchoring biases have
been observed in social cognition (Peeters, 1983, 1987, 1991). Further
SP and OP have been related to a variety of well-established concepts
in different areas of psychological research including Osgood's
semantic differential (Peeters, 1986 and in press), implicit
personality theory (Peeters, 1983), and social motivation or "value
orientations" (Peeters, 1983). Finally, OP has been related to the
approach- avoidance dichotomy +OP others being approachable, -OP others
to be avoided (Peeters & Czapinski, 1990).
Table 1. SP and OP associated with social value orientations (N =
Number of corresponding stereotypes)
---------------------------------------------------------------------SP
-------------------------------------------------------------0
+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OP
+
MARTYRDOM (MART)
(N=0)
ALTRUISM (ALT)
(N=1)
COOPERATION (COOP)
(N=4)
0
MASOCHISM (MAS)
(N=1)
(N=65)
INDIVIDUALISM (IND)
(N=22)
-
SADOMASOCHISM (SADOM) AGGRESSION (AGG)
COMPETITION (COMP)
(N=2)
(N=13)
(N=0)
---------------------------------------------------------------------For the further elaboration of those issues the reader is referred
to the studies mentioned. Only the connection of SP and OP with the
model of "social value orientations" of the Santa Barbara school
(McClintock and colleagues, e.g.: McClintock, 1988) is slightly
elaborated in table 1 because the terminology of the Santa Barbara
model will be used to designate various combinations of SP and OP.
Study 1: SP and OP of National Stereotypes
Method.
108 National stereotypes were drawn from 14 sources briefly
described in table 2 and henceforth referred to by their code letters
A,B,.. N. Each stereotype consisted of a list of attributes (lazy, very
5
religious, etc.). English and German attribute terms were translated
into Dutch and the translations were checked by back-translations into
the original language.
Table 2. List of sources with code letter (A, B,..N)
---------------------------------------------------------------------A: Child and Doob (1943): Americans describing eight nationalities in
1938 and 1940.
B: Everts and Tromp (1980): compilation of stereotypes concerning
Russians in six West-European countries about 1948.
C: Frank (1982): Americans describing Germans, Japanese, Russians and
Chinese in 1942 and 1966
D: Karlins, Coffman, and Walters (1969): compilation of American
stereotypes concerning eight nationalities in 1933, 1951 and 1967.
E: Kippax and Brigden (1977): Australians describing 12 nationalities
in 1974.
F: Meenes (1943): Black Americans describing 8 nationalities in 1935
and 1942.
G: Nuttin (1976): Reciprocal stereotypes of Flemings and Walloons
(Belgium, around 1971)
H: Prothro (1954): Armenians (students in Lebanon) describing 11
nationalities.
I: Prothro and Melikian (1955): Arabians describing Americans, Germans,
Englishmen and Japanese in 1952.
J: Saenger and Flowermans (1954): Americans describing Americans and
Italians.
K: Schneider (1979): compilation of German stereotypes concerning Poles
around World War II, 1963 and 1972.
L: Wecke, Schmetz, and De la Haye (1980): Dutch stereotypes of Russians
before (1979) and after (1980) the intervention in Afghanistan.
M: Wecke, Schmetz, and De la Haye (1981): Dutch stereotypes concerning
leaders and populations of Arabian oil countries (about 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------Then each attribute (N=222) was rated for SP and OP following the
Peeters method described higher. Judges were 27 Dutch-speaking Flemish
students from various faculties and 13 community people. They were
divided in two equivalent groups: one for the SP- and another for the
OP- ratings. Each group was divided further into four subgroups of five
judges varying as a function of gender and order of presentation of the
attributes. Product moment correlations between ratings of different
subgroups computed over attributes ranged from .89 to .92 for OP, while
from .67 to .82 for SP. Apparently the measures of SP and OP were quite
reliable, but less reliable for SP than for OP. An examination of
standard deviations of SP and OP ratings showed that the difference in
reliability was due to a lower agreement among SP judges rather than to
a lower variability of the SP ratings. Indeed, variability of among
judges was higher for ratings of SP (SD>2 for 33% of the attributes)
than of OP (SD>2 for only 1% of the attributes).
SP and OP values were assigned to individual attributes by averaging
the corresponding ratings over the 20 judges. Subsequently the SP and
an OP values were determined for each stereotype by computing weighted
averages of SP and OP values of the attributes that constituted the
stereotype. The weights were proportional to the number of respondents
that, in the original study, had assigned the attribute to the
stereotyped target. The procedure is illustrated by the following
simplified example. Imagine that X-landers describe Y-landers using
only two attributes: cruel (OP-value = -3.40) and industrious (OP-value
= +1.30); the term "cruel" is used by 80% of the X-lander judges, while
"industrious" by only 40% of them. The OP-value of the X-lander
stereotype about Y-landers then is computed as follows:
6
OP = [80.(-3.40) + 40.(1.30)].[1/(80 + 40)] = -1.83
Thus SP and OP values were conceived as means over N observations
whereby N was a sum of percentages rather than a raw frequency. Also
the corresponding standard deviations were computed as a raw index of
the stereotype's internal consistency. By this procedure data only
available as percentages could be used. The fact that N did not reflect
the number of degrees of freedom did not matter because conclusions
were drawn only from very salient patterns the analysis of which did
not involve significance testing.
Results and Discussion.
In the following paragraphs stereotypes are referred to by the name
of the stereotyping agent or group, followed by the stereotyped group,
and further by the year (approximately) in which the stereotype was
measured followed by the code of the source (table 2). Thus "Americans
about Japanese (1942C)" means: "the American stereotype of the Japanese
about 1942 drawn from source C".
Because of the rather rough method, involving translation and
estimations by judges, it may not be recommended to focus on single
stereotypes but rather to look for general patterns (SP and OP values
of separate stereotypes are added in appendix). For the same reason,
extreme outcomes may deserve more attention that rather neutral ones.
Hence it was decided to categorize stereotypes as manifest SP or OP if
they deviated at least by one SD of the neutral middle of the given
scale. In this way the stereotypes could be associated with the eight
social motives. As shown in table 1, 65 stereotypes deviated by less
than one SD on both dimensions and are further disregarded.
Only six out of the remaining 43 stereotypes deviated by 1 SD or
more on both dimensions: four ones combining +OP with +SP (associated
with the value orientation COOPERATION), while two ones combining -OP
with +SP (SADOMASOCHISM). More surprising may be the distribution of
the 37 stereotypes that met the extremity criterion of one SD for only
one dimension. Stereotypes that could be associated with ALTRUISM (+OP)
and MASOCHISM (-SP) seemed almost absent, while those associated with
INDIVIDUALISM (+SP) and AGGRESSION (-OP) seemed dominant. Hence for a
closer examination of the data we shall proceed from the latter
dominant categories.
The friendly stereotype: from individualism to altruism. The 22
manifest +SP stereotypes were split up in "rather cooperative" and
"rather competitive" cases according as their OP scores were either
positive or negative, although deviating by less than one SD from zero.
17 Of them were on the "cooperative" (+OP) side. They included four
American autostereotypes (1933D, 1938A, 1951D, 1954J), and further
black Americans about white Americans (1942F); Americans about English
(1938A), about Germans (1933D, 1935F, 1967D), and about Japanese
(1933D, 1935F, 1967D); Arabs about Americans (1952I) and about Germans
(1952H); Australians about Chinese (1974E) and about Russians (1974E);
Armenians about Russians (1952H).
On the "competitive" (-OP) side only three stereotypes were
observed: Black Americans about white Americans (1935F) Australians
about Americans (1974E), and Armenians about Germans (1952H).
Apparently pronounced +SP stereotypes have more cooperative than
competitive connotations and they seem to involve predominantly
friendly nations. The +SP character of friendly stereotypes is further
confirmed by two pure +SP stereotypes (with zero OP value) including an
American autostereotype (1967D) and one of Americans about Germans
(1951D). In addition, four out of the five stereotypes with a +OP score
of at least one SD above zero, are of the "cooperative" type with also
+SP at least one SD above zero. They include a German autostereotype
7
(1948N) and further stereotypes of Americans about Japanese (1966C),
Armenians about Americans (1950H) and Australians about Japanese
(1974E). Even the only "altruistic" stereotype (Americans about
Italians, 1951D) is slightly biased towards +SP (SP=.60, SD=.76).
The relatively low prevalence of +OP as compared to +SP in friendly
stereotypes may surprise but could be due to the composition of the
sample. Anyway, it suggests that +SP is to be considered as a genuine
evaluative category relative to positive stereotypes.
Negative stereotypes: from competition to sadomasochism. Examining
the distribution of "aggressive" (-OP) stereotypes along the SP
dimension, we could distinguish between a rather +SP "competitive" and
a -SP "sadomasochistic" group. First, the competitive group included
stereotypes expressed during the oil crisis by Australians about Arabs
(1975E), and by Dutchmen about political leaders of oil countries
(1979M). Further they included American stereotypes about Germans
(1942C) and Japanese (1942C) during the second world war, and about
Chinese (1966C) and Russians (1966C) during the cold war. Finally
there were four Dutch cold-war stereotypes about Russians (1979L and
1980L) of which one was neutral for SP and thus on the border between
competition and sadomasochism. Second, the sadomasochistic group
included only four of the 13 "aggressive" stereotypes reported in
table 1.: Americans (1951D) and Armenians (1952D) about Turks; West
Germans about Russians (1948N); West Germans about Poles (1963K).
However we can add the two "sadomasochistic" (-OP/-SP) stereotypes
(Americans about Turks, 1933D, and the Hitlerian doctrine about Poles,
1940K), and the only "masochistic" (-SP) case which was also rather on
the "sadomasochistic" side (Germans about Poles 1963K).
Although there are some exceptions such as the negative view of
Americans on Turks which is perhaps due to lack of familiarity, both
groups concern predominantly antagonist nations. A comparison of the
competitive and sadomasochistic groups suggests the following
hypothesis about the psychological meaning of enemy stereotypes.
There are two enemy stereotypes which could be regarded as the
extremes of a continuum. Both have negative OP valences but contrasting
SP valences. Firstly, +SP characterizes the respected enemy stereotype
illustrated by the "competitive" group. The respected enemy is usually
not a neighbour. The hostility is temporary and related to a conflict
of interests that can be very intense, but allows for an optimistic
long-term prognosis. This is illustrated by the American stereotypes of
Germans and Japanese. During the war the pre-war +SP evaluation tended
to persist. Only OP turned radically into the negative but switched
back to the pre-war position once the war was overe.
Secondly, -SP characterizes the despised enemy stereotype
illustrated by the "sadomasochistic" group. Despised enemies are often
neighbours with an age-long history of antagonism that does not allow
for a favourable prognosis. Moreover, the contrast with the +SP images
of the own and friendly nations suggests that the hostility reflects
more than just to the animosity associated with a conflict of
interests but involves also a good deal of ethnocentrism.
Stability of SP and OP. The concept of respected enemy implies high
constancy of SP but not of OP. This was tested by comparing profiles of
OP and SP over five national stereotypes obtained from American judges
at five points of time. The stereotypes concerned Americans, English,
Germans, Italians and Japanese. The points in time (with letters
referring to the sources in table 2) were: 1933D, 1938A, 1940A, 1951D,
and 1967D; they allowed for 10 pairwise comparisons made by computing
product moment correlations (r) over the five nationalities. For OP r
ranged from -60 to .65, the mean (computed using Fisher's Z
transformation) amounting only to .11. This low r seems in agreement
8
with the hypothesized instability of OP over time, Alternatively it
might be explained as just reflecting low reliability of our
measurement method. However, this alternative explanation is
disconfirmed by surprisingly high r's for SP ranging from .18 to .98
(mean: .71) which were obtained in spite of the lower reliability of SP
measures than of OP-measures mentioned higher. These high r's do not
only argue for the hypothesized stability of SP over time, but also for
the reliability of our measurement method. Apparently SP values of
stereotypes are quite stable over time while OP values fluctuate as a
function of varying circumstances such as changing international
relations.
Study 2: SP and OP in Peabody's Data on
National Characteristics
One of the unanticipated outcomes of the present study was the high
preponderance of +SP, as compared to +OP, in friendly stereotypes. As
this preponderance might be due to the composition of our sample,
additional evidence was looked for in a notorious study on national
characteristics by Peabody (1985) in which data are presented on 75
stereotypes of predominantly European nations obtained from
predominantly European subjects.
In order to isolate the descriptive from the evaluative components
of stereotypes, Peabody measured national stereotypes using sets of two
bipolar trait scales (a and b) in which opposite evaluations were
associated with the same descriptive contents. For instance:
a. Thrifty (+) / Extravagant (-)
b. Stingy (-)
/ Generous (+)
Using factor analysis, Peabody derived two main descriptive dimensions:
tight vs. loose and assertive vs. unassertive. Each dimension
constituted a descriptive continuum with negatively valued extremes.
For instance, the four abovementioned traits belonged to the
tight-loose continuum ranging from too tight (b. stingy -) over
optimally tight (a. thrifty +) and optimally loose (b. generous +) to
too loose (a. extravagant -).
Peabody (o.c.,pp.28-30) reported seven sets of two scales to be
representative for the tight/loose dimension. The a-scales in these
sets were: "thrifty/extravagant, self-controlled/impulsive,
serious/frivolous, skeptical/gullible, firm/lax, persistent/vacillating
and selective/undiscriminating. The b-scales were: stingy/generous,
inhibited/spontaneous, grim/gay, distrustful/trusting, severe/lenient,
inflexible/flexible, choosy/broad-minded.
When we compare these scales with representative SP and OP traits,
such as those presented higher in the section on the measurement of SP
and OP, then we might tentatively conclude that the a-scales tend to
contrast +SP against -SP, while the b-scales -OP against +OP. Thus, a
reasonable working assumption may be that a mean a-scale score can be
used as an index of SP, while a mean b-scale score as an index of OP.
Specifically within the tight-loose dimension "too tight" and
"optimally loose" are associated respectively with -OP and +OP, while
"too loose" and "optimally tight" respectively with -SP and +SP.
In an analogous way, SP and OP can be related to the two sets of two
scales that Peabody found to be representative for the dimension
assertive-unassertive. This time, the a-scales represent +/- OP
(peaceful/aggressive, modest/conceited) and the b-scales -/+ SP
(passive/forceful, unassured/self-confident). Thus within the
assertivity dimension, "too assertive" and "optimally unassertive" are
associated with -/+ OP, while "too unassertive" and "optimally
assertive" with -/+ SP. The various relationships between Peabody's
descriptive dimensions and the SP/OP model (with the corresponding
social orientations) are summarized in table 3.
9
As Peabody (1985, tables 7.2, 8.2,.. .16.2) reported detailed
outcomes for separate scales it was easy to estimate SP and OP values
of the stereotypes by computing averages for the abovementioned
a-scales and b-scales separately. In that 7-point scales were used,
these values could range from -3 to +3. Peobody (o.c., p. 53)
considered differences of at least 0.5 as "notable". Hence, I decided
to accord zero values to average values between -0.5 and +0.5. In this
way the 75 stereotypes could be plotted against SP and OP in the same
way as in study 1.
Table 3. Study 3: SP and OP associated with Peabody's tight/loose and
and assertive/unassertive dimensions. The labels between brackets refer
to the value orientations in table 1. 'Opt.' means 'Optimally'.
N=number of corresponding stereotypes drawn from Peabody (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------OP SP (Tab. 1)
Tight/loose
Assertive/unassertive
---------------------------------------------------------------------+ - (MART)
Opt. loose + Too loose
Opt. unass. + Too unass.
(N=9)
(N=3)
+ 0 (ALT)
Opt. loose
Opt. unass.
(N=9)
(N=3)
+ + (COOP)
Opt. loose + Opt. tight
Opt. unass. + Opt. ass.
(N=6)
(N=18)
0 + (IND)
Opt. tight
Opt. ass.
(N=21)
(N=19)
- + (COMP)
Opt tight + Too tight
Opt. ass. + Too ass.
(N=15)
(N=20)
- 0 (AGG)
Too tight
Too ass.
(N=0)
(N=3)
- - (SADOM)
Too tight + Too loose
Too ass. + too unass.
(N=0)
(N=2)
0 - (MAS)
Too loose
Too unass.
(N=4)
(N=1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------Results
SP and OP values of the stereotypes were computed separately for the
descriptive dimensions "tight-loose" and "assertive-unassertive". The
number of neutral stereotypes (scoring zero for both SP and OP)
amounted only to 11 out of 75 in the tight-loose analysis and to 6 in
the assertive-unassertive analysis. This is proportionally much less
than the 65 neutral cases in study 1 where, because of the presumed low
reliability of the measuring procedure, a rather conservative cutoff
point was used.
As shown in table 3, and in agreement with study 1, there was a
preponderance of +SP over +OP cases for each dimension separately.
However, those data are somewhat ambiguous relative to the global SP
and OP values of the stereotypes. For instance, stereotypes rated +SP
for one dimension may be rated -SP for the other. For that reason each
stereotype was plotted against the eight value orientations represented
in table 1 for both dimensions. The resulting classification is
presented in table 4. When both dimensions converged to the same value
category, then, of course, the label of that category was used (e.g.:
COOPERATION). If the dimensions diverged, and the stereotype was
classified into two value categories separated in table 1 by only one
intermediate category, then the label used consisted of the
intermediate category followed by the two original categories
(abbreviated and between brackets). For instance, a stereotype
categorized as ALTRUISTIC on the one dimension and INDIVIDUALISTIC on
10
the other was labelled: "COOPERATION (ALT+IND). Stereotypes involving
just two adjacent categories were labelled by those categories (e.g.:
COOPERATION+INDIVIDUALISM).
Table 4. Study 2: Social orientations associated with various
stereotypes on the basis of the latter's SP and OP values standing out
on either the dimension tight/loose (T) or the dimension assertive/
unassertive (A) or both dimensions (no mark).
--------------------------------------------------------------------MARTYRDOM -- N=5:
South Italians about South Italians (T); Italians about French (T);
Greek about Italians (T); Italians about Italians (T); Germans about
Austrians (A)
ALTRUISM -- N=1:
Austrians about Austrians (A)
MARTYRDOM+ALTRUISM -- N=1:
Filipinos about Filipinos
COOPERATION -- N=6:
Germans about Finns; English about Dutch; Germans about Dutch; French
about Dutch; Chinese about Chinese; Chinese+Filipinos about Americans
COOPERATION (ALT+IND) -- N=5:
English about French; French about Americans; Germans about Swiss;
English about English; Greek about Greek
COOPERATION+INDIVIDUALISM -- N=7:
Germans about English; French about English; Finns about English;
French about Swiss; Italians about Swiss; Austrians about Swiss; Greek
about North Greek
INDIVIDUALISM -- N=14:
Austrians about English; French about Germans; Finns about West
Germans; Greek about Americans; Finns about Swedish Finns; Finns about
Russians; North Italians about North Italians; Germans about Germans
(T); Germans about Americans (A); English about Americans (A); English
about Irish (A); Greek about French (A); Finns about Swedes (A);
Austrians about Hungarians (A)
INDIVIDUALISM (COOP+COMP) -- N=5:
Finns about Finns; Filipinos about Chinese; Greek about English;
Germans about Russians; Austrians about Russians
INDIVIDUALISM+COMPETITION -- N=7:
Austrians about Germans; English about Germans; Italians about English;
Finns about East Germans; French about Russians; Italians about
Russians; Greek about Russians
COMPETITION -- N=5:
Greek about Germans; Italians about Austrians; South Italians about
North Italians; English about Russians; French about French (A)
COMPETITION+AGGRESSION -- N=1:
Italians about Germans
AGGRESSION -- N=1:
North Italians about South Italians (A)
SADOMASOCHISM (AGG+MAS) -- N=1:
French about Spanish
SADOMASOCHISM+MASOCHISM -- N=1:
Greek about Turks
MASOCHISM -- N=1:
Chinese about Filipinos
--------------------------------------------------------------------13 Stereotypes involved categories separated by more than one
intermediate category (e.g.: MARTYRDOM combined with INDIVIDUALISM).
11
They were discarded from the evaluative analysis because they implied
opposite valences of either SP or OP or both. For instance, they
included three stereotypes about the French combining +OP of ALTRUISM
within the tight/loose dimension with -OP of COMPETITION within the
assertive/unassertive dimension. There were even two stereotypes about
Italians in which the contrast involved both SP and OP in that
MARTYRDOM in the tight/loose dimension was combined with COMPETITION in
the assertive/unassertive dimension. Similar discrepancies may be
interesting because they imply that two stereotypes may be available to
the judges depending on which descriptive dimension is made salient.
For instance, people who intend to visit France as tourists may focus
on the first dimension stressing the optimally loose "altruistic"
character of the French, while in case of conflict they may focus on
the second dimension stressing the harsh assertive character of the
"competitive" French. However, the systematic exploration of similar
dualities would reach beyond the scope of this paper.
For some stereotypes, the association with a value category was
limited to one dimension while on the other dimension it was
categorized as neutral. These stereotypes were not discarded but in
table 4 they are marked either "T" or "A" (added between brackets)
indicating whether the classification is based either on the
tight/loose (T) or assertive/unassertive (A) dimension. Only one
stereotype was to be discarded because it scored neutral on both
dimensions. By this procedure, the original eight value categories of
table l were transformed in a series of 24 categories. In table 4 they
are presented in an order corresponding to a clockwise course through
table 1, beginning with MARTYRDOM. Only categories that applied to at
least one stereotype are presented.
Discussion
A main aim of study 2 was to check whether the dominance of +SP over
+OP, and of -OP over -SP could be replicated. The results in table 4
show that there are 50 stereotypes having at least some +SP (i.e. cases
with category labels including at least one of the terms "COOPERATION,
INDIVIDUALISM, and COMPETITION" or their abbreviations. However, the
number of stereotypes with at least some +OP (category labels including
at least one of the terms "MARTYRDOM, ALTRUISM, COOPERATION" or their
abbreviations) amount only to 30. Thus the predominance of +SP over +OP
in stereotypes is confirmed. However, as was observed yet for study 1,
this result may just be due to the composition of the sample. More
important is the fact that also study 2 confirms that most of the
"individualistic" stereotypes characterized by +SP without +OP concern
friendly nations, including in some cases (French, Germans, North
Italians) the own nation.
Turning to the negative valences, there are 21 stereotypes having at
least some -OP (marked by labels including at least one or more of the
terms COMPETITION, AGGRESSION, SADOMASOCHISM and their abbreviations).
However, the cases with -SP (marked by SADOMASOCHISM, MASOCHISM,
MARTYRDOM or their abbreviations) amount only to nine. In agreement
with study 1, OP seems to stand out in the negative valences while SP
in the positive valences.
Another aim of study 2 was to look for further evidence that might
substantiate the distinction between the respected and despised enemy
images. As Peabody's data were gathered during the cold war period, we
looked in the first place for Western stereotypes about Russians. In
study 1 they ranged from "individualistic with a cooperative
connotation" to "aggressive with a sadomasochistic connotation" the
central tendency being "aggressive with a competitive connotation". In
the present study (table 4), they ranged from INDIVIDUALISM and
12
INDIVIDUALISM (COOP+COMP), over INDIVIDUALISM+COMPETITION to
COMPETITION, the central tendency being in the area of "individualism
with a competitive connotation". Thus in both studies, Western
stereotypes about Russians are predominantly +SP and tend to be
competitively oriented as is the respected enemy image. At the same
time it is evident from table 4 that competitively described targets
are not necessarily enemies. As indicated in table 3, +SP is associated
with tightness and assertivity which according to Peabody (o.c.) may
reflect objective national characteristics that form the kernel of
truth underlying national stereotypes. The subjective aspect of the
stereotype then would reside in the subjective evaluation accorded to
those objective characteristics. If tightness and assertivity are
positively viewed, they correspond to the "individualistic" +SP image
which we found so often in the friendly stereotypes. If the same traits
are negatively viewed, ("too tight" and "too assertive") then the
corresponding image moves over the "competitive" to the "aggressive"
-OP class of stereotypes. Hence the competitive image of the Greek
about the Germans (table 4) may not be a remnant of the second world
war but could just mean that the tightness and assertivity displayed by
the German national character exceeds somewhat the degree Greeks
consider as optimal. It is noteworthy that Peabody points out that the
stereotypes he obtained about the Russians are inconsistent with the
Russian national character. This might argue for the interpretation of
those stereotypes as the expression of subjective attitudes towards a
target viewed as a "respected enemy". Peabody's hunch that those
attitudes may be objectively grounded on the policy of the Soviet Union
does not detract from this interpretation because it may always be
possible to point selectively to some presumed objective basis for
whichever attitude.
As to the despised enemy image, which should connote
"sadomasochism", there are only two candidates: the stereotype of
French about Spanish, and that of Greek about Turks. The case of the
Spanish may surprise, as did the Americans' stereotype about Turcs in
study 1. In table 4 is shown that the "sadomasochistic" connotation of
the stereotype resides in a combination of AGGRESSION on the
assertive/unassertive dimension and MASOCHISM on the tight/loose
dimension. This allows for the possibility that, instead of "despised
enemies", the Spanish are just too loose and too assertive according to
the French taste. A similar interpretation, however, cannot be applied
to the Greek stereotype about Turks. It implies a MASOCHISM component
that could be interpreted as "too loose according to the Greek taste",
indeed, but it implies also a SADOMASOCHISM component according to
which they would be both "too assertive" and "too unassertive". This
inconsistency within a descriptive dimension argues for an evaluative
interpretation such as in terms of a "despised enemy" image which is,
moreover, confirmed by the well-known age-long history of antagonism
between Greek and Turks.
Conclusion
One way to gain insight in the psychological significance of
stereotypes may be by relating them to other psychological concepts. In
this perspective two studies were reported in which national
stereotypes were plotted against two evaluative dimensions, SP and OP,
of which the psychological significance was demonstrated previously.
Each study implied at least one salient source of potential error being
the handling of original English and German material in Dutch
translation in study 1, and the matching of SP and OP with certain
subscales of Peabody's tight/loose and assertive/unassertive dimensions
in study 2. Nevertheless, the outcomes were remarkably convergent.
This argues of course for their validity, but further validation could
13
still be pursued, for instance by replicating study 1 in different
countries with judges using different languages. Meanwhile the general
pattern displayed by the present data is very suggestive and provides
some elements for a theory which can be summarized as follows.
The evaluative component of stereotypes involves the dimensions SP
(good/bad for the self) and OP (good/bad for the other). Within the SP
dimension, the positive pole seems more prominent than the negative
one, while within the OP dimension the negative pole seems more
prominent. This means that in presumed friendly stereotypes, properties
such as power, ambition, self-confidence etc. stand out more than do
generosity, tolerance, honesty, etc., while in presumed enemy
stereotypes it is the lack of generosity, tolerance, honesty, etc.
that stands out more than the lack of power, ambition, self-confidence
etc.
The SP valence of stereotypes seems more stable than the OP valence.
In this way the +SP assigned to a friendly nation may change little
when, in an international conflict, the "friend" turns into an "enemy".
However the assigned OP may shift dramatically from neutral or positive
to negative resulting in a respected enemy image which lasts until the
end of the conflict whereafter OP moves back to a neutral or positive
position.
The respected enemy image can be contrasted with a despised enemy
image (-OP combined with -SP). It is associated with ethnocentrism
accompanying a long lasting antagonism rather than a temporary
conflict. Given the high stability of the SP dimension, an enemy image
may not readily turn from despised into respected or vice versa. Hence
the despised enemy may only turn into a friend by moving up along the
OP dimension which may result in the evaluative combination of -SP and
+OP higher categorized under the label "martyrdom". However, the
occurrence of this category seems exceptional, at least among national
stereotypes. Indeed, no cases were observed in study 1 while the five
cases in study 2 are ambiguous because limited to only one descriptive
dimension.
One condition in which dramatic shifts within the SP dimension may
occur after all is when a stereotype is +SP in one descriptive
dimension, while -SP in another. A case in point was the combination of
MARTYRDOM (-SP) and COMPETITION (+SP) observed in certain stereotypes
depicting Italians as too loose (-SP) and too assertive (+SP). It seems
evident that in such cases SP may vary as a function of "dimensional
salience", a phenomenon that has been extensively studied in the Tajfel
tradition of social psychological research (e.g.: Van der Pligt &
Eiser, 1984).
Finally, the association of certain evaluative configurations with
enemy images does not necessarily mean that the presence of those
configurations in stereotypes reveals a hostile attitude. It may only
make sense to interpret stereotypes as enemy images if one knows
already from other sources that there is an antagonistic relationship.
When in the public opinions of conflicting nations the respected enemy
image prevails, then peacemakers may be more optimistic about restoring
peace than when the despised enemy image prevails.
14
References
Child, I. L., & Doob, L. W. (1943). Factors determining national
stereotypes. Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 203-219.
De Boeck, P., & Claeys, W. (1988, June). What do people tell us about
their personality when they are freed from the personality inventory
format. Paper presented at the 4th European Conference on
Personality, Stockholm.
Everts, Ph. P., & Tromp, H. W. (1980). Tussen oorlog en vrede.
Amsterdam: Intermediair.
Frank, J. D. (1982). Sanity and survival in the nuclear age. New York:
Random House.
Karlins, M., Coffman, T. L. & Walters, G. (1969). On the fading of
social stereotypes: Studies in three generations of college
students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 1-16.
Kippax, S., & Brigden, D. (1977). Australian stereotyping: A
comparison. Australian Journal of Psychology, 29, 89-96.
McClintock, C. M. (1988). Evolution, systems of interdependence, and
social values. Behavioral Science, 33, 59-76.
Meenes, M. (1943). A comparison of racial stereotypes of 1935-1942.
Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 327-336.
Nuttin, J. (1976). Het stereotiep beeld van Walen, Vlamingen en
Brusselaars, hun kijk op zichzelf en op elkaar: een empirisch
onderzoek bij universitairen. Mededelingen van de Koninklijke
Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie.
Klasse der Letteren, 38(Whole No 2).
Peabody, D. (1985). National characteristics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Peeters, G. (1979). Person perception and the evaluative-meaning
concept. Communication & Cognition, 12, 201-216.
Peeters, G. (1982). Implications of a relativistic evaluative-meaning
concept for persuasive communication. In F. Löwenthal, F. Vandamme,
& J. Cordier (Eds.), Language and language acquisition (pp.
263-266). New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation. (Reprinted from
Revue de Phon‚tique Appliqu‚e, 57, 35-39)
Peeters, G. (1983). Relational and informational patterns in social
cognition. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in
European Social Psychology (pp. 201-237). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Peeters, G. (1986). Good and evil as softwares of the brain: On
psychological 'immediates' underlying the metaphysical 'ultimates'.
A contribution from cognitive social psychology and semantic
differential research. Ultimate Reality and Meaning.
Interdisciplinary Studies in the Philosophy of Understanding, 9,
210-231.
Peeters, G. (1987). The Benny Hill Effect: Switching cognitive
programmes underlying subjective estimations of the outcomes of
bargains concerning distributions of rewards. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 17, 465-481.
Peeters, G. (1991). Relational information processing and the implicit
personality concept. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology,
11, 259-278.
Peeters, G. & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in
evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational
negativity effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European
Review of Social Psychology (Vol.1, pp. 33-60). Chichester: Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Prothro, E. T. (1954). Cross-cultural patterns of national stereotypes.
Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 53-59.
Prothro, E. T. & Melikian, L. H. (1955). Studies in stereotypes: V.
15
Familiarity and the kernel of truth hypothesis. Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 3-10.
Rommetveit, R. (1968). Words, meanings and messages. New York: Academic
Press.
Saenger, G. & Flowermans, S. (1954). Stereotypes and prejudical
attitudes. Human Relations, 7, 217-238.
Schneider, J. (1979). Versöhnung zwischen Polen und Deutschen. Munster:
Pax Christi-Schriftenreihe.
Van der Pligt, J., & Eiser, J. R. (1984). Dimensional salience,
judgment and attitudes. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.) Attitudinal judgment.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wecke, L., Schmetz, W., & De la Haye, J. (1980). Vijandbeeld in de
Nederlandse publieke opinie. Nijmegen: Studiecentrum voor
Vredesvraagstukken.
Wecke, L., Schmetz, W., De la Haye, J., & Vierhout, R. (1981).
Vijandbeeld in Nederland. Nijmegen: Studiecentrum voor
Vredesvraagstukken.
16
OP AND SP VALUES OF STEREOTYPES:
APPENDIX OF 'SELF-OTHER ANCHORED EVALUATIONS OF NATIONAL STEREOTYPES'
Guido Peeters
N.F.W.O. and K.U.Leuven
Laboratory of Experimental Social Psychology
Tiensestraat 102, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. List of sources with code letter (A, B,..N)
--------------------------------------------------A: Child and Doob (1943)
B: Everts and Tromp (1980)
C: Frank (1982)
D: Karlins, Coffman, and Walters (1969)
E: Kippax and Brigden
F: Meenes (1943)
G: Nuttin (1976)
H: Prothro (1954)
I: Prothro and Melikian (1955)
J: Saenger and Flowermans (1954)
K: Schneider (1979)
L: Wecke, Schmetz, and De la Haye (1980)
M: Wecke, Schmetz, and De la Haye (1981)
N: Wette (1948)
---------------------------------------------------
17
Table 2. OP and SP values of published stereotypes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Code) = running number and letter mark referring to the source of the
stereotype (see table 1)
- Date = year indicating (approximatively) when the stereotype was measured
- Mean and SD: All adjectives drawn from the stereotypes were (if
necessary) translated into Dutch and then rated for OP and SP by two
separate groups of 20 judges using the Peeters-method (see previous paper).
The ratings were made on 9-point scales which afterwards were transformed
into scales ranging from -100 to +100 with 0 as neutral middle.
Hence + and - scores reflect respectively +OP and -OP (or +SP and -SP).
For each stereotype Means and SD's of OP and SP were computed over the
adjectives that constituted the stereotype.
If data were available about the frequencies with which adjectives were
assigned to the stereotyped group, then N was not simply the number of
different adjectives, but each distinct adjective multiplied by the number
(percentage) of subjects that had used it in their descriptions of the
stereotyped group.
This "weighting for frequency" was applied to all stereotypes except those
marked by * (from studies C, E, and N in which no frequency data were
reported).
Notice that SD is an index of homogeity: small SD's indicate high
homogeneity of the given stereotype (which means that subjects assigned
adjectives with about the same OP or SP value).
- SM Class = classification of the stereotype according to the social
motives associated with various combinations of OP and SP (see Peeters,
1983). Capitals are used if the OP and/or SP values supporting the
classification deviate at least one SD from zero. If they deviate less, the
corresponding motive-class is indicated in small letters and between
brackets.
Meaning of the classification labels:
ALT = altruism
(+OP)
COOP = cooperation
(+OP/+SP)
IND = individualism
(+SP)
COMP = competition
AGG = aggression
(-OP/+SP)
(-OP)
SADOM = sadomasochism
MAS = masochism
MART = martyrdom
(-OP/-SP)
(-SP)
(+OP/-SP)
For instance, stereotype (001D) -- American autostereotype from 1933-- is
marked "IND" because SP = +41, which is more than one SD (=19) above 0, and
it is additionally marked "(coop)" because +SP is combined with +OP but the
latter amounting only to +20 is lower than one SD (=36) above 0.
18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------STEREOTYPED GROUP
OP
SP
(Code) + Date + Stereotyping Subjects
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
SM Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------AMERICANS
(001D) 1933 American students
+20 (36)
+41 (19)
IND (coop)
(002A) 1938 American students
+07 (44)
+30 (27)
IND (coop)
(003A) 1940 American students
+09 (43)
+29 (37)
(coop)
(004D) 1951 American students
+04 (38)
+41 (16)
IND (coop)
(005J) 1954 American students
+01 (38)
+44 (23)
IND (coop)
(006D) 1967 American students
00 (39)
+37 (21)
IND
(007I) 1952 Arab students
+16 (39)
+30 (21)
IND (coop)
(008H) 1950? Armenian students
+21 (19)
+30 (30)
COOP
*(009E) 1974 Australian students
-31 (34)
+23 (22)
IND (comp)
AMERICANS: WHITE AMERICANS
(010F) 1935 American black students
(011F) 1942 American black students
-08 (45)
+08 (44)
+31 (24)
+32 (21)
IND (comp)
IND (coop)
ARABS
*(012E) 1975 Australian students
-49 (32)
+01 (28)
AGG (comp)
ARABS: POLITICAL LEADERS OF OIL COUNTRIES
(013M) 1979 Dutch population sample
-63 (38)
+09 (29)
AGG (comp)
ARABS: INHABITANTS OF OIL COUNTRIES
(014M) 1979 Dutch population sample
-20 (62)
+10 (24)
(comp)
AUSTRALIANS
*(015E) 1974 Australian students
-03 (43)
+11 (32)
(comp)
CHINESE
(016D)
(017D)
(018D)
(019F)
(020F)
(021H)
*(022C)
*(023E)
1933
1951
1967
1935
1942
1952
1966
1974
American students
American students
American students
American black students
American black students
Armenian students
Americans
Australian students
-05
+12
+12
-09
+19
-05
-59
+20
(33)
(28)
(28)
(40)
(30)
(25)
(42)
(22)
-02
00
+05
-02
+02
-16
+09
+29
(26)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(21)
(29)
(25)
(26)
(sadom)
(coop)
(coop)
(sadom)
(coop)
(sadom)
AGG (comp)
IND (coop)
ENGLISH
(024A)
(025A)
(026D)
(027D)
(028D)
(029F)
(030F)
(031H)
(032I)
*(033E)
1938
1940
1933
1951
1967
1935
1942
1952
1952
1974
American students
American students
American students
American students
American students
American black students
American black students
Armenian students
Arab students
Australian students
+09
+09
+21
+12
+12
+18
+06
-23
-01
+10
(44)
(44)
(38)
(28)
(34)
(32)
(35)
(42)
(41)
(40)
+29
+28
+13
00
+16
+15
+11
+05
+22
+17
(28)
(30)
(23)
(22)
(29)
(22)
(25)
(25)
(28)
(24)
IND (coop)
(coop)
(coop)
(coop)
(coop)
(coop)
(coop)
(comp)
(comp)
(coop)
FLEMINGS (DUTCH-SPEAKING BELGIANS)
(034G) 1971 Walloon Belgian students
-12 (38)
-04 (34)
(sadom)
FRENCH
(035A) 1938 American students
(036A) 1940 American students
+03 (44)
+07 (43)
+22 (27)
+24 (27)
(coop)
(coop)
19
(037H) 1952 Armenian students
GERMANS
(038A)
(039A)
*(040C)
(041D)
(042D)
(043D)
(044F)
(045F)
(046H)
(047H)
*(048N)
*(049E)
1938
1940
1942
1933
1951
1967
1935
1942
1952
1952
1948
1974
American students
American students
Americans
American students
American students
American students
American black students
American black students
Armenian students
Arab students
W German community people
Australian students
00 (40)
+01
+04
-60
+18
00
+06
+11
-13
-05
+07
+39
-03
(47)
(45)
(45)
(26)
(38)
(35)
(32)
(46)
(48)
(45)
(06)
(43)
+09 (24)
+26
+26
+03
+34
+29
+36
+37
+24
+25
+36
+54
+11
(ind)
(29)
(29)
(29)
(21)
(19)
(22)
(19)
(28)
(21)
(19)
(09)
(32)
(coop)
(coop)
AGG (comp)
IND (coop)
IND
IND (coop)
IND (coop)
(comp)
IND (comp)
IND (coop)
COOP
(comp)
GREEKS
*(050E) 1974 Australian students
+05 (32)
+06 (13)
(coop)
ISRAELIS
*(051E) 1974 Australian students
+04 (41)
+27 (30)
(coop)
IRISH
(052D)
(053D)
(054D)
(055F)
(056F)
(057H)
students
students
students
black students
black students
students
-05
-07
-12
+26
+18
-02
(46)
(41)
(38)
(41)
(38)
(32)
+05
+04
+05
+14
+10
-07
(22)
(19)
(17)
(24)
(22)
(21)
(comp)
(comp)
(comp)
(coop)
(coop)
(sadom)
ITALIANS
(058A) 1938
(059A) 1940
(060D) 1933
(061D) 1951
(062D) 1967
(063J) 1954
(064F) 1935
(065F) 1942
(066H) 1952
*(067E) 1974
American students
American students
American students
American students
American students
American students
American black students
American black students
Armenian students
Australian students
-02
+03
+03
+21
+13
+21
-03
+04
+23
+09
(44)
(43)
(39)
(21)
(30)
(27)
(44)
(34)
(31)
(33)
+24
+21
+06
+15
+12
+10
+07
+02
+16
+11
(29)
(28)
(20)
(19)
(18)
(22)
(24)
(24)
(26)
(15)
(comp)
(coop)
(coop)
ALTR (coop)
(coop)
(coop)
(comp)
(coop)
(coop)
(coop)
JAPANESE
(068F) 1935
(069F) 1942
(070A) 1938
(071A) 1940
(072D) 1933
(073D) 1951
(074D) 1967
*(075C) 1942
*(076C) 1966
(077H) 1952
(078I) 1952
*(079E) 1974
American black students
American black students
American students
American students
American students
American students
American students
Americans
Americans
Armenian students
Arab students
Australian students
+19
-26
-06
00
+14
-19
+15
-60
+30
-03
+06
+20
(29)
(47)
(46)
(45)
(39)
(41)
(32)
(45)
(07)
(43)
(41)
(20)
+29
+13
+23
+24
+27
+13
+31
+03
+41
+20
+22
+39
(23)
(27)
(31)
(31)
(24)
(30)
(29)
(29)
(08)
(27)
(28)
(20)
IND (coop)
(comp)
(comp)
(ind)
IND (coop)
(comp)
IND (coop)
AGG (comp)
COOP
(comp)
(coop)
COOP
1933
1951
1967
1935
1942
1952
American
American
American
American
American
Armenian
LEBANESE
(080H) 1952 Armenian students
+03 (45)
+18 (25)
(coop)
POLES
(081A) 1938 American students
00 (47)
+14 (27)
(ind)
20
(082A)
(083K)
(084K)
(085K)
1940 American students
1940? Hitlerian doctrine
1963 German high school pupils
1972 Cologne high school girls
+03
-43
-52
-24
(45)
(20)
(14)
(28)
+13
-21
-08
-30
(27)
(14)
(20)
(27)
(coop)
SADOM
AGG (sadom)
MAS (sadom)
-09
-11
-62
-28
-19
-20
-04
-10
-04
+03
-52
+02
(47)
(47)
(27)
(54)
(56)
(55)
(54)
(56)
(54)
(55)
(50)
(39)
+20
+17
-17
-07
+11
+06
+23
+21
+18
+20
+10
+29
(30)
(30)
(23)
(36)
(38)
(38)
(38)
(36)
(36)
(20)
(30)
(27)
(comp)
(comp)
AGG (sadom)
(sadom)
(comp)
(comp)
(comp)
(comp)
(comp)
IND (coop)
AGG (comp)
IND (coop)
-54 (42)
+02 (25)
AGG (comp)
-47 (46)
+04 (26)
AGG (comp)
RUSSIANS AFTER INTERVENTION IN AFGHANISTAN
(100L) 1980 Dutch pop. sample experiencing
R. as military threat
-58 (39)
(101L) 1980 Dutch pop. sample NOT experiencing R. as military threat -56 (41)
00 (24)
AGG
01 (24)
AGG (comp)
(coop)
RUSSIANS
(086A) 1938
(087A) 1940
(088N) 1948
(089B) 1948
(090B) 1948
(091B) 1948
(092B) 1948
(093B) 1948
(094B) 1948
(095H) 1952
*(096C) 1966
*(097E) 1974
(098L) 1979
American students
American students
W Germans
W Germans
Dutchmen
Italians
British
Norwegians
Frenchmen
Armenian students
Americans
Australian students
Dutch pop. sample expiencing
R. as military threat
(099L) 1979 Dutch pop. sample NOT experiencing R. as military threat
SPANISH
*(102E) 1974 Australian students
+14 (27)
+06 (14)
TURKS
(103F)
(104F)
(105D)
(106D)
(107D)
(108D)
-35
-33
-44
-39
-32
-52
-02
-06
-15
-15
-08
-15
1935
1942
1933
1951
1967
1952
American
American
American
American
American
Armenian
black students
black students
students
students
students
students
(44)
(40)
(39)
(37)
(35)
(25)
(21)
(27)
(15)
(21)
(20)
(21)
(sadom)
(sadom)
SADOM
AGG (sadom)
(sadom)
AGG (sadom)
WALLOONS (FRENCH-SPEAKING BELGIANS)
(109G) 1971 Flemish Belgian students
-31 (40)
+23 (24)
(comp)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: Stereotypes with code E, C, or N (also marked by *) consisted only of
lists of traits without including information about the % of Ss that
assigned each trait to the stereotyped group.
21