magazine issue 9 2008 / Issue 8

Social Judgment: Warmth and Competence are Universal Dimensions

• written by Abdolhossein Abdollahi & Susan Fiske
• edited by Suzanne van Gils

Although perceptions of individuals and groups operate in similar ways, some subtle differences appear. When we judge an individual person as warm, we tend to judge her or him as competent too (a phenomenon called the "halo effect" in social psychology) (Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt, & Kashima, 2005; Rosenberg et al., 1968; Zanna & Hamilton, 1972). In contrast, and curiously, when we judge entire social groups as warm or competent, we judge quite differently (Fiske, 1998; Fiske at al. 1999; Yzerbyt, Provost, & Corneille, 2005). When thinking about groups, people tend to create warmth-competence trade-offs or "compensations." A group may be warm or competent but not both (except our own group, of course). For groups, at least groups not our own ("outgroups"), warmth and competence do not go hand in hand.

Warmth and competence and their relationship with discrimination and stereotypes

Combinations of warmth and competence matter because they predict unique forms of discrimination. Not all bigotry is identical. Fiske and colleagues call this pattern of relationship BIAS, for Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and stereotypes (Cuddy et al., 2007). Because the warmth dimension is the primary factor in social perception, it predicts active behaviors towards the member of the outgroup: Active facilitation (helping) versus active harming (attacking). Because competence is the secondary factor in social perception, it predicts passive behaviors: passive facilitation (association) and passive harm (neglect). The typical societal ingroup usually receives both active and passive facilitation (i.e., helping and association), whereas the lowestoutgroups, such as homeless people receive both kinds of harm (i.e., active attacks and passive neglect). 

Some interesting observations result from the mixed combinations. For example, old and disabled people elicit active helping and passive neglect; institutionalization actively aids them but socially isolates them. By contrast, envied groups elicit passive association and active harm; for example, neighbors might shop at the stores of entrepreneurial outsiders, but, under societal breakdown, they might attack and loot these same shops. Jews during the Holocaust, Koreans in the Los Angeles riots, and Chinese in the Indonesian riots all exemplify this unfortunate profile. 

What best predicts these unique patterns of discrimination? Or put simply, what causes people to treat harshly members of another social group that seems to differ from theirs? Emotions drive discrimination. The stereotypes represent warmth andcompetence, but the stereotypes elicit emotional prejudices as well (e.g., envy, pity, or disgust). It is the emotions in and of themselves that direct behaviors such as discrimination.For example, stereotyping John McCain as an older man can lead to pitying and therefore not voting for him in the US 2008 presidential election, or resenting and therefore not voting for Barack Obama because of stereotyping based on the fact that he attended elite schools. The chain, then, is stereotypes-emotions-behaviors. 
However, the stereotypes, emotions, and behavior themselves all reflect groups’ and individuals places’ in society. That is, when one’s ingroup goals clash with those of an outgroup, the ingroup perceives that outgroup as a foe—as unfriendly and untrustworthy (i.e., not warm)—but if there is no goal conflict between the ingroup and the outgroup, the outgroup is perceived as a friend—friendly and trustworthy (i.e., warm). The other dimension, stereotypic competence, comes from the group’s perceived status. High-status groups are assumed to be competent, and low-status groups, not competent. People seem to endorse a meritocracy, where people get the status they deserve based on talent (Oldmeadow & Fiske, 2007).