The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
System‐justifying ideologies moderate status = competence stereotypes: roles for belief in a just world and social dominance orientation
Abstract
High‐status outgroups tend to be stereotyped as competent, while low‐status groups tend to be stereotyped as incompetent. These stereotypes provide legitimacy to hierarchical social systems. However, research to date has tended to focus on the socio‐structural correlates and cross‐cultural stability of these stereotypes, emphasising universality over malleability. The current research demonstrates that, although strong, the association between status and competence, but not status and warmth, is moderated by ideological beliefs and attitudes towards inequality. In two studies, participants high in belief in a just world (BJW) or social dominance orientation (SDO) were more likely than those low in BJW or SDO to view a high‐status target as more competent than a low‐status target. Findings support the view that status stereotypes justify social inequalities, and demonstrate that they are sensitive to ideological orientations. Implications for theory and research on status and power stereotypes are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 · Cited by 4,567
Self-citationSocial Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x · Cited by 618
Cited by
Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 · Cited by 4,567
Self-citationStereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J., Bond, M. H., Croizet, J., Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E., et al. (2009) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466608x314935 · Cited by 1,078
Self-citationA cultural theory of international relations
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-2254 · Cited by 379
Intergroup biases: a focus on stereotype content
Fiske, S. T. (2015) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.01.010 · Cited by 215
Self-citationLee, I.-C., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0025410 · Cited by 204
Metadata
- Authors
- Oldmeadow, J., & Fiske, S. T.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05-03
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1135-1148
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2027070964
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.