essay about stereotyping

The terrifying power of stereotypes – and how to deal with them

Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University

Disclosure statement

Magdalena Zawisza receives funding from British Academy, Innovate UK and Polish National Science Centre.

Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

From “girls suck at maths” and “men are so insensitive” to “he is getting a bit senile with age” or “black people struggle at university”, there’s no shortage of common cultural stereotypes about social groups. Chances are you have heard most of these examples at some point. In fact, stereotypes are a bit like air: invisible but always present.

We all have multiple identities and some of them are likely to be stigmatised. While it may seem like we should just stop paying attention to stereotypes, it often isn’t that easy. False beliefs about our abilities easily turn into a voice of self doubt in our heads that can be hard to ignore. And in the last couple of decades, scientists have started to discover that this can have damaging effects on our actual performance.

This mechanism is due to what psychologists call “ stereotype threat ” – referring to a fear of doing something that would confirm negative perceptions of a stigmatised group that we are members of. The phenomenon was first uncovered by American social psychologists in the 1990s.

In a seminal paper, they experimentally demonstrated how racial stereotypes can affect intellectual ability. In their study, black participants performed worse than white participants on verbal ability tests when they were told that the test was “diagnostic” – a “genuine test of your verbal abilities and limitations”. However, when this description was excluded, no such effect was seen. Clearly these individuals had negative thoughts about their verbal ability that affected their performance.

Black participants also underperformed when racial stereotypes were activated much more subtly. Just asking participants to identify their race on a preceding demographic questionnaire was enough. What’s more, under the threatening conditions (diagnostic test), black participants reported higher levels of self doubt than white participants.

Nobody’s safe

Stereotype threat effects are very robust and affect all stigmatised groups. A recent analysis of several previous studies on the topic revealed that stereotype threat related to the intellectual domain exists across various experimental manipulations, test types and ethnic groups – ranging from black and Latino Americans to Turkish Germans. A wealth of research also links stereotype threat with women’s underperformance in maths and leadership aspirations .

Men are vulnerable, too. A study showed that men performed worse when decoding non-verbal cues if the test was described as designed to measure “social sensitivity” – a stereotypically feminine skill. However, when the task was introduced as an “information processing test”, they did much better. In a similar vein, when children from poorer families are reminded of their lower socioeconomic status, they underperform on tests described as diagnostic of intellectual abilities – but not otherwise. Stereotype threat has also been shown to affect educational underachievement in immigrants and memory performance of the elderly .

It is important to remember that the triggering cues can be very subtle. One study demonstrated that when women viewed only two advertisements based on gender stereotypes among six commercials, they tended to avoid leadership roles in a subsequent task. This was the case even though the commercials had nothing to do with leadership.

Mental mechanisms

Stereotype threat leads to a vicious circle . Stigmatised individuals experience anxiety which depletes their cognitive resources and leads to underperformance, confirmation of the negative stereotype and reinforcement of the fear.

Researchers have identified a number of interrelated mechanisms responsible for this effect, with the key being deficits in working memory capacity – the ability to concentrate on the task at hand and ignore distraction. Working memory under stereotype threat conditions is affected by physiological stress, performance monitoring and suppression processes (of anxiety and the stereotype).

Neuroscientists have even measured these effects in the brain. When we are affected by stereotype threat, brain regions responsible for emotional self-regulation and social feedback are activated while activity in the regions responsible for task performance are inhibited.

In our recent study, published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience , we demonstrated this effect for ageism. We used electroencephalography (EEG), a device which places electrodes on the scalp to track and record brainwave patterns, to show that older adults, having read a report about memory declining with age, experienced neural activation corresponding to having negative thoughts about oneself. They also underperformed in a subsequent, timed categorisation task.

Coping strategies

There is hope, however. Emerging studies on how to reduce stereotype threat identify a range of methods – the most obvious being changing the stereotype. Ultimately, this is the way to eliminate the problem once and for all.

But changing stereotypes sadly often takes time. While we are working on it, there are techniques to help us cope. For example, visible, accessible and relevant role models are important. One study reported a positive “Obama effect” on African Americans. Whenever Obama drew press attention for positive, stereotype-defying reasons, stereotype threat effects were markedly reduced in black Americans’ exam performance.

Another method is to buffer the threat through shifting self perceptions to positive group identity or self affirmation. For example, Asian women underperformed on maths tests when reminded of their gender identity but not when reminded of their Asian identity . This is because Asian individuals are stereotypically seen as good at maths. In the same way, many of us belong to a few different groups – it is sometimes worth shifting the focus towards the one which gives us strength.

Gaining confidence by practising the otherwise threatening task is also beneficial, as seen with female chess players . One way to do this could be by reframing the task as a challenge .

Finally, merely being aware of the damaging effects that stereotypes can have can help us reinterpret the anxiety and makes us more likely to perform better. We may not be able to avoid stereotypes completely and immediately, but we can try to clear the air of them.

• Stereotypes
• black stereotypes

Head, School of Psychology

Senior Lecturer (ED) Ballarat

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Where Bias Begins: The Truth About Stereotypes

Stereotyping is not limited to those who are biased. we all use stereotypes all the time. they are a kind of mental shortcut..

By Annie Murphy Paul published May 1, 1998 - last reviewed on June 9, 2016

Psychologists once believed that only bigoted people used stereotypes. Now the study of unconscious bias is revealing the unsettling truth: We all use stereotypes, all the time, without knowing it. We have met the enemy of equality, and the enemy is us.

Mahzarin Banaji doesn't fit anybody's ideal of a racist. A psychology professor at Yale University, she studies stereotypes for a living. And as a woman and a member of a minority ethnic group, she has felt firsthand the sting of discrimination . Yet when she took one of her own tests of unconscious bias. "I showed very strong prejudices," she says. "It was truly a disconcerting experience." And an illuminating one. When Banaji was in graduate school in the early 1980s, theories about stereotypes were concerned only with their explicit expression: outright and unabashed racism, sexism, anti-Semitism. But in the years since, a new approach to stereotypes has shattered that simple notion. The bias Banaji and her colleagues are studying is something far more subtle, and more insidious: what's known as automatic or implicit stereotyping, which, they find, we do all the time without knowing it. Though out-and-out bigotry may be on the decline, says Banaji, "if anything, stereotyping is a bigger problem than we ever imagined."

Previously, researchers who studied stereotyping had simply asked people to record their feelings about minority groups and had used their answers as an index of their attitudes. Psychologists now understand that these conscious replies are only half the story. How progressive a person seems to be on the surface bears little or no relation to how prejudiced he or she is on an unconscious level—so that a bleeding-heart liberal might harbor just as many biases as a neo-Nazi skinhead.

As surprising as these findings are, they confirmed the hunches of many students of human behavior. "Twenty years ago, we hypothesized that there were people who said they were not prejudiced but who really did have unconscious negative stereotypes and beliefs," says psychologist lack Dovidio, Ph.D., of Colgate University "It was like theorizing about the existence of a virus, and then one day seeing it under a microscope."

The test that exposed Banaji's hidden biases—and that this writer took as well, with equally dismaying results—is typical of the ones used by automatic stereotype researchers. It presents the subject with a series of positive or negative adjectives, each paired with a characteristically "white" or "black" name. As the name and word appear together on a computer screen, the person taking the test presses a key, indicating whether the word is good or bad. Meanwhile, the computer records the speed of each response.

A glance at subjects' response times reveals a startling phenomenon: Most people who participate in the experiment—even some African-Americans—respond more quickly when a positive word is paired with a white name or a negative word with a black name. Because our minds are more accustomed to making these associations, says Banaji, they process them more rapidly. Though the words and names aren't subliminal, they are presented so quickly that a subject's ability to make deliberate choices is diminished—allowing his or her underlying assumptions to show through. The same technique can be used to measure stereotypes about many different social groups, such as homosexuals, women, and the elderly.

THE UNCONSCIOUS COMES INTO FOCUS

From these tiny differences in reaction speed—a matter of a few hundred milliseconds—the study of automatic stereotyping was born. Its immediate ancestor was the cognitive revolution of the 1970s, an explosion of psychological research into the way people think. After decades dominated by the study of observable behavior, scientists wanted a closer look at the more mysterious operation of the human brain. And the development of computers—which enabled scientists to display information very quickly and to measure minute discrepancies in reaction time—permitted a peek into the unconscious.

At the same time, the study of cognition was also illuminating the nature of stereotypes themselves. Research done after World War II—mostly by European emigres struggling to understand how the Holocaust had happened—concluded that stereotypes were used only by a particular type of person: rigid, repressed, authoritarian. Borrowing from the psychoanalytic perspective then in vogue, these theorists suggested that biased behavior emerged out of internal conflicts caused by inadequate parenting .

The cognitive approach refused to let the rest of us off the hook. It made the simple but profound point that we all use categories—of people, places, things—to make sense of the world around us. "Our ability to categorize and evaluate is an important part of human intelligence ," says Banaji. "Without it, we couldn't survive." But stereotypes are too much of a good thing. In the course of stereotyping, a useful category—say, women—becomes freighted with additional associations, usually negative. "Stereotypes are categories that have gone too far," says John Bargh, Ph.D., of New York University. "When we use stereotypes, we take in the gender , the age, the color of the skin of the person before us, and our minds respond with messages that say hostile, stupid, slow, weak. Those qualities aren't out there in the environment . They don't reflect reality."

Bargh thinks that stereotypes may emerge from what social psychologists call in-group/out-group dynamics. Humans, like other species, need to feel that they are part of a group, and as villages, clans, and other traditional groupings have broken down, our identities have attached themselves to more ambiguous classifications, such as race and class. We want to feel good about the group we belong to—and one way of doing so is to denigrate all those who who aren't in it. And while we tend to see members of our own group as individuals, we view those in out-groups as an undifferentiated—stereotyped—mass. The categories we use have changed, but it seems that stereotyping itself is bred in the bone.

Though a small minority of scientists argues that stereotypes are usually accurate and can be relied upon without reservations, most disagree—and vehemently. "Even if there is a kernel of truth in the stereotype, you're still applying a generalization about a group to an individual, which is always incorrect," says Bargh. Accuracy aside, some believe that the use of stereotypes is simply unjust. "In a democratic society, people should be judged as individuals and not as members of a group," Banaji argues. "Stereotyping flies in the face of that ideal."

PREDISPOSED TO PREJUDICE

The problem, as Banaji's own research shows, is that people can't seem to help it. A recent experiment provides a good illustration. Banaji and her colleague, Anthony Greenwald, Ph.D., showed people a list of names—some famous, some not. The next day, the subjects returned to the lab and were shown a second list, which mixed names from the first list with new ones. Asked to identify which were famous, they picked out the Margaret Meads and the Miles Davises—but they also chose some of the names on the first list, which retained a lingering familiarity that they mistook for fame. (Psychologists call this the "famous overnight-effect.") By a margin of two-to-one, these suddenly "famous" people were male.

Participants weren't aware that they were preferring male names to female names, Banaji stresses. They were simply drawing on an unconscious stereotype of men as more important and influential than women. Something similar happened when she showed subjects a list of people who might be criminals: without knowing they were doing so, participants picked out an overwhelming number of African-American names. Banaji calls this kind of stereotyping implicit, because people know they are making a judgment—but just aren't aware of the basis upon which they are making it.

Even further below awareness is something that psychologists call automatic processing, in which stereotypes are triggered by the slightest interaction or encounter. An experiment conducted by Bargh required a group of white participants to perform a tedious computer task. While performing the task, some of the participants were subliminally exposed to pictures of African-Americans with neutral expressions. When the subjects were then asked to do the task over again, the ones who had been exposed to the faces reacted with more hostility to the request—because, Bargh believes, they were responding in kind to the hostility which is part of the African-American stereotype. Bargh calls this the "immediate hostile reaction," which he believes can have a realeffect on race relations. When African-Americans accurately perceive the hostile expressions that their white counterparts are unaware of, they may respond with hostility of their own—thereby perpetuating the stereotype.

Of course, we aren't completely under the sway of our unconscious. Scientists think that the automatic activation of a stereotype is immediately followed by a conscious check on unacceptable thoughts—at least in people who think that they are not prejudiced. This internal censor successfully restrains overtly biased responses. But there's still the danger of leakage, which often shows up in non-verbal behavior: our expressions, our stance, how far away we stand, how much eye contact we make.

The gap between what we say and what we do can lead African-Americans and whites to come away with very different impressions of the same encounter, says Jack Dovidio. "If I'm a white person talking to an African-American, I'm probably monitoring my conscious beliefs very carefully and making sure everything I say agrees with all the positive things I want to express," he says. "And I usually believe I'm pretty successful because I hear the right words coming out of my mouth." The listener who is paying attention to non-verbal behavior, however, may be getting quite the opposite message. An African-American student of Dovidio's recently told him that when she was growing up, her mother had taught her to observe how white people moved to gauge their true feelings toward blacks. "Her mother was a very astute amateur psychologist—and about 20 years ahead of me." he remarks.

WHERE DOES BIAS BEGIN?

So where exactly do these stealth stereotypes come from? Though automatic-stereotype researchers often refer to the unconscious, they don't mean the Freudian notion of a seething mass of thoughts and desires, only some of which are deemed presentable enough to be admitted to the conscious mind. In fact, the cognitive model holds that information flows in exactly the opposite direction: connections made often enough in the conscious mind eventually become unconscious. Says Bargh: "If conscious choice and decision making are not needed, they go away. Ideas recede from consciousness into the unconscious over time."

Much of what enters our consciousness, of course, comes from the culture around us. And like the culture, it seems that our minds are split on the subjects of race, gender, class, sexual orientation . "We not only mirror the ambivalence we see in society, but also mirror it in precisely the same way," says Dovidio. Our society talks out loud about justice, equality, and egalitarianism, and most Americans accept these values as their own. At the same time, such equality exists only as an ideal, and that fact is not lost on our unconscious. Images of women as sexobjects, footage of African-American criminals on the six o'clock news,—"this is knowledge we cannot escape," explains Banaji. "We didn't choose to know it, but it still affects our behavior."

We learn the subtext of our culture's messages early. By five years of age, says Margo Monteith, Ph.D., many children have definite and entrenched stereotypes about blacks, women, and other social groups. Adds Monteith, professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky: "Children don't have a choice about accepting or rejecting these conceptions, since they're acquired well before they have the cognitive abilities or experiences to form their own beliefs." And no matter how progressive the parents, they must compete with all the forces that would promote and perpetuate these stereotypes: peer pressure , mass media, the actual balance of power in society. In fact, prejudice may be as much a result as a cause of this imbalance. We create stereotypes--African-Americans are lazy, women are emotional—to explain why things are the way they are. As Dovidio notes, "Stereotypes don't have to be true to serve a purpose."

WHY CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG?

The idea of unconscious bias does clear up some nettlesome contradictions. "It accounts for a lot of people's ambivalence toward others who are different, a lot of their inconsistencies in behavior," says Dovidio. "It helps explain how good people can do bad things." But it also prompts some uncomfortable realizations. Because our conscious and unconscious beliefs may be very different—and because behavior often follows the lead of the latter—"good intentions aren't enough," as John Bargh puts it. In fact, he believes that they count for very little. "I don't think free will exists," he says, bluntly—because what feels like the exercise of free will may be only the application of unconscious assumptions.

Not only may we be unable to control our biased responses, we may not even be aware that we have them. "We have to rely on our memories and our awareness of what we're doing to have a connection to reality," says Bargh. "But when it comes to automatic processing, those cues can be deceptive." Likewise, we can't always be sure how biased others are. "We all have this belief that the important thing about prejudice is the external expression of it," says Banaji. "That's going to be hard to give up."

One thing is certain: We can't claim that we've eradicated prejudice just because its outright expression has waned. What's more, the strategies that were so effective in reducing that sort of bias won't work on unconscious beliefs. "What this research is saying is that we are going to have to change dramatically the way we think we can influence people's behaviors," says Banaji. "It would be naive to think that exhortation is enough." Exhortation, education , political protest—all of these hammer away at our conscious beliefs while leaving the bedrock below untouched. Banaji notes, however, that one traditional remedy for discrimination—affirmative action—may still be effective since it bypasses our unconsciously compromised judgment.

But some stereotype researchers think that the solution to automatic stereotyping lies in the process itself. Through practice, they say, people can weaken the mental links that connect minorities to negative stereotypes and strengthen the ones that connect them to positive conscious beliefs. Margo Monteith explains how it might work. "Suppose you're at a party and someone tells a racist joke—and you laugh," she says. "Then you realize that you shouldn't have laughed at the joke. You feel guilty and become focused on your thought processes. Also, all sorts of cues become associated with laughing at the racist joke: the person who told the joke, the act of telling jokes, being at a party, drinking." The next time you encounter these cues, "a warning signal of sorts should go off—`wait, didn't you mess up in this situation before?'—and your responses will be slowed and executed with greater restraint."

That slight pause in the processing of a stereotype gives conscious, unprejudiced beliefs a chance to take over. With time, the tendency to prevent automatic stereotyping may itself become automatic. Monteith's research suggests that, given enough motivation , people may be able to teach themselves to inhibit prejudice so well that even their tests of implicit bias come clean.

The success of this process of "de-automatization" comes with a few caveats, however. First, even its proponents concede that it works only for people disturbed by the discrepancy between their conscious and unconscious beliefs since unapologetic racists or sexists have no motivation to change. Second, some studies have shown that attempts to suppress stereotypes may actually cause them to return later, stronger than ever. And finally, the results that Monteith and other researchers have achieved in the laboratory may not stick in the real world, where people must struggle to maintain their commitment to equality under less-than-ideal conditions.

Challenging though that task might be, it is not as daunting as the alternative researchers suggest: changing society itself. Bargh, who likens de-automatization to closing the barn door once the horses have escaped, says that "it's clear that the way to get rid of stereotypes is by the roots, by where they come from in the first place." The study of culture may someday tell us where the seeds of prejudice originated; for now, the study of the unconscious shows us just how deeply they're planted.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Stereotypes In Psychology: Definition & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

In social psychology, a stereotype is a fixed, over-generalized belief about a particular group or class of people.

By stereotyping, we infer that a person has a whole range of characteristics and abilities that we assume all members of that group have—for example, a “hells angel” biker dressed in leather.

One advantage of a stereotype is that it enables us to respond rapidly to situations because we may have had a similar experience before.

One disadvantage is that it makes us ignore differences between individuals; therefore, we think things about people that might not be true (i.e., make generalizations).

The use of stereotypes is a major way in which we simplify our social world; since they reduce the amount of processing (i.e., thinking), we have to do when we meet a new person.

Stereotypes lead to social categorization , which is one of the reasons for prejudiced attitudes (i.e., “them” and “us” mentality), which leads to in-groups and out-groups.

Positive examples of stereotypes include judges (the phrase “sober as a judge” would suggest this is a stereotype with a very respectable set of characteristics), overweight people (who are often seen as “jolly”), and television newsreaders (usually seen as highly dependable, respectable and impartial).  Negative stereotypes seem far more common, however.

Racial Stereotypes

Researchers have found that stereotypes exist of different races, cultures, or ethnic groups. Although the terms race, culture, and ethnic groups have different meanings, we shall take them to mean roughly the same thing at the moment.

The most famous study of racial stereotyping was published by Katz and Braly in 1933 when they reported the results of a questionnaire completed by students at Princeton University in the USA.

They found that students held clear, negative stereotypes – few students expressed any difficulty in responding to the questionnaire.

Most students at that time would have been white Americans, and the pictures of other ethnic groups included Jews as shrewd and mercenary, Japanese as shrewd and sly, Black people as lazy and happy-go-lucky, and Americans as industrious and intelligent.

Not surprisingly, racial stereotypes always seem to favor the race of the holder and belittle other races. It is probably true to say that every ethnic group has racial stereotypes of other groups.

Some psychologists argue that it is a “natural” aspect of human behavior, which can be seen to benefit each group because it helps, in the long run, to identify with one’s own ethnic group and so find protection and promote the safety and success of the group.

There is no evidence for this view, however, and many writers argue that it is merely a way of justifying racist attitudes and behaviors.

Katz and Braly (1933) – Racial Stereotyping

Aim : To investigate the stereotypical attitudes of Americans towards different races.

Method : Questionnaire method was used to investigate stereotypes. American university students were given a list of nationalities and ethnic groups (e.g., Irish, Germans, etc.) and a list of 84 personality traits. They were asked to pick out five or six traits that they thought were typical of each group.

Results : There was considerable agreement in the traits selected. White Americans, for example, were seen as industrious, progressive, and ambitious. African Americans were seen as lazy, ignorant, and musical. Participants were quite ready to rate ethnic groups with whom they had no personal contact.

Conclusion : Ethnic stereotypes are widespread and shared by members of a particular social group.

Research Evaluation

The Katz and Braly studies were done in the 1930s, and it can be argued that cultures have changed since then, and we are much less likely to hold these stereotypes.

Later studies conducted in 1951 and 1967 found changes in the stereotypes and the extent to which they are held.  In general, stereotypes in the later study tended to be more positive, but the belief that particular ethnic groups held particular characteristics still existed.

Also, it should be noted that this study has relied entirely on verbal reports and is, therefore, extremely low in ecological validity.

Just because participants in a study will trot out stereotypes when asked does not mean to say that people go around acting on them. People do not necessarily behave as though the stereotypes are true.

The limited information that the experiments are given is also likely to create demand characteristics (i.e., participants figure out what the experiment is about and change their behavior, for example, give the results the psychologist wants).

Finally, there is the problem of social desirability with questionnaire research – people may lie.

Stereotype Threat

A stereotype threat arises when one is in a situation where one has a fear of doing something that would inadvertently confirm a negative stereotype. It is cued by the mere recognition that a negative group stereotype could apply to you in a given situation.

It is important to understand that the person may experience a threat even if he or she does not believe the stereotype.

Steele and Aronson (1995) conducted an experiment involving African American and White college students who took a difficult test using items from an aptitude test (American GRE Verbal exam) under one of two conditions.

In the stereotype threat condition, students were told that their performance on the test would be a good indicator of their underlying intellectual abilities.

In the non-threat condition, they were told that the test was simply a problem-solving exercise and was not diagnostic of ability.

Performance was compared in the two conditions, and results showed that African American participants performed less well than their white counterparts in the stereotype threat condition, but in the non-threat condition, their performance equaled that of their white counterparts.

In another study ( Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady, 1999 ), Asian women were subtly reminded (with a questionnaire) of either their Asian identity or their female identity prior to taking a difficult math test.

Results showed that women reminded of their ‘Asianness’ performed better than the control group and women reminded of their female identity performed worse than the control group.

According to Steele, stereotype threat generates “spotlight anxiety” (Steele & Aronson, 1995, p. 809), which causes emotional distress and “vigilant worry” that may undermine performance.

Students worry that their future may be compromised by society’s perception and treatment of their group, so they do not focus their full attention on the test questions.

Students taking the test under stereotype threat might also become inefficient on the test by rereading the questions and the answer choices, as well as rechecking their answers, more than when not under stereotype threat.

It also can induce “attributional ambiguity” —a person gets a low grade and asks, “Is it something about me or because of my race?”

Frequently Asked Questions

What are some strategies to challenge and overcome stereotypes.

Some strategies to challenge and overcome stereotypes include increasing awareness and understanding through education and exposure to diverse perspectives, engaging in critical thinking, and questioning assumptions.

Likewise, fostering empathy and open-mindedness, actively seeking out counter-stereotypical information and experiences, promoting positive intergroup contact and dialogue, and advocating for equal representation and inclusive policies.

By consciously challenging our own biases, engaging in constructive conversations, and promoting inclusivity, we can begin to break down stereotypes and work towards a more equitable society.

Can stereotypes influence our behavior and decision-making?

Yes, stereotypes can influence our behavior and decision-making. When we hold stereotypes about certain groups, these beliefs can unconsciously shape our perceptions, attitudes , and actions towards individuals belonging to those groups.

Stereotypes can impact how we interpret information, how we interact with others, and even our hiring and promotion decisions. They can lead to unfair treatment, prejudice, and discrimination.

It is important to be aware of the influence of stereotypes on our behavior and actively challenge and mitigate their effects to promote fairness and equality.

How do stereotypes impact intergroup relations and conflicts?

Stereotypes can have a detrimental impact on intergroup relations and contribute to conflicts. They reinforce divisions and promote an “us vs. them” mentality, fueling prejudice and discrimination .

Stereotypes can create misunderstandings, mistrust, and hostility between different groups, leading to strained interactions and strained social dynamics. They can perpetuate stereotypes further, leading to a vicious cycle of negative intergroup perceptions.

What role does socialization play in the formation of stereotypes?

Socialization plays a significant role in the formation of stereotypes. From an early age, individuals are exposed to social and cultural influences that shape their perceptions of different groups.

Family, peers, media, and educational institutions all contribute to the transmission of stereotypes. Through observation, social norms, and direct teachings, individuals learn and internalize stereotypes about various social categories.

These stereotypes become ingrained in their belief systems and influence their attitudes and behaviors. Socialization processes play a crucial role in perpetuating and reinforcing stereotypes, highlighting the importance of promoting inclusive socialization practices to challenge and change these biases.

Cardwell, M. (1996). Dictionary of Psychology . Chicago IL: Fitzroy Dearborn.

Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 28, 280-290.

Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance . Psychological science, 10(1) , 80-83.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans . Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(5) , 797.

Related Articles

Social Science

Hard Determinism: Philosophy & Examples (Does Free Will Exist?)

Functions of Attitude Theory

Understanding Conformity: Normative vs. Informational Social Influence

Social Control Theory of Crime

Emotions , Mood , Social Science

Emotional Labor: Definition, Examples, Types, and Consequences

Famous Experiments , Social Science

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

How to Beat Stereotypes by Seeing People as Individuals

In 1983, a white man walked into an all-white music venue in Frederick, Maryland, and he noticed that a black man was playing in an otherwise all-white country band.

He approached the musician and told him, “I really like y’all’s music. This is the first time I ever heard a black man play piano like Jerry Lee Lewis.” The piano player, a musician named Daryl Davis, replied that Jerry Lee Lewis was inspired by black musicians.

The man didn’t believe Davis, but liked his music so much he was willing to have a drink with Davis and talk about their shared love of piano music. He told Davis he had never had a drink with a black man before. Davis wanted to know why, and that’s when the man admitted he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Despite being a Klansman, the man became a regular at Davis’s performances, because he learned to see him as a great individual piano player, rather than through the lens of group stereotypes. Ultimately, Davis discovered, the man was kicked out of the local KKK chapter.

This story reveals a crucial skill for building bridges between different kinds of people: focusing on individual characteristics rather than group identity. The encounter set Davis off on a crusade—he went on to befriend and convince over 200 members of the KKK to leave the organization. The entire effort was primarily based on Davis’s ability to connect with them one on one.

It might seem hard to argue with the idea that we should focus on what individuals say and do and believe, instead of unthinkingly inferring those things from their group membership—but, in fact, we use group affiliation to evaluate individuals all the time. What psychological forces drive us to do that, even when stereotyping other people is against our values? How can we teach ourselves to overlook group stereotypes and instead listen to individual stories?

Bridging Differences Course

Free online, starting October 5, 2021: Learn research-based strategies for connecting across divides. Join us to bridge differences in your work, community, and life.

We can find some answers in the research—and today we can see those scientific insights being put to the real-world test by bridge-building organizations around the United States.

Why we stereotype

Psychologists call our mental shortcuts “heuristics”—and we need them to help our brains navigate the world. If you see a creature with feathers sitting on a tree branch, it probably does fly and eat worms. If you are planning a trip to upstate New York in the winter, it’s not a bad idea to bring snow boots.

Share Your Bridging Differences Story

The GGSC's Bridging Differences initiative aims to help address the urgent issue of political and cultural polarization. Do you work to help people or groups bridge their differences, whether as a mediator, organization leader, educator, politician, workplace manager, or otherwise? Fill out this short survey and let us know how we can help.

But heuristics can lead us to make potentially damaging assumptions about other people. Racial stereotyping, for instance, comes from the belief that membership in a racial group defines someone on a range of characteristics, including their behavior. This idea that group membership determines innate qualities is called “essentialism.”

Racial segregation results from a widespread belief in racial essentialism. Many whites in the Jim Crow South, for instance, falsely believed that skin color and race determined someone’s character, behavior, and intelligence.

That’s why the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said during his 1963 speech at the March on Washington that he dreamed that his “four little children will one day live in a world where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” King was arguing that his children should be evaluated as individuals rather than as archetypes of a racial group. If we want to understand people, we need focus on individual words and actions, not their group identity.

But how? If stereotyping is so powerful that it can serve as the basis of an entire social system that required a Civil Rights movement to overturn, what can we do as individuals to see other people without prejudice?

Deflating essentialism

That’s a question social scientists have been tackling for a long time.

Recently, Skidmore College psychologist Leigh Wilton was part of a team that tested out two different approaches to tackling essentialism. In one study, they gave participants a pair of readings (in addition to a control-condition statement) promoting a diversity component of a potential university strategic plan.

One reading emphasized the distinctiveness of different groups with sentences like this one:

Each group has its own talents, as well as its own problems, and by acknowledging both these strengths and weaknesses, we validate the identity of each group and we recognize its existence and its importance to the social fabric.

The second highlighted individual characteristics: “We must look beyond skin color and understand the person within, to see each person as an individual who is part of the larger group.”

Participants were then asked to complete a survey based on the Race Essentialism Scale , which seeks to assess “participants’ agreement with the view that race is unchangeable and biologically determined.”

The results? Participants who read the passage that emphasized group differences were more likely to report beliefs in race essentialism than those who got the individual-oriented message. In other words, focusing on individuals helped the participants see people from different cultures as individuals, rather than as groups with essential characteristics.

Wilton emphasizes that this doesn’t mean that it’s never useful to think in terms of groups. However, we need to be aware that this way of thinking does lead to more essentialist beliefs. “Challenges come up when people think about people in terms of their group identity, or they make assumptions about people…based on what they look like, or what their background is,” she explains.

Imagining vegetables

Essentialism isn’t the only force that prevents us from seeing people as individuals.

Many of our social divisions stem from reacting to out-groups—people who do not belong to the social group we psychologically identify with—differently than we respond to our in-groups. Racial essentialism, for instance, can be driven by the belief that people from different racial groups have essential and categorical differences from us that make our co-existence difficult or impossible.

This reaction against out-groups is not always conscious or intentional. Research shows, for instance, that when people see someone from another group, their brains may automatically respond as if they’re confronting a physical threat. We quickly place people into a group category without even really thinking about it.

“When you simply categorize the person, you’re not attributing much of a mind to them ”

One neuroscience study performed by Princeton psychologist Susan Fiske found that when white participants saw photos of black faces and had two seconds to judge whether the people in these photographs were over the age of 21, they showed activity in the area of the brain called the amygdala, which indicates a high level of alertness and emotional arousal. In other words, they saw the face as a threat.

But the same study found that there was an easy way to maneuver around this automatic response. 

In some cases, Fiske’s team asked the white participants to judge what sort of vegetable the people in the photos would prefer to eat. In those cases—when they were prompted to see the people as individuals, with their own tastes and preferences—the amygdala activity looked the same as when the participants saw white faces, suggesting that they were able to individuate—see the faces as individuals—rather than quickly group them into a category and see them as a threat.

Fiske explains that people often tend to quickly categorize people into group categories, but that learning more about a person can help you individuate them by thinking about what goes on in their individual mind.

“When you simply categorize the person, you’re not attributing much of a mind to them,” she says. “But when you’re trying to figure out what kind of human being they are, what their dispositions are, you have to think about their mind.”

By focusing on the characteristics of individuals, rather than their group identity, we can maneuver around segregating perceptions of out-groups that drive us apart rather than bring us together.

“What’s good about the vegetable task is it creates the most minimal possible goal it would take to get you to go beyond the category,” Fiske says.

Building empathy through storytelling

Late last year, a group of kids from University Heights High School in New York City walked into a giant inflatable room and sat down to talk to a group of students sitting almost 700 miles away.

More on Healing Divisions

Download a guide on how to bridge differences by focusing on individuality, not group identity.

Jamil Zaki argues that we need empathy in a time of division .

Joshua Greene explores how to close the gap between "us" and "them."

Zaid Jilani explores what makes for good interactions between groups .

Zaid Jilani suggests ways to find what Americans have in common .

On the other side of the screen were students from Floyd Central High School in Eastern Kentucky, a mining region that couldn’t look more different than the South Bronx.

Yet the two groups of students quickly became friends, learning that there isn’t as much separating them—despite deep demographic, cultural, and political differences—as you might expect.

The project was put together by Narrative 4 , an organization that works around the world to connect diverse groups of people through sharing their personal stories.

“We got these kids sort of hooked on each other through story exchange,” Lee Keylock, director of global programs at Narrative 4, told Greater Good . “It breaks down all these stereotypes and perceived biases.”

The foundation of libertarian-conservative billionaire Charles Koch funded part of the initiative . A classroom in Tampico, Mexico, also participated, making the project international.

What makes us unique?

Like many bridge-building organizations, Narrative 4 strategically avoids discussing issues that might trigger negative intergroup dynamics.

Keylock explains that the students at University Heights come from many different faith backgrounds, as opposed to the more homogenous Catholic school in Tampico. So Narrative 4 advises the participants to avoid starting conversations by immediately asking about their opposite’s faith background—which would lump them into a group category—but instead to ask them to tell stories about what they personally believe.

“So, they already meet each other on a very personal plane,” Keylock says, “before they start talking about some of these big issues.”

The Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom takes a similar approach, working to build bonds between women in these two faith communities: Muslim and Jewish. For instance, the organization instructs participants to avoid discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—a polarizing issue that often quickly divides Muslims and Jews—until they have known each other for an entire year. This allows the women to see each other as individuals rather than as partisan representatives of one side of a conflict.

The People’s Supper applies this insight to fostering ties between many different kinds of Americans. It has hosted over 900 dinners across the country, bringing together participants from diverse social and political backgrounds to talk about themselves and build companionship with people on the other side of major divides. “For us, the starting place is to not talk about politics,” Lennon Flowers, who helped launch the project, told Greater Good last year. “So often our conversations are limited to our positions, rather than our stories, rather than who we are.”

Through both research and the experience of practitioners in the field, we know that focusing on individual characteristics rather than group identity can be a powerful bridge-building tool.

Just ask Gary Nigh, a former KKK leader who was convinced by Davis to leave the organization. In a documentary called Accidental Courtesy , which features Davis’s anti-racist work, interviewers asked Nigh to explain his transformation. He gestured at Davis and replied: “I met him.”

About the Author

Zaid Jilani

Zaid Jilani is Greater Good 's Bridging Differences Writing Fellow. A journalist originally from Atlanta, he has worked as a reporter for The Intercept and as a reporter-blogger for ThinkProgress, United Republic, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Alternet .

You May Also Enjoy

What Is the True Cost of Polarization in America?

How Americans Can Find What They Have in Common

What Does Prejudice Reveal About What It Means to be Human?

What Happens When Political Opponents Learn to Work Together?

How We Can Fight Prejudice Against Muslims

Why Gender Stereotypes Are So Hard to Fight at Work

An official website of the United States government

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.

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Editorial: The psychological process of stereotyping: Content, forming, internalizing, mechanisms, effects, and interventions

Baoshan zhang.

1 School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an, China

Fengqing Zhao

2 School of Education, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

Fangfang Wen

3 School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

Junhua Dang

4 Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Magdalena Zawisza

5 Department of Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Stereotype is a pervasive and persistent human tendency that stems from a basic cognitive need to categorize, simplify, and process the complex world. This tendency is a precondition for social bias, prejudice, and discrimination. Amid the COVID-19 outbreak, the discrimination, exclusion, and even hostility caused by stereotypes have increasingly become an important social issue that concerns political and social stability. Therefore, the current issue focuses on a broad spectrum of research addressing four main themes: (1) the psychological processes involved in forming and internalizing social stereotypes, (2) the negative consequences of stereotypes, (3) the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying stereotypes, and (4) the interventions addressing the consequences of negative stereotypes in this era with changes and challenges. Specifically, the Research Topic consists of 13 papers by 54 scholars that target stereotypes among different social groups, including males and females, older people and young generation, minority races, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), people with mental health problems, juvenile transgressors, refugees, and Asian-Americans during COVID-19 outbreak. These studies are conducted in culturally diverse countries including Brazil, China, Germany, Hungary, and the USA, contributing to a more holistic picture of contemporary stereotypes.

1. The forming of social stereotypes

Negative stereotypes from the public may be influenced by our knowledge about and psychological distance to the target group, beliefs of group malleability, beliefs in the implicit change of traits, and moral values. For instance, Caldas et al. tested whether people's knowledge and proximity to the circumstances associated with juvenile transgression would influence their opinions about the proposal for reducing the age of criminal majority in Brazil. They investigated the passers-by in a public square and workers from the juvenile justice courts and found that people were more likely to hold negative stereotypes of juvenile delinquents if they were far from them. Paskuj and Orosz focused on the refugees as the most typically vulnerable group in turbulent international times, and they found that group malleability beliefs were negatively linked to dehumanization tendencies and threats perceived from migrants in Hungary. Protzko and Schooler examined a more general negative stereotype of youth also known as the “kids these days effect” (KTD effect). In two studies with American adults, belief in whether a trait changes over the lifespan was associated with such prejudices. In addition, Lai et al. focused on three cues linked to women's perceived high long-term mating value and reported that Chinese women displaying “sexually attractive” cues were perceived to have lower moral values. Moreover, they were stereotyped as having lower levels of humanness than women displaying “beautiful” facial cues or “virtuous” behavioral cues, which in turn led to lower mating opportunity.

Culture also plays an essential role in stereotype formation. Li M. et al. targeted stereotypes toward high-power individuals and revealed that people influenced by Confucianism held positive stereotypes of competence and warmth for senior high-power individuals. This finding is inconsistent with the traditional proposition that high-power individuals tend to be stereotyped as having high competence and low warmth. This might be because high-power individuals under Confucian culture are expected to have great social responsibility and concern for the wellbeing of others. Furthermore, new stereotypes emerged as a result of COVID-19 in the global context. COVID-19 is a threat to physical health, and mental health, and various reports have indicated that COVID-19 is closely related to stigma and discrimination. Two studies examined the stereotypes related to COVID-19. Zhao et al. found that the prevalence of COVID-19-related negative stereotypes was low in China. Besides, the more people know about COVID-19, the fewer negative stereotypes associated with COVID-19 they reported. Daley et al. on the other hand reported that Asian-Americans were facing increasing challenges from different ethnic groups on social issues related to COVID-19 in the United States, and the increasing tendency to blame China for the pandemic was associated with stereotyping Asian people as more foreign.

2. The consequences of negative stereotypes

People's negative stereotypes will influence their behavioral inclinations toward the target groups, and even the law-making at a general level. For instance, Wen et al. tested space-related stereotypes associated with people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). They found that people who held negative stereotypes toward the spaces occupied by PLWHA were more resistant to visit such spaces, and people's threat perception and community evaluation mediated the effects of such space-related stereotypes on community-approaching willingness. In addition, Caldas et al. found that the more distant people were from juvenile transgressors, the more they held negative stereotypes toward juvenile transgressors and agreed with the law-making proposal for reducing the age of criminal conviction in Brazil.

Vulnerable groups may internalize the negative stereotypes and be influenced by them. Gärtner et al. tested the self-stereotyping of people with mental illness and found that negative stereotypes of their warmth and competence dimensions led them to develop negative emotions and thus exhibit higher levels of active or passive self-harm than mentally healthy people. In addition, Li J. et al. were interested in the gender self-stereotyping among college students and noted that gender self-stereotyping was positively correlated with relational and personal self-esteem and further correlated with higher life satisfaction only in the male sample. That is, gender self-stereotyping was associated with a higher level of self-esteem and life satisfaction among male students, while this effect did not hold for women.

3. The neurocognitive mechanisms of stereotypes

The neurocognitive mechanisms of stereotypes were explored by Wu and Zhao . They used RS-fMRI degree centrality (RSDC), a graph theory-based network analysis, to detect how negative stereotypes work in the brain. In a test of math-related stereotypes among female university students, they found that the RSDC of different brain regions was affected, reflecting that stereotypes are the result of the action of the brain network as a whole. For instance, a decrease in RSDC in the left hippocampus is a response to stereotype-related stress, and an increase in RSDC in the posterior parietal region (PPC) is a reflection of self-relevant processes induced by stereotypes.

4. The interventions addressing the consequences of negative stereotypes

Finally, two studies tested interventions against negative stereotypes via intergenerational contact and cognitive training. Long et al. found that simply intergenerational contact, or even just imagining it, reduced negative stereotypes of older people and increased perspective-taking toward older people among young adults. Chen et al. used the traditional IAT to compare the effect of multiple vs. single cognitive training on aging stereotypes in 12–13-year-olds. They found that multiple training tasks and additional intervention training sessions are recommended as they could significantly prolong the positive effects of the intervention.

Overall, these 13 papers discussed various aspects of stereotype formation, consequences, mechanisms, and interventions. We hope these papers will inspire future researchers in developing theories and conducting new interventions against negative effects of stereotypes. Since the current era of “black swan incidents” and related social challenges create perfect conditions for stereotypes to thrive and intensify, researchers should continue exploring the psychological mechanisms behind emerging social stigma and negative stereotypes. Especially, the development of neuroscience will provide further opportunities to study the brain mechanisms of stereotypes from a more microscopic perspective. This combined with macroscopic psychosocial mechanisms will provide new ways of addressing the severe dangers of negative stereotypes across contexts, countries and times and benefit targeted interventions and policy making.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Prejudice and Stereotyping

Introduction, general overviews.

• Classic Perspectives on Prejudice
• “New Racism” Theories of Prejudice
• Heterosexism
• Maintaining the Status Quo
• Prejudice-related Ideologies
• Individualism and Collectivism
• Consequences of Prejudice for Members of Stereotyped Groups
• Methodology
• Changing Stereotypes and Reducing Prejudice

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Affirmative Action
• Authoritarian Personality
• Discrimination
• Implicit Association Test (IAT)
• Intergroup Conflict
• Microaggressions
• Peace Psychology
• Person Perception
• Stereotype Threat

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Data Visualization
• Executive Functions in Childhood
• Remote Work
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Prejudice and Stereotyping by Theresa Vescio , Kevin Weaver LAST REVIEWED: 19 March 2013 LAST MODIFIED: 19 March 2013 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0097

Prejudice and stereotyping are biases that work together to create and maintain social inequality. Prejudice refers to the attitudes and feelings—whether positive or negative and whether conscious or non-conscious—that people have about members of other groups. In contrast, stereotypes have traditionally been defined as specific beliefs about a group, such as descriptions of what members of a particular group look like, how they behave, or their abilities. As such, stereotypes are cognitive representations of how members of a group are similar to one another and different from members of other groups. Importantly, people can be aware of cultural stereotypes and have cognitive representations of those beliefs without personally endorsing such stereotypes, without feelings of prejudice, and without awareness that such stereotypes could affect one’s judgment and behavior. Prejudice and stereotyping are generally considered to be the product of adaptive processes that simplify an otherwise complex world so that people can devote more cognitive resources to other tasks. However, despite any cognitively adaptive function they may serve, using these mental shortcuts when making decisions about other individuals can have serious negative ramifications. The horrible mistreatment of particular groups of people in recent history, such as that of Jews, African Americans, women, and homosexuals, has been the major impetus for the study of prejudice and stereotyping. Thus, the original conceptions and experiments were concerned almost entirely with conscious, negative attitudes and explicitly discriminatory actions. However, as the social acceptability of prejudice and stereotypes has changed, the manifestations of prejudice and stereotypes have also changed. In response to these changes, and given that people who reject prejudice and stereotyping can still unwittingly internalize stereotypic representations, the study of prejudice and stereotyping has recently moved to include beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that could be considered positive and not obviously or overtly prejudiced. Importantly, even when prejudice and stereotypes are ostensibly positive (e.g., traditional women are wonderful and adored), they preserve the dominance of powerful groups: they not only limit the opportunities of stereotyped groups but also produce a litany of negative outcomes when those group members defy them. Because of these new conceptions of bias, there have also been methodological adaptations in the study of prejudice and stereotyping that move beyond the conscious attitudes and behaviors of individuals to measure their implicit prejudice and stereotypes as well. This article gives a quick tour through the social psychological study of prejudice and stereotyping to inform the reader about its theoretical background, measurement, and interventions aimed to reduce prejudice.

There are several books and chapters that offer a broad view of the social psychological research on prejudice and stereotyping. There are two texts that are excellent for undergraduates. First, Whitley and Kite 2010 covers the general field of research on stereotyping and prejudice, providing an excellent primer for theory and research on the causes and consequences of prejudice and stereotyping. Second, Stangor 2000 is a collection of key social psychological readings on stereotypes and prejudice. The key readings text is especially useful, as it can be assigned in sections for a general class or used in its entirety for a class specifically on prejudice. Beyond the introductory text and primer for key readings, though potentially unsuitable for undergraduate use, there are three chapters from the Handbook of Social Psychology that are useful for researchers who want to get an understanding of the progression of research and focus of current theory and research. Although there is some overlap in the content of the three handbook chapters, each chapter makes a notably unique contribution that warrants their inclusion. Fiske 1998 provides a history and thorough review of influential perspectives on prejudice and stereotyping. Expanding on Fiske 1998 , Yzerbyt and Demoulin 2010 provides an additional in-depth perspective on theories of how groups are created and sustained. Dovidio and Gaertner 2010 focuses on the bases of group-based biases and provides a thorough consideration of theory and research on stereotype change and prejudice reduction. Finally, in addition to the aforementioned chapters, Dovidio, et al. 2005 ; Dovidio, et al. 2010 ; and Nelson 2009 are collections of contemporary theory and research on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination that characterize the current state of thinking and are appropriate for graduate students and researchers.

Dovidio, John F., and Samuel L. Gaertner. 2010. Intergroup bias. In Handbook of social psychology . 5th ed. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Daniel Todd Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, 1084–1121. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Focuses mainly on the psychological foundations of intergroup bias and how to resolve those biases in order to reduce prejudice. There are discussions about the categorization process, explicit versus implicit biases and what mediates and moderates those biases.

Dovidio, John F., Peter Glick, and Laurie A. Rudman. 2005. On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport . Malden, MA: Blackwell.

This collection takes a look back at Gordon Allport’s conceptualizations of prejudice and updates and extends his work with contemporary theories and evidence collected in the fifty years after the publication of On the Nature of Prejudice .

Dovidio, John F., Miles Hewstone, Peter Glick, and Victoria M. Esses. 2010. The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination . London: SAGE

An edited collection useful for students and researchers that covers the processes, expression, and consequences of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, as well as ways to reduce them at individual and societal levels.

Fiske, Susan T. 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In Handbook of social psychology . Vol. 2. 4th ed. Edited by Daniel Todd Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, 357–411. New York: McGraw-Hill.

In this oft-cited chapter, Fiske discusses the definitions of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination along with a brief history of their study and their cognitive and social bases and effects. It is dense with information that is important for those researching prejudice.

Nelson, Todd D. 2009. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination . New York: Psychology Press.

An accessible handbook that is useful for researchers who want to get acquainted with recent work on prejudice and stereotyping. It covers theoretical frameworks for the causes of prejudice and stereotyping with attention to the various characteristics of people and situations that interact to produce them.

Stangor, Charles. 2000. Stereotypes and prejudice: Key readings . Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

A collection of classic social psychological works pertaining to stereotyping and prejudice, such as Allport’s original work and modern understandings of racism and sexism. This collection is written in a way that’s accessible to an undergraduate audience.

Whitley, Bernard E., and Mary E. Kite. 2010. The psychology of prejudice and discrimination . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Designed for an undergraduate course, this book covers the formation of stereotypes and how they are applied in the form of prejudice. It has been updated with the latest evidence from the field of social psychology.

Yzerbyt, Vincent, and Stéphanie Demoulin. 2010. Intergroup relations. In Handbook of social psychology . 5th ed. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Daniel Todd Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, 1024–1083. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Yzerbyt and Demoulin write about the theoretical background of group formation and in their discussion go over what kinds of prejudiced behaviors arise in different situations because of the nature of group formation and social hierarchy.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Psychology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Abnormal Psychology
• Academic Assessment
• Acculturation and Health
• Action Regulation Theory
• Action Research
• Addictive Behavior
• Adolescence
• Adoption, Social, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspect...
• Advanced Theory of Mind
• Affective Forecasting
• Ageism at Work
• Allport, Gordon
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Ambulatory Assessment in Behavioral Science
• Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
• Animal Behavior
• Animal Learning
• Anxiety Disorders
• Art and Aesthetics, Psychology of
• Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Psychology
• Assessment and Clinical Applications of Individual Differe...
• Attachment in Social and Emotional Development across the ...
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Childre...
• Attitudinal Ambivalence
• Attraction in Close Relationships
• Attribution Theory
• Bayesian Statistical Methods in Psychology
• Behavior Therapy, Rational Emotive
• Behavioral Economics
• Behavioral Genetics
• Belief Perseverance
• Bereavement and Grief
• Biological Psychology
• Birth Order
• Body Image in Men and Women
• Bystander Effect
• Categorical Data Analysis in Psychology
• Childhood and Adolescence, Peer Victimization and Bullying...
• Clark, Mamie Phipps
• Clinical Neuropsychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Consistency Theories
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Communication, Nonverbal Cues and
• Comparative Psychology
• Competence to Stand Trial: Restoration Services
• Competency to Stand Trial
• Computational Psychology
• Conflict Management in the Workplace
• Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
• Consciousness
• Coping Processes
• Correspondence Analysis in Psychology
• Counseling Psychology
• Creativity at Work
• Critical Thinking
• Cross-Cultural Psychology
• Cultural Psychology
• Daily Life, Research Methods for Studying
• Data Science Methods for Psychology
• Data Sharing in Psychology
• Death and Dying
• Deceiving and Detecting Deceit
• Defensive Processes
• Depressive Disorders
• Development, Prenatal
• Developmental Psychology (Cognitive)
• Developmental Psychology (Social)
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM...
• Dissociative Disorders
• Drugs and Behavior
• Eating Disorders
• Ecological Psychology
• Educational Settings, Assessment of Thinking in
• Effect Size
• Embodiment and Embodied Cognition
• Emerging Adulthood
• Emotional Intelligence
• Empathy and Altruism
• Employee Stress and Well-Being
• Environmental Neuroscience and Environmental Psychology
• Ethics in Psychological Practice
• Event Perception
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Expansive Posture
• Experimental Existential Psychology
• Exploratory Data Analysis
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Eysenck, Hans
• Factor Analysis
• Festinger, Leon
• Five-Factor Model of Personality
• Flynn Effect, The
• Forensic Psychology
• Forgiveness
• Friendships, Children's
• Fundamental Attribution Error/Correspondence Bias
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Game Theory and Psychology
• Geropsychology, Clinical
• Global Mental Health
• Habit Formation and Behavior Change
• Health Psychology
• Health Psychology Research and Practice, Measurement in
• Heider, Fritz
• Heuristics and Biases
• History of Psychology
• Human Factors
• Humanistic Psychology
• Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• Inferential Statistics in Psychology
• Insanity Defense, The
• Intelligence
• Intelligence, Crystallized and Fluid
• Intercultural Psychology
• International Classification of Diseases and Related Healt...
• International Psychology
• Interviewing in Forensic Settings
• Intimate Partner Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Introversion–Extraversion
• Item Response Theory
• Law, Psychology and
• Lazarus, Richard
• Learned Helplessness
• Learning Theory
• Learning versus Performance
• LGBTQ+ Romantic Relationships
• Lie Detection in a Forensic Context
• Life-Span Development
• Locus of Control
• Loneliness and Health
• Mathematical Psychology
• Meaning in Life
• Mechanisms and Processes of Peer Contagion
• Media Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Mediation Analysis
• Memories, Autobiographical
• Memories, Flashbulb
• Memories, Repressed and Recovered
• Memory, False
• Memory, Human
• Memory, Implicit versus Explicit
• Memory in Educational Settings
• Memory, Semantic
• Meta-Analysis
• Metacognition
• Metaphor, Psychological Perspectives on
• Military Psychology
• Mindfulness
• Mindfulness and Education
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• Money, Psychology of
• Moral Conviction
• Moral Development
• Moral Psychology
• Moral Reasoning
• Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology
• Neuroscience of Associative Learning
• Nonergodicity in Psychology and Neuroscience
• Nonparametric Statistical Analysis in Psychology
• Observational (Non-Randomized) Studies
• Obsessive-Complusive Disorder (OCD)
• Occupational Health Psychology
• Olfaction, Human
• Operant Conditioning
• Optimism and Pessimism
• Organizational Justice
• Parenting Stress
• Parenting Styles
• Parents' Beliefs about Children
• Path Models
• Perception, Person
• Performance Appraisal
• Personality and Health
• Personality Disorders
• Personality Psychology
• Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies: From Car...
• Phenomenological Psychology
• Placebo Effects in Psychology
• Play Behavior
• Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
• Positive Psychology
• Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
• Prejudice and Stereotyping
• Pretrial Publicity
• Prisoner's Dilemma
• Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Procrastination
• Prosocial Behavior
• Prosocial Spending and Well-Being
• Protocol Analysis
• Psycholinguistics
• Psychological Literacy
• Psychological Perspectives on Food and Eating
• Psychology, Political
• Psychoneuroimmunology
• Psychophysics, Visual
• Psychotherapy
• Psychotic Disorders
• Publication Bias in Psychology
• Reasoning, Counterfactual
• Rehabilitation Psychology
• Relationships
• Reliability–Contemporary Psychometric Conceptions
• Religion, Psychology and
• Replication Initiatives in Psychology
• Research Methods
• Risk Taking
• Role of the Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology, The
• Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accurate Es...
• Schizophrenic Disorders
• School Psychology
• School Psychology, Counseling Services in
• Self, Gender and
• Self, Psychology of the
• Self-Construal
• Self-Control
• Self-Deception
• Self-Determination Theory
• Self-Efficacy
• Self-Esteem
• Self-Monitoring
• Self-Regulation in Educational Settings
• Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical P...
• Sensation Seeking
• Sex and Gender
• Sexual Minority Parenting
• Sexual Orientation
• Signal Detection Theory and its Applications
• Simpson's Paradox in Psychology
• Single People
• Single-Case Experimental Designs
• Skinner, B.F.
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Small Groups
• Social Class and Social Status
• Social Cognition
• Social Neuroscience
• Social Support
• Social Touch and Massage Therapy Research
• Somatoform Disorders
• Spatial Attention
• Sports Psychology
• Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
• Stereotypes
• Stress and Coping, Psychology of
• Student Success in College
• Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
• Taste, Psychological Perspectives on
• Teaching of Psychology
• Terror Management Theory
• Testing and Assessment
• The Concept of Validity in Psychological Assessment
• The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation
• The Reasoned Action Approach and the Theories of Reasoned ...
• The Weapon Focus Effect in Eyewitness Memory
• Theory of Mind
• Therapy, Cognitive-Behavioral
• Thinking Skills in Educational Settings
• Time Perception
• Trait Perspective
• Trauma Psychology
• Twin Studies
• Type A Behavior Pattern (Coronary Prone Personality)
• Unconscious Processes
• Video Games and Violent Content
• Virtues and Character Strengths
• Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM...
• Women, Psychology of
• Work Well-Being
• Workforce Training Evaluation
• Wundt, Wilhelm
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.126.86.119]
• 185.126.86.119

Stereotyping and Prejudice Essay

Introduction, stereotyping and prejudice, works cited.

In its common simple usage, stereotyping refers to generalizing or making broad and typical assumptions concerning the behavioral characteristics of certain groups of people, basing it on an often wrong image held towards the individuals in that group. Prejudice on the other hand refers to the attitude formed in regard to a certain group of people based on the fact that they are affiliated to a certain group (Musa 2). Considering these two definitions, we can clearly state that stereotyping leads to prejudice and eventually discrimination. Stereotyping and prejudice tends to place us and others on opposing sides with the basis being our affiliation to different groups. The eventual result is making conclusions and treating individuals based on beliefs towards that particular group, and often leads to resistance to new information concerning the group. Stereotyping acts as a source of reference to interpret new information by relating it to the beliefs held towards a certain group (Musa 5).

Stereotyping and prejudice is as a result of negative generalizations we hold upon certain groups of individuals, but which through a number of ways can be countered to suppress the tendencies to make stereotyped and prejudiced conclusions.

Stereotyping and prejudice can stem from; downplaying others to raise our self esteem, it can result from direct competition for scarce resources (realistic conflict theory) or it can be caused by our tendency to categorize the world to ‘us’ and ‘them’. A broad source of stereotyping is the acquisition of the attitudes towards these groups as a result of social learning process. This is mostly applicable to the children as they grow up while acquiring information from parents, teachers and the social surroundings. The tendencies can however be reversed to form positive attitudes towards individuals and avoid generalization of behavior through a number of ways.

As a result stereotyping and prejudice, groups grow further and further apart thus discouraging interactions. It has been proposed that through increasing the frequency of contact between groups can help counter stereotyping and prejudice in a concept dubbed contact hypothesis. Here, groups which were segregated are encouraged to interact. According to Tamara, the hypothesis basis its theory on the fact that groups are generally similar in characteristics and status, and interaction helps realize the similarities thus the change in the perception. The interaction encourages corporation and interdependence hence creating a good atmosphere for getting to know the group members as individuals and not look at them as a general group. Once individuals familiarize, it is a precursor for reverting the negative stereotypes (12).

Another effective way to counter stereotyping and prejudice is through social learning. This is based on the understanding that the generalizations leading to stereotypes are actually learnt. Children mostly form these negative attitudes towards certain groups depending on the views of the significant others. The idea here is to filter the information fed to the children. Parents and teachers, who realize their stereotypes and prejudices, should aim at changing them and in the process causing the children to emulate non-prejudiced behavior.

As a way to reduce stereotypes and prejudice, members of different groups can work towards denouncing the categorization of groups as ‘us’ and ‘them’, and instead view themselves as belonging to a single social unit. This encourages positive viewing of group members who were previously disregarded. The increased corporation brought about by working as a single entity helps reduce bias between groups. This is supported by the common in-group identity model developed by Gaertner and Dovidio in 1993.

Stereotypes are formed by processing information by categorizing the attitudes towards others in relation to the groups they belong. This situation can be countered by analyzing an individual and categorizing him/her according to their unique characteristics. This is referred to as weakening stereotypes through cognitive interventions. Getting to know the members of the other group gives you the opportunity to realize their individual successful outcomes and therefore propelling formation of positive characteristics towards them. This also encourages one to think accurately about others.

Apart from these known ways of countering stereotypes and prejudice, we as individuals can take the initiative to challenge them in a number of ways. The first step involves reviewing situations when people made conclusions about us. We then take time to analyze their basis of their assumptions on the group you are affiliated to perhaps. Step two involves now revisiting those instances that we misjudged others basing it on assumptions that were stereotyped and were probably wrong. The third step is to find out what exactly could have caused us to apply the stereotyping criterion. Chances are that you will realize that in several occasions your stereotyping reasons were wrong. Here, challenge yourself in trying to avoid bias stereotyping in the future. The final step is adopting a logical, critical thinking and applying facts and reason when analyzing people instead of stereotyping. We should allow people to prove their worth first and try to define them individually. This provides us with accurate data and facts regarding people and therefore eliminates stereotyping (Gary 19).

In conclusion, stereotyping and prejudice are manifested in several ways in the society today. These include racism, gender discrimination, religious stereotyping, and tribal stereotyping, among others. In countries like the US, there have been ranging debates on the use of racial profiling when handling criminal cases. The target mostly is the black Americans who are assumed to possess certain criminal qualities. While countering stereotypes and prejudice would foster a good relationship between individuals of different groups, it has proven a hard thing to do and up to today we find ourselves victims of stereotypes or stereotyping ourselves.

Gary, Grobman M. Stereotypes and Prejudices. 1990. Web.

Musa, Anisa, N. Prejudice, Discrimination and Stereotype. 2009. Web.

Tamara J. Ferguson Perceiving Groups: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination. 2004. Web.

• Human and Technical Intelligence in Countering Terrorism
• The Three Strikes Law in Countering Crime
• Stereotyping: Creating and Applying Prototypes
• Repressed and False Recovered Memories
• Depression: A Cognitive Perspective
• Introduction to Psychological Testing
• Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Disease
• Analyzing Psychological Disorders: Schizophrenia
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 23). Stereotyping and Prejudice. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotyping-and-prejudice/

"Stereotyping and Prejudice." IvyPanda , 23 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/stereotyping-and-prejudice/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Stereotyping and Prejudice'. 23 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Stereotyping and Prejudice." November 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotyping-and-prejudice/.

1. IvyPanda . "Stereotyping and Prejudice." November 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotyping-and-prejudice/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Stereotyping and Prejudice." November 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stereotyping-and-prejudice/.

July 8, 2020

Stereotypes Harm Black Lives and Livelihoods, but Research Suggests Ways to Improve Things

Management researcher Modupe Akinola explains on how stereotypes hurt Black Americans and what we can do to counter them

By Katy Milkman & Kassie Brabaw

Modupe Akinola speaks on stage at the New York Times 2015 DealBook Conference at the Whitney Museum of American Art on November 3, 2015, in New York City.

Neilson Barnard Getty Images

The Black Lives Matter protests shaking the world have thankfully brought renewed attention not just to police brutality but to the broader role of racism in our society. Research suggests some roots of racism lie in the stereotypes we hold about different groups. And those stereotypes can affect everything from the way police diagnose danger to who gets interviewed for jobs to which students get attention from professors. Negative stereotypes harm Black Americans at every turn. To reduce their pernicious effects, it’s important to first understand how stereotypes work and just how pervasive they are.

Modupe Akinola , an associate professor at Columbia Business School, studies racial bias, workforce diversity and stress. Recently, Katy Milkman , a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, got to chat with Akinola about how stereotypes are formed, how they affect consequential decisions and how we can combat negative stereotypes .

[ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ]

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Let’s start at the beginning. What is a stereotype?

A stereotype is a snap judgment we make about a person or about a thing that can influence our decision-making. Every day we get millions and millions of bits of information in our head that associate good and bad with certain people or groups or things. And anytime we then see those people, groups or things, that association comes immediately to our mind.

Why do you think we do this?

We’re processing so much information all the time; we need these mental shortcuts to allow us to navigate the world. If not, we wouldn’t be able to function, quite frankly. We have to make quick judgments to make life easier and to simplify. But any type of shortcut can have its pros and cons.

Could you talk about some of the research connecting stereotyping with racism?

One of my favorite sets of studies examines stereotyping as it relates to policing. I grew up in New York City. And we heard a lot about Amadou Diallo, who was an unarmed Black man who was shot by police, because they thought he was carrying a gun—when in actuality, he raised his hand, and he had a wallet.

Joshua Correll, [now at the University of Colorado Boulder], and his colleagues wanted to look at whether the stereotypes associating Black people with danger could play a role in how a mistake like that could be made. The news we see regularly shows crime rates being higher for certain populations, mostly minority populations,. And so this creates an automatic stereotype that a Black man would be more linked to danger than a white man, because you don’t see those same associations for white people.

Correll came up with a computerized shooter bias exercise that showed pictures of targets, Black and white men, carrying objects, either weapons or regular objects like a Coke can or a wallet. When you saw a person and the object, you had to click on whether or not to shoot. He found that civilians were more likely to shoot unarmed Black men, relative to unarmed white men and even armed white men, which was attributed to the stereotypes associating Black people with danger.

I found that study fascinating, because it showed just how powerful these associations can be. I did some follow-up research, because I wanted to see if stress affects that decision-making process. I stressed out police officers and had them engage in the shooting exercise.

The interesting thing is: I saw that under stress, officers were more accurate. They were able to discern whether to shoot an armed Black man and did that better in terms of not shooting unarmed Black men. However, they were less likely to shoot armed white men, which I think demonstrates the power of stereotypes, because there isn’t a stereotype of white and danger.

Stereotypes work in two ways: they can harm some groups, and they can protect others.

Are there any other studies about stereotyping that you think people might find illuminating?

My favorite are audit studies, where you observe real-world behavior. There have been audit studies where people go to car dealerships to see if people are treated differently and about who gets mortgages and things like that.

One audit study was testing ads in the newspaper, which were advertising entry-level positions. [The researchers] sent candidate résumés to these job ads, which were identical, and changed the names on the résumés to signal race. “Lakisha” and “Jamal” were Black-sounding names that were tested and pretested to ensure they would signal race versus a name like “Catherine,” which would be a more white-sounding name. They waited to see who called back for which candidates. The Lakishas and Jamals received fewer callbacks for an interview than the white-sounding names.

Again, this behavior is attributed to stereotypes. We make presumptions and snap judgments about who might be more qualified for a job, who might do well in a job, even in the context of identical information.

Would you be willing to describe a little bit of the work we’ve done together on the role of stereotyping in academia?

Certainly. We—you, I and Dolly Chugh [of the Stern School of Business at New York University]—wanted to see if racial or gender stereotypes impact the pathway to academia. As you’re applying or thinking about getting a Ph.D., often you’ll reach out to a professor and ask, “Are you taking graduate students?” or “Can I learn more about your research?” We get these e-mails, all the time, asking for time on our schedule. And we wanted to see if professors would differentially respond to these requests, depending on the race and gender of the requester.

We sent e-mails to around 6,500 professors across the country, at both private and public universities. We sent these e-mails that were identical, except we varied the race and gender of the name of the applicant.

These e-mails said, “Dear professor so-and-so, I’ll be on campus on XYZ day, on a Monday or Tuesday, and was wondering if I could take some time to learn about your research.” The names on these e-mails were Chinese names, Indian names, African-American-, Latino- and white-sounding names. We pretested all these names to ensure that they did signal the race and gender we thought they would.

We expected to see more stereotyping or discrimination (i.e., fewer responses) to nonwhite males when asked to meet next week versus today. Why? Today everyone’s pretty busy, and so there’s no time for the stereotypes or snap judgments to come into your mind about who might be a more qualified student, who you might want to respond to and meet with.

However, in a meeting request for next week, you might go through more scrutiny about whether the candidate is worthy of your time. We thought that’s when stereotypes would set in. Maybe for some categories, it’s “Do they have English-language proficiency?” For other categories, given the lack of minorities in academia in general, there might be the question of “Can they cut it?”

As we predicted, we did find fewer responses for all of the other categories, relative to the responses to white males, for a meeting request for next week. The question then was whether we’d see this when we matched the race and the gender of the professor with the race and the gender of the student. We still found that requests for next week, regardless of the race of the professor, are lower for candidates other than white males.

As an African-American professor, in the early days of my teaching, I’d often find myself setting up to teach a class, and somebody, usually a prospective student, would come in and say, “I’d like to sit in and learn more about this class. Where’s the professor?” They would say that to me as I was setting up, looking like the professor—on the computer, getting everything ready. That, for me, was a perfect example of how stereotypes can play a role.

The stereotype of what a professor looks like—an older white man with gray hair—is one of the factors that might make somebody come in, see a person at the podium preparing for work and wearing a suit, and ask who the professor is. I love those moments, in some ways, because one of the ways in which you change people’s stereotypes is by having counter-stereotypical exemplars.

Let’s talk more about that. How can we combat stereotypes or try to reduce the harm they cause?

I think one of the ways we can reduce the harm of stereotypes is just being aware. Sometimes you’ll be walking down the street, and you’ll make a snap judgment and not even realize it. But I think one of the critical aspects is noticing, “Oh wow, that came up for me. That’s interesting,” and thinking, “Where did that come from?” We can change our behavior when we’re more aware that our behavior is being influenced by stereotypes.

The other way is by being exposed to counter-stereotypical exemplars. As an African-American, female professor, a student’s mere exposure to me means that the next time they go into a classroom with an African-American woman setting up, or someone else who might defy the stereotype of what a professor looks like, they won’t automatically say, “Where’s the professor?”

I often tell my students they have a beautiful opportunity to be the walking, breathing and living counter-stereotypical exemplars in their work environments. I ask them to think about the stereotypes that exist about them, the stereotypes that exist about people around them, the stereotypes that exist about people on their teams— and to realize that, every day, they have the opportunity to defy those stereotypes.

Katy Milkman is a behavioral scientist and James G. Dinan Professor of Operations, Information and Decisions at the Wharton School . She is co-director of the Behavior Change for Good Initiative .

Kassie Brabaw is a journalist writing about health, relationships and astronomy. Find her work at Health, SELF.com, Women’s Health, VICE.com and Space.com.

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Stereotypes — Informative Speech About Stereotyping

Informative Speech About Stereotyping

• Categories: Cultural Anthropology Social Justice Stereotypes

About this sample

Words: 354 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 354 | Page: 1 | 2 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Arts & Culture Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 886 words

1 pages / 514 words

2 pages / 911 words

8 pages / 3854 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Stereotypes

In the memoir essay, "The Myth of the Latin Woman," Judith Ortiz Cofer delves into the challenges faced by Hispanic women due to their identity. Cofer draws from her own childhood experiences to highlight the stark differences [...]

Stereotypes are oversimplified, generalized beliefs about a particular group of people that often stem from prejudice and are not based on reality. These stereotypes can have a significant impact on individuals and communities, [...]

Directed by Rick Famuyiwa, the lives of three teenage friends living in an unfavorable neighborhood are explored as they strive for a better future. The movie challenges stereotypes by depicting its main character, Malcolm, and [...]

Over the past, American popular culture has been strong in creating racial stereotypes. Images displayed through television, music, and the internet have an impact on how individuals behave and what individuals believe. People [...]

Caine, D. J., Caine, R. N., & Maffulli, N. (2006). Incidence and distribution of pediatric sport-related injuries. Clinical journal of sport medicine, 16(2), 109-117.Covassin, T., Moran, R., & Elbin, R. J. (2007). Sex [...]

In the story “The Myth of the Latin Woman: I just Met a Girl Named Maria” by Judith Ortiz Cofer, the author Cofer discusses the how people stereotype Latin American woman generation after generation. Cofer begins her story [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The New York Times

The learning network | in ‘other’ words: writing gently humorous essays about stereotypes.

In ‘Other’ Words: Writing Gently Humorous Essays About Stereotypes

Language Arts

Teaching ideas based on New York Times content.

• See all in Language Arts »
• See all lesson plans »

Overview | How do stereotypes inform our ideas about others? How can we go beyond these misconceptions for a truer look at an “other”? In this lesson, students read a gently humorous essay examining British stereotypes about Americans, consider stereotypes and misconceptions of people in various groups and write lighthearted personal essays.

Warm-up | This lesson’s warm-up asks students to generate stereotypes they have about a specific “other.” Given the content of today’s featured piece from The Times, and depending on your curriculum, students might generate stereotypes about one of the following:

• Europeans in general
• The citizens of a specific country where a literary work or historical time period they are studying is set
• A group of figurative “foreigners” – like people in a “rival” town or state, fans of a rival professional or school team, or something along those lines, as long as they are appropriately “foreign” to your students

To begin, ask students to list stereotypes they associate with the group you have decided to focus on. Then, invite students to share their stereotypical characteristics and write them on the board. Make it clear that you are focused on stereotypes as exactly that — oversimplifications, generalizations, usually based on limited or inaccurate information. You may also wish to set some ground rules to ensure that the discussion is honest yet respectful and appropriate.

As the list of stereotypes is generated, call upon other students to complicate the generalizations that begin to crop up. Aim to have one piece of information based on a real encounter with a member of this group for every generalization listed. Invite students to share their own stories of times when their misconceptions of this group were clarified or altered.

Ask: What are the limits of these stereotypes? Why do some of us tend to stereotype this group in this way? Why is it tempting to stereotype the “other”?

Finally, show students the illustration that accompanies The Times piece “Letter From London: My American Friends.” Ask: What stereotypes of Americans does this illustration highlight? From whose point of view does it come, do you suspect? Then ask students to list other stereotypes associated with Americans abroad , and to list these on the board, in the left-hand column of a T-chart (the other side will be filled in after reading the article). Why do you suppose Europeans stereotype Americans in these ways? What is your response to the list?

Related | In his “Letter From London” titled “My American Friends,” Geoff Dyer tells the story of how Americans have resisted and contradicted Europeans’ preconceived notions of them:

The first thing I ever heard about Americans was that they all carried guns. Then, when I came across people who’d had direct contact with this ferocious-sounding tribe, I learned that they were actually rather friendly. At university, friends who had traveled in the United States came back with more detailed stories, not just of the friendliness of Americans but also of their hospitality (which, in our quaint English way, was translated into something close to gullibility). When I finally got to America myself, I found that not only were the natives friendly and hospitable, they were also incredibly polite. No one tells you this about Americans, but once you notice it, it becomes one of their defining characteristics, especially when they’re abroad.

Read the entire personal essay with your class, using the questions below.

Questions | For discussion and reading comprehension:

• What are some of the preconceived notions Dyer identifies about Americans? To what extent are they true?
• What exactly does Dyer mean in the second paragraph when he says “it says something strange about the way that perception routinely conforms to the preconceptions it would appear to contradict”? What is “it”? What is “strange”?
• What do the loud voices of visiting Americans really signify, according to Dyer?
• What is the answer to question Dyer poses mid-essay, “What is the relevance of this anecdotal trivia to a serious debate about the status of America in the world?”?
• What techniques does Dyer use to prevent his essay from becoming barbed or sarcastic? How does he manage to keep it honest, yet lighthearted?

RELATED RESOURCES

From the learning network.

• Lesson: A Rose By Any Other Name?
• Lesson: Ambassadors of Annoyances?
• Lesson: Conflicts of Interest

From NYTimes.com

• Times Topics: Americans Abroad
• Essay: “Still ‘Ugly’ After All These Years”
• Op-Ed: “Yes, Like Obama”

Around the Web

• Discovery Education: Understanding Stereotypes
• Time Magazine: “Behavior: Breaking the American Stereotypes”
• Teaching Tolerance

Activity | As a group, add to the left-hand column of the T-chart on the board any additional stereotypes that Europeans, particularly the British, have about Americans that were mentioned in Dyer’s essay. Then list the traits Dyer finds admirable in Americans in the other column.

Ask: How do the British apparently perceive Americans? What do these stereotypes reveal about Americans? About the British? What generalizations does Dyer paint of his own culture?

Ask students to consider the tone of Dyer’s essay. What purpose do you think he is trying to achieve? How does the use of anecdotes and humor help him achieve these purposes? How does he manage to avoid being offensive or cruel in discussing stereotypes? How does he manage to be humorous without being sarcastic?

Tell students that will now prepare to write essays like Dyer’s, in which they examine and perhaps shatter misconceptions they have held about a group of people, using humor and a personal, playful tone.

Here is a suggested process for essay writing preparation:

Choosing a Subject:

• Stress that personal experience with the “other” being written about is essential.
• To make this lesson more experiential, require students, for homework, to spend some time observing members of the “other” group, by doing something like going “undercover” at the evening’s basketball game to observe and mix with fans of the rival team. You may want to subject students’ plans to approval before they start out.
• Once students have subjects for their essays, ask each of them to come up with a list of misconceptions or preconceived notions they have about that group. Teachers may wish to invite students choosing to write about the same group to brainstorm their misconceptions and preconceived notions together.

Prewriting:

• Students create T-charts to compare the misconceptions with the reality, noting what observations would or would not support the misconceptions they held about their group before this activity.
• Students should also free write about how experiences with the “other” group prompted them to reflect on their own culture, as it were, as Dyer does. Remind them to avoid clichés and generalizations and to be as specific as possible.
• Encourage them to borrow Dyer’s first two lines as a starter:

The first thing I ever heard about _________ was _________. Then, when I came across people who’d had direct contact with [them], I learned that they were actually_________.

• Pair students so that they can “test” some of their material on each other by sharing two telling anecdotes (like those employed by Dyer) that they might include in their essays and at least one humorous tidbit that would contribute to achieving a tone similar to that struck by Dyer. Have partners respond to what they hear and offer advice to one another on whether or not these elements work for them as members of the audience.

When essays are finished, hold a “read around” in which each student shares a crucial section from his or her essay, and invite students to respond to each other. Then hold a final discussion about the process and what they got out of it.

Going further | Students interview several members of the group they chose to write about, so that they are forced to see the group from an “insider’s” perspective. They then revise their essays to include reflections on these interviews.

Alternatively or in addition, students individually do our Culture Shot activity (teacher directions are here ), using a current print edition of The Times, the online Times multimedia and photo index and/or the Lens blog . After they share their choices, lead a discussion about what these images might convey about Americans to people from other countries and cultures. You might also repeat the activity using images of, say, Europeans.

Standards | From McREL , for grades 6-12:

Behavioral Studies 1 – Understands that group and cultural influences contribute to human development, identity and behavior 4 – Understands conflict, cooperation and interdependence among individuals, groups and institutions

Language Arts 1 – Uses the general skills and strategies of the writing process 5- Uses the general skills and strategies of the reading process 7- Uses the general skills and strategies to understand a variety of informational texts 8- Uses listening and speaking strategies for different purposes

Life Skills: Working With Others 1- Contributes to the overall effort of a group 4 – Displays effective interpersonal communication skills

Geography 10 – Understands the nature and complexity of Earth’s cultural mosaics

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Don’t know if you’ve seen this, but even though you are lying next to me right now, you are asleep. This and other stuff is on something the NYT calls the Learning Network.

Great nice writing and tips that you have proved…

Nice sort of information thanks for the post sharing…..

What's Next

• Dissertation
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Book Report/Review
• Research Proposal
• Math Problems
• Proofreading
• Movie Review
• Cover Letter Writing
• Personal Statement
• Nursing Paper
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Paper
• Discussion Board Post

What Is a Good Essay on Stereotyping

Stereotyping is something that most of us do even without noticing it. From labeling a friend due to a particular personality trait or characteristic to judging someone you barely know because of how he or she looks or acts, stereotyping is a problem that we all encounter every day. In a nutshell, a stereotype is defined as “a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.” The concerning thing is that sometimes we are all guilty of doing this but are not usually aware of it.

While stereotyping is fairly easy to do, and can vary depending on the kind of environment you grew up in and the people you usually interact with, it can also be harmful. Stereotyping can lead to prematurely judging other people based on what we think we know about them, without really looking deep into what kind of person they really are. We might end up missing our chance to be good friends with someone just because our stereotypes may be clouding our judgment. One of the best ways to help lessen our behavior of stereotyping people is by actually being exposed to different kinds of people —- from different social classes, backgrounds, culture, nationality, personality traits, and interests —- and none is there more important for a kid to do this than in school. It is in school where we first meet people from different backgrounds, and sometimes teachers can ask us to expound on our experiences by writing an essay on stereotyping.

 How to Write an Essay on Stereotyping

If you are assigned to write an essay on stereotyping, you might not always know where to start. This subject is a wide but sensitive issue for some, especially those who have been subject to stereotyping themselves.

• Easy sign-up process

Our website offers new customers an easy sign-up process that doesn’t involve filling up multiple pages of forms and other unnecessary information. All you need to do is sign-up using your name and e-mail and we will already create your account for you after your first order.

• Round-the-clock customer support

Our helpful customer service specialists are always on-hand to assist you with any questions or concerns you might have regarding your essay order . We also send out regular SMS and email updates to help you keep track of the progress of your order.

• Financial guarantee

For your peace of mind, we offer a 100% full money-back guarantee just in case the essay submitted to you does not adhere to the standards, guidelines, and instructions you have provided.

• All original content

No two essays are created alike, and this is what all our professional academic writers ensure our clients when writing orders. You get 100% all original content that is just not lifted from any existing material, whether from books or online.

• On-time delivery

You do not have to worry about missing a deadline because all orders made through our website for essays and other kinds of academic papers are guaranteed to be delivered on-time, on or before your given deadline. We accept orders as fast as 3 to 5 hours before a deadline for simple assignments just in case you are really in a rush.

• Safe and secure payment systems

Transacting and paying online may scare you because of all the stories of hacking and other similar incidents, but worry not as our website uses a very secure payment system that makes your payment information such as credit card information very safe to use when ordering.

Stereotyping is widespread, and sometimes it really cannot be avoided, but we can do steps to open our minds further to other people to prevent ourselves from harmful stereotyping. Continue to expose yourself to more people and learn about their experiences and share yours as well. The truth is as much as we stereotype others, other people have their own stereotypes about us too whether we know about it or not. Learning about how other people live and studying more about cultures makes for a better interaction and acknowledging our differences with one another. An essay on stereotyping is a good exercise in this area because it helps us open our minds and become all-around better people to others.

Compare And Contrast Essay On Taoism And Confucianism

How To Write A Strong Obesity Research Paper?

Writing A Perfect Essay About Favorite Food

Advertisement

Supported by

With ‘We Are Lady Parts,’ Nida Manzoor Rocks On

“Silliness is hugely important to me,” said the writer, whose comedy about a Muslim female punk band has won awards and challenged stereotypes.

• Share full article

By Alexis Soloski

When the writer-director Nida Manzoor began dreaming up Season 2 of “ We Are Lady Parts ,” the comedy about an all-female Muslim punk band, one of her earliest ideas was a song: “Malala Made Me Do It,” a neo-Western hype track celebrating the activist Malala Yousafzai . And then she had another idea: Maybe she could get Malala, whom she had met briefly at a talk, to star in the video.

She wrote Yousafzai a love letter. To Manzoor’s surprise, Yousafzai, who loves comedy, responded. And this is why, in the second episode of the new season of “We Are Lady Parts,” which premieres on Thursday on Peacock, Yousafzai appears on a horse, resplendent in a white cowboy hat, while the band irreverently sings her praises: “Nobel Prize at 17/the baddest bitch you’ve ever seen.”

Directing her idol brought on some fan-girl panic. “I was, like, totally not cool,” Manzoor said. “But it was joyful to work with her.”

Joy has been an animating force for Manzoor, 34, the assured and wildly original creator of “ We Are Lady Parts ” and “ Polite Society ,” a martial arts film about a teenage girl rebelling against her sister’s arranged marriage. In a moment where nearly everything onscreen feels like a reboot, a reprise, a retread, a spinoff, Manzoor’s works (an urban Muslim musical comedy, a surreal teenage eugenics-addled action caper) reliably feel like nothing else, each a microgenre unto itself.

“I like to just make the genre smaller and smaller and be the only one in there,” Manzoor said one morning in early May, speaking on a video call from her home in Bristol, England. She wore a blazing orange sweater over a bright green shirt and her affect was by turns giddy, introspective, confiding, resolute. Her work resists generalization — Manzoor resists it, too.

She grew up as the middle child in a Pakistani Muslim household, first in Singapore, and then in London. Her parents were liberal with screen time, and she absorbed it all — Singaporean comedies, Bollywood movies, Hong Kong action flicks, British and American films and television. She saw plenty of people who looked like her onscreen, but never in the Western shows she loved. Planning on a career in law, she studied politics at University College London, but the pull of film was undeniable. After defending her career change to her parents, she found a job as a runner at a postproduction house in Soho.

Soon she began making short films, including “ 7.2 ” and “ Arcade ,” both high-stakes stories about teenagers that mingle action and comedy. Rachael Prior, the head of film at the British production company Big Talk Pictures, saw “7.2” (imagine “Kill Bill” set in a snobbish high school) a decade ago.

“It was like a complete shot of adrenaline,” Prior said. Most short films show potential, but here, Prior thought, was a fully formed artist. “She felt like a unicorn, to be honest,” Prior said. She pushed her company to work with Manzoor and has since remained in her professional life.

If Manzoor’s aesthetic was fully formed, her politics were still nebulous. The heroines of “7.2” and “Arcade” are young white women. “I thought I still had to center whiteness because that was what I was seeing,” Manzoor said. But some of her early meetings and offers were radicalizing. She felt as though she was being asked to either efface her identity or allow it to be exploited, rubber-stamping other writers’ works that depicted Muslim women, typically Muslim women experiencing trauma.

“That galvanized me, like, Oh no, wait — I do want to talk about my personal identity as a woman of color,” she said. “I don’t want it to be just trauma victim stories.”

In 2018, after directing other people’s shows (“ Enterprice ,” “ Doctor Who ”) and seeing some projects stall in development, she was invited to make a “blap,” a comedy featurette for England’s Channel 4. Having been inspired by several punk musicians of color whom she had met in London’s art scene, she created a short version of “We Are Lady Parts.”

Anjana Vasan, an actress also raised in Singapore, starred in the short and later in the series. Though she was not raised in a Muslim household, she felt immediately drawn to Manzoor’s characters. “I really do think that she loves women,” she said. “And she writes them in the way we see ourselves, in our vulnerability, messiness, idiosyncrasies and silliness.”

Following the blap, “We Are Lady Parts” was commissioned for six episodes. Manzoor began writing them, which also meant writing the band’s music, which she composed with her sister, brother and brother-in-law. Those giddy, impudent numbers include “Bashir With the Good Beard,” “Voldemort Under My Headscarf” and “Ain’t No One Gonna Honour Kill My Sister But Me.”

A punk aesthetic meant that the music did not have to be particularly sophisticated. But Manzoor wanted it witty, angry and unapologetic. Punk is a visceral form and she was excited for numbers that would require the actors to use their whole bodies — even in head scarves, even in a niqab. To put Muslim women in a punk band would challenge the stereotype that Muslim women are submissive, quiet, humorless. And in the four-member ensemble, plus the band’s manager, Momtaz, Manzoor could show that Muslim women weren’t a monolith, that they could be as varied in their affects and strengths and dress and desires as anyone.

That’s a serious political point, which Manzoor tends to make in unserious ways. “Silliness is hugely important to me,” she said. “And sometimes it is the most important thing because there’s something really dehumanizing about showing Muslim women as not funny.” But the push-pull between seriousness and silliness is something that she often struggles with (“I torture myself in some way,” she said), as do the other writers on the show. They’re aware that there are so few representations of Muslim women, which makes any representation unusually sensitive.

Some of those writers felt pressure to be more political, which led to charged conversations and a major Season 2 plot point that finds the band rebelling against the strictures of a record deal. The lead singer, Saira (Sarah Kameela Impey), pushes for a more explicitly political sound, but Bisma (Faith Omole), the bassist, insists that their “jokey, winky” style is political, too.

“We are political just by existing, just by taking up this space, we are political,” Bisma says. And by existing, they can provide an example to others.

Juliette Motamed, the actress who plays Ayesha, the band’s drummer, wishes that shows like this had been available when she was growing up. “It’s something that I could have really used as a kid,” she said, “and something that might have made a lot of things make sense to me much earlier on.”

The first season of “We Are Lady Parts” won a Peabody Award and a BAFTA for best comedy writing. Manzoor has since been flooded with other offers, not all of which she finds interesting. “I just am led by feelings, which sounds horribly cringe, just led by what excites me,” she said.

She has a few projects in development: a dark sci-fi TV comedy, a spy action movie with a few weirdo twists. But she joked that maybe she could take it easy. “Maybe now I can retire,” she joked. “I have Malala in my show. I can stop.”

Alexis Soloski has written for The Times since 2006. As a culture reporter, she covers television, theater, movies, podcasts and new media. More about Alexis Soloski

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

Season 49 of “Saturday Night Live” has ended. Here’s a look back at its most memorable monologues, sketches, product parodies and impressions .

“Megalopolis,” the first film from the director Francis Ford Coppola in 13 years, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. Here’s what to know .

Why is the “Planet of the Apes” franchise so gripping and effective? Because it doesn’t monkey around, our movie critic writes .

Luke Newton has been in the sexy Netflix hit “Bridgerton” from the start. But a new season will be his first as co-lead — or chief hunk .

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

Announcing the NeurIPS 2023 Paper Awards 

Communications Chairs 2023 2023 Conference awards , neurips2023

By Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, Sergey Levine and Comms Chair, Sahra Ghalebikesabi 

We are honored to announce the award-winning papers for NeurIPS 2023! This year’s prestigious awards consist of the Test of Time Award plus two Outstanding Paper Awards in each of these three categories: 

• Two Outstanding Main Track Papers 
• Two Outstanding Main Track Runner-Ups 
• Two Outstanding Datasets and Benchmark Track Papers  

This year’s organizers received a record number of paper submissions. Of the 13,300 submitted papers that were reviewed by 968 Area Chairs, 98 senior area chairs, and 396 Ethics reviewers 3,540  were accepted after 502 papers were flagged for ethics reviews . 

We thank the awards committee for the main track: Yoav Artzi, Chelsea Finn, Ludwig Schmidt, Ricardo Silva, Isabel Valera, and Mengdi Wang. For the Datasets and Benchmarks track, we thank Sergio Escalera, Isabelle Guyon, Neil Lawrence, Dina Machuve, Olga Russakovsky, Hugo Jair Escalante, Deepti Ghadiyaram, and Serena Yeung. Conflicts of interest were taken into account in the decision process.

Congratulations to all the authors! See Posters Sessions Tue-Thur in Great Hall & B1-B2 (level 1).

Outstanding Main Track Papers

Privacy Auditing with One (1) Training Run Authors: Thomas Steinke · Milad Nasr · Matthew Jagielski

Poster session 2: Tue 12 Dec 5:15 p.m. — 7:15 p.m. CST, #1523

Oral: Tue 12 Dec 3:40 p.m. — 4:40 p.m. CST, Room R06-R09 (level 2)

Abstract: We propose a scheme for auditing differentially private machine learning systems with a single training run. This exploits the parallelism of being able to add or remove multiple training examples independently. We analyze this using the connection between differential privacy and statistical generalization, which avoids the cost of group privacy. Our auditing scheme requires minimal assumptions about the algorithm and can be applied in the black-box or white-box setting. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework by applying it to DP-SGD, where we can achieve meaningful empirical privacy lower bounds by training only one model. In contrast, standard methods would require training hundreds of models.

Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage? Authors: Rylan Schaeffer · Brando Miranda · Sanmi Koyejo

Poster session 6: Thu 14 Dec 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. CST, #1108

Oral: Thu 14 Dec 3:20 p.m. — 3:35 p.m. CST, Hall C2 (level 1) 

Abstract: Recent work claims that large language models display emergent abilities, abilities not present in smaller-scale models that are present in larger-scale models. What makes emergent abilities intriguing is two-fold: their sharpness, transitioning seemingly instantaneously from not present to present, and their unpredictability , appearing at seemingly unforeseeable model scales. Here, we present an alternative explanation for emergent abilities: that for a particular task and model family, when analyzing fixed model outputs, emergent abilities appear due to the researcher’s choice of metric rather than due to fundamental changes in model behavior with scale. Specifically, nonlinear or discontinuous metrics produce apparent emergent abilities, whereas linear or continuous metrics produce smooth, continuous, predictable changes in model performance. We present our alternative explanation in a simple mathematical model, then test it in three complementary ways: we (1) make, test and confirm three predictions on the effect of metric choice using the InstructGPT/GPT-3 family on tasks with claimed emergent abilities, (2) make, test and confirm two predictions about metric choices in a meta-analysis of emergent abilities on BIG-Bench; and (3) show how to choose metrics to produce never-before-seen seemingly emergent abilities in multiple vision tasks across diverse deep networks. Via all three analyses, we provide evidence that alleged emergent abilities evaporate with different metrics or with better statistics, and may not be a fundamental property of scaling AI models.

Outstanding Main Track Runner-Ups

Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models Authors : Niklas Muennighoff · Alexander Rush · Boaz Barak · Teven Le Scao · Nouamane Tazi · Aleksandra Piktus · Sampo Pyysalo · Thomas Wolf · Colin Raffel

Poster session 2: Tue 12 Dec 5:15 p.m. — 7:15 p.m. CST, #813

Oral: Tue 12 Dec 3:40 p.m. — 4:40 p.m. CST, Hall C2 (level 1)  

Abstract : The current trend of scaling language models involves increasing both parameter count and training dataset size. Extrapolating this trend suggests that training dataset size may soon be limited by the amount of text data available on the internet. Motivated by this limit, we investigate scaling language models in data-constrained regimes. Specifically, we run a large set of experiments varying the extent of data repetition and compute budget, ranging up to 900 billion training tokens and 9 billion parameter models. We find that with constrained data for a fixed compute budget, training with up to 4 epochs of repeated data yields negligible changes to loss compared to having unique data. However, with more repetition, the value of adding compute eventually decays to zero. We propose and empirically validate a scaling law for compute optimality that accounts for the decreasing value of repeated tokens and excess parameters. Finally, we experiment with approaches mitigating data scarcity, including augmenting the training dataset with code data or removing commonly used filters. Models and datasets from our 400 training runs are freely available at https://github.com/huggingface/datablations .

Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model Authors: Rafael Rafailov · Archit Sharma · Eric Mitchell · Christopher D Manning · Stefano Ermon · Chelsea Finn

Poster session 6: Thu 14 Dec 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. CST, #625

Oral: Thu 14 Dec 3:50 p.m. — 4:05 p.m. CST, Ballroom A-C (level 2)  

Abstract: While large-scale unsupervised language models (LMs) learn broad world knowledge and some reasoning skills, achieving precise control of their behavior is difficult due to the completely unsupervised nature of their training. Existing methods for gaining such steerability collect human labels of the relative quality of model generations and fine-tune the unsupervised LM to align with these preferences, often with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). However, RLHF is a complex and often unstable procedure, first fitting a reward model that reflects the human preferences, and then fine-tuning the large unsupervised LM using reinforcement learning to maximize this estimated reward without drifting too far from the original model. In this paper, we leverage a mapping between reward functions and optimal policies to show that this constrained reward maximization problem can be optimized exactly with a single stage of policy training, essentially solving a classification problem on the human preference data. The resulting algorithm, which we call Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), is stable, performant, and computationally lightweight, eliminating the need for fitting a reward model, sampling from the LM during fine-tuning, or performing significant hyperparameter tuning. Our experiments show that DPO can fine-tune LMs to align with human preferences as well as or better than existing methods. Notably, fine-tuning with DPO exceeds RLHF’s ability to control sentiment of generations and improves response quality in summarization and single-turn dialogue while being substantially simpler to implement and train.

Outstanding Datasets and Benchmarks Papers

In the dataset category : 

ClimSim: A large multi-scale dataset for hybrid physics-ML climate emulation

Authors:  Sungduk Yu · Walter Hannah · Liran Peng · Jerry Lin · Mohamed Aziz Bhouri · Ritwik Gupta · Björn Lütjens · Justus C. Will · Gunnar Behrens · Julius Busecke · Nora Loose · Charles Stern · Tom Beucler · Bryce Harrop · Benjamin Hillman · Andrea Jenney · Savannah L. Ferretti · Nana Liu · Animashree Anandkumar · Noah Brenowitz · Veronika Eyring · Nicholas Geneva · Pierre Gentine · Stephan Mandt · Jaideep Pathak · Akshay Subramaniam · Carl Vondrick · Rose Yu · Laure Zanna · Tian Zheng · Ryan Abernathey · Fiaz Ahmed · David Bader · Pierre Baldi · Elizabeth Barnes · Christopher Bretherton · Peter Caldwell · Wayne Chuang · Yilun Han · YU HUANG · Fernando Iglesias-Suarez · Sanket Jantre · Karthik Kashinath · Marat Khairoutdinov · Thorsten Kurth · Nicholas Lutsko · Po-Lun Ma · Griffin Mooers · J. David Neelin · David Randall · Sara Shamekh · Mark Taylor · Nathan Urban · Janni Yuval · Guang Zhang · Mike Pritchard

Poster session 4: Wed 13 Dec 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. CST, #105 

Oral: Wed 13 Dec 3:45 p.m. — 4:00 p.m. CST, Ballroom A-C (level 2)

Abstract: Modern climate projections lack adequate spatial and temporal resolution due to computational constraints. A consequence is inaccurate and imprecise predictions of critical processes such as storms. Hybrid methods that combine physics with machine learning (ML) have introduced a new generation of higher fidelity climate simulators that can sidestep Moore’s Law by outsourcing compute-hungry, short, high-resolution simulations to ML emulators. However, this hybrid ML-physics simulation approach requires domain-specific treatment and has been inaccessible to ML experts because of lack of training data and relevant, easy-to-use workflows. We present ClimSim, the largest-ever dataset designed for hybrid ML-physics research. It comprises multi-scale climate simulations, developed by a consortium of climate scientists and ML researchers. It consists of 5.7 billion pairs of multivariate input and output vectors that isolate the influence of locally-nested, high-resolution, high-fidelity physics on a host climate simulator’s macro-scale physical state. The dataset is global in coverage, spans multiple years at high sampling frequency, and is designed such that resulting emulators are compatible with downstream coupling into operational climate simulators. We implement a range of deterministic and stochastic regression baselines to highlight the ML challenges and their scoring. The data (https://huggingface.co/datasets/LEAP/ClimSim_high-res) and code (https://leap-stc.github.io/ClimSim) are released openly to support the development of hybrid ML-physics and high-fidelity climate simulations for the benefit of science and society.   

In the benchmark category :

DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Models

Authors: Boxin Wang · Weixin Chen · Hengzhi Pei · Chulin Xie · Mintong Kang · Chenhui Zhang · Chejian Xu · Zidi Xiong · Ritik Dutta · Rylan Schaeffer · Sang Truong · Simran Arora · Mantas Mazeika · Dan Hendrycks · Zinan Lin · Yu Cheng · Sanmi Koyejo · Dawn Song · Bo Li

Poster session 1: Tue 12 Dec 10:45 a.m. — 12:45 p.m. CST, #1618  

Oral: Tue 12 Dec 10:30 a.m. — 10:45 a.m. CST, Ballroom A-C (Level 2)

Abstract: Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models have exhibited exciting progress in capabilities, capturing the interest of practitioners and the public alike. Yet, while the literature on the trustworthiness of GPT models remains limited, practitioners have proposed employing capable GPT models for sensitive applications to healthcare and finance – where mistakes can be costly. To this end, this work proposes a comprehensive trustworthiness evaluation for large language models with a focus on GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, considering diverse perspectives – including toxicity, stereotype bias, adversarial robustness, out-of-distribution robustness, robustness on adversarial demonstrations, privacy, machine ethics, and fairness. Based on our evaluations, we discover previously unpublished vulnerabilities to trustworthiness threats. For instance, we find that GPT models can be easily misled to generate toxic and biased outputs and leak private information in both training data and conversation history. We also find that although GPT-4 is usually more trustworthy than GPT-3.5 on standard benchmarks, GPT-4 is more vulnerable given jailbreaking system or user prompts, potentially due to the reason that GPT-4 follows the (misleading) instructions more precisely. Our work illustrates a comprehensive trustworthiness evaluation of GPT models and sheds light on the trustworthiness gaps. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://decodingtrust.github.io/.

Test of Time

This year, following the usual practice, we chose a NeurIPS paper from 10 years ago to receive the Test of Time Award, and “ Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality ” by Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean, won. 

Published at NeurIPS 2013 and cited over 40,000 times, the work introduced the seminal word embedding technique word2vec. Demonstrating the power of learning from large amounts of unstructured text, the work catalyzed progress that marked the beginning of a new era in natural language processing.

Greg Corrado and Jeffrey Dean will be giving a talk about this work and related research on Tuesday, 12 Dec at 3:05 – 3:25 pm CST in Hall F.  

Related Posts

2023 Conference

Announcing NeurIPS 2023 Invited Talks

Reflections on the neurips 2023 ethics review process, neurips newsletter – november 2023.

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 2 Children: All About Jane and James

Ruth Bader Ginsburg shared a daughter and a son with her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg

Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis/Getty

Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court , welcomed two children during her life: Jane and James “Jim” Steven.

RBG welcomed both of her children with her late husband, Martin “Marty” D. Ginsburg , who died just over a decade before his wife . The couple met during their undergraduate careers at Cornell University in 1950. By 1954, they were married and welcomed their first child the following year.

Before her death in September 2020, Ginsburg opened up about motherhood during a 2017 interview with The Atlantic . Not only did she express her admiration for her children, but she even gave them credit for her professional success.

“When I started law school my daughter Jane was 14 months, and I attribute my success in law school largely to Jane,” RBG said. “I went to class about 8:30 a.m., and I came home at 4:00 p.m., that was children’s hour. It was a total break in my day, and children’s hour continued until Jane went to sleep. Then I was happy to go back to the books, so I felt each part of my life gave me respite from the other.”

During the same interview, RBG shared that Jane gave her a “better sense” of “what life is.” Throughout her busy career, the judge's husband supported his wife and children by taking on more roles at home.

In 1972, RBG co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union's Women’s Rights Project and the father of two became their home’s chef. “Marty realized how important that work was,” she said. “In those years, Marty took over the kitchen entirely, and I was phased out of it, to the everlasting appreciation of my food-loving children.”

Here's everything to know about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's children, Jane and James.

Jane Ginsburg, 68

Kristina Bumphrey/StarPix/Shutterstock 

Jane C. Ginsburg was born to RBG and Marty on July 21, 1955, in Freeport, N.Y.

When the 2018 film On the Basis of Sex was released, Jane discussed how the movie portrayed her and her mother in an interview with the Columbia Spectator . “I was not more politically engaged than my mother,” she said.

“The movie makes me seem as if I was rebellious and politically engaged and pushed my mother to be more radical than she might have otherwise been,” Jane continued. “There was never a point where my mother had any doubt about ... not only the justice but the desirability of the course she was pursuing.”

Jane even recalled “the law” becoming a “fifth member” in their family. “I don’t remember exactly at what point, but I was certainly still in high school when I got involved reading briefs and editing briefs, so it was very much a family enterprise,” she shared with the Spectator .

Editing briefs arguably inspired Jane to follow in her parents' footsteps as she ultimately pursued a career in literary and artistic property law. Jane is currently the faculty director of Columbia University’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts, according to her university bio .

Doug Mills/AP

Before she was a Columbia professor, Jane was a student at the University of Chicago. There, she earned her bachelor of arts and master of arts degrees in 1976 and 1977, respectively.

Later, she earned her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1980. Five years later, Jane added two more degrees from the Université de Paris II, which she attended in the ’80s and ’90s.

Jane is also a wife and mother to two children. The professor married George T. Spera Jr. in the summer of 1981, as reported by The New York Times . The couple welcomed their son, Paul Spera, in 1986, and later welcomed their daughter, Clara Spera , in 1990.

In December 2020, Clara penned an essay for Harper’s Bazaar and revealed the lessons her famous grandmother passed on to her.

“I learned from her that it was important to keep my room neat and tidy, that I shouldn’t raise my voice because it wouldn’t get me anywhere, and that I could imagine a future for myself unimpeded by stereotypes about ‘the way women are,’ ” she wrote.

James “Jim” Steven Ginsburg, 58

Jeff Schear/Getty 

RBG and her husband welcomed their son, James “Jim” Steven Ginsburg, in September 1965. His mother gave birth to him in Washington, D.C., about a decade after she welcomed Jane.

The late justice's only son has spoken fondly of her over the years and even recalled how Marty felt about RBG during their courtship. Jim spoke to PEOPLE in 2018 and revealed that his late father thought his mother was “ awfully cute ” and “awfully smart.”

Despite Marty’s interest in RBG, she was not as quick to jump into their relationship, Jim explained. “Mom said Dad was the only boy who dated her who cared that she had a brain,” he said. “He was smitten pretty quickly. It might have taken my mother a little longer.”

Unlike his sister and parents, Jim pursued a career outside of law. He received his bachelor of arts degree from the University of Chicago in 1987 and later attended the university’s law school before dropping out after less than two years, as reported by Newsweek .

Diana Walker/Getty 

Jim founded his classical music label, Cedille Records, in 1989. He currently serves as the label’s president, according to the company’s website .

“The idea for the label came to me as I was actually a listener, concertgoer, consumer in Chicago in the 1980s,” Jim said in a YouTube video for the label. “I would go to concerts featuring wonderful local artists and hear them on live broadcasts at our spectacular radio station W FMT then I would go to the record store and look for the recordings and there was literally none to be found.”

Jim’s work in music has earned him several accolades, including one Grammy Award along with three nominations. He was nominated for producer of the year in classical music at the 65th Annual Grammy Awards .

He is also a father to two children. Jim married his first wife, Lisa Brauston, in 1995, however, they eventually divorced. The musician is now married to Patrice Michaels, whom he wed in 2010.

Related Articles