The content of the Asian American model minority stereotype is important for understanding how Asian American individuals are perceived. Existing theories about stereotype content may not capture the unique historical and cultural context that could affect perceptions of Asian American individuals. We have identified a more differentiated underlying structure with four dimensions—warmth, competence, self-centeredness, and submissiveness—that differ in their rated typicality and desirability for Asian and White Americans. We then developed the 16-item Asian American Stereotypes Scale to measure perceptions of Asian Americans on these four dimensions. Ratings on the different dimensions predict unique variance in attitudes toward Asian Americans and other minority groups, contact with Asians or Asian Americans, perceptions of size of the Asian American population, and system justification. The four-dimensional model and the Asian American Stereotypes Scale allow us to predict and examine the unique impacts of Asian American stereotypes in a way that differs from more general models.
AbeleA. E.UchronskiM.SuitnerC.WojciszkeB. (2008). Towards an operationalization of the fundamental dimensions of agency and communion: Trait content ratings in five countries considering valence and frequency of word occurrence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1202–1217. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.575
2.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763. https://doi.org/0.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751
3.
BaiF.HoG. C. C.YanJ. (2019). Does virtue lead to status? Testing the moral virtue theory of status attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000192
4.
BerdahlJ. L.MinJ.-A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace consequences for East Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027692
5.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T. (2019). Studying a heterogeneous array of target groups can help us understand prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419830382
6.
ChmielewskiM.KuckerS. C. (2019). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
7.
DovidioJ. F.BrighamJ. C.JohnsonB. T.GaertnerS. L. (1996). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination: Another look. In MacraeC. N.StangorC.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 276–319). Guilford Press.
8.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1024–1083). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002029
FeldmanS.HuddyL. (2005). Racial resentment and White opposition to race-conscious programs: Principles or prejudice?American Journal of Political Science, 49, 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00117.x
11.
FiskeS. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825
12.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed)stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. https://doi.org/0.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878
13.
FiskeS. T.XuJ.CuddyA. C.GlickP. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00128
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
16.
KanI. P.DrummeyA. B. (2018). Do imposters threaten data quality? An examination of worker misrepresentation and downstream consequences in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk workforce. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.005
17.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823
18.
KinderD. R.SandersL. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. University of Chicago Press.
19.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socio-economic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 675–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000046
20.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037215
21.
LeachC. W.EllemersN.BarretoM. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234
22.
LinM. H.KwanV. S. Y.CheungA.FiskeS. T. (2005). Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of Anti-Asian American Stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271320
23.
MatherlyT. (2019). A panel for lemons? Positivity bias, reputation systems and data quality on MTurk. European Journal of Marketing, 53, 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2017-0491
24.
MortonL. C.LaytonR. L.MuravenM. (2019). Social Modeling of Exercise Inventory: A measure of exercise-specific social influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12575
25.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2018). Mplus [Computer software]. Muthén & Muthén.
26.
PhelanJ. E.RudmanL. A. (2010). Reactions to ethnic deviance: The role of backlash in racial stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018304
27.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
28.
ReidM.SparksP.JessopD. C. (2018). The effect of self-identity alongside perceived importance within the theory of planned behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 883–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2373
29.
RosetteA. S.KovalC. Z.MaA.LivingstonR. (2016). Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.008
30.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
31.
StathiS.CrispR. J.HoggM. A. (2011). Imagining intergroup contact enables member-to-group generalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023752
32.
SyT.ShoreL. M.StraussJ.ShoreT. H.TramS.WhiteleyP.Ikeda-MuromachiK. (2010). Leadership perceptions as a function of race–occupation fit: The case of Asian Americans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 902–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019501
33.
WigginsJ. S.TrapnellP.PhillipsN. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2304_8
34.
WuE. D. (2014). The color of success: Asian Americans and the origins of the model minority. Princeton University Press.
35.
YamamotoS.MaederE. M. (2019). Creating the punishment orientation questionnaire: An item response theory approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 1283–1294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218818485
36.
YzerbytV.DemoulinS. (2010). Intergroup relations. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1024–1083). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002028
37.
ZouL. X.CheryanS. (2017). Two axes of subordination: A new model of racial position. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000080
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
