Etymology

The term stereotype derives from the Greek words (stereos), "firm, solid"[4] and
(typos), impression,[5] hence "solid impression on one or more idea/theory."

The term comes from the printing trade and was first adopted in 1798 by Firmin Didot to
describe a printing plate that duplicated any typography. The duplicate printing plate, or the
stereotype, is used for printing instead of the original.

Outside of printing, the first reference to "stereotype" was in 1850, as a noun that meant image
perpetuated without change.[6] However, it was not until 1922 that "stereotype" was first used in
the modern psychological sense by American journalist Walter Lippmann in his work Public
Opinion.[7]

Relationship with other types of intergroup attitudes

Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are understood as related but different concepts.[8][9][10]
[11]
Stereotypes are regarded as the most cognitive component and often occurs without conscious
awareness, whereas prejudice is the affective component of stereotyping and discrimination is
one of the behavioral components of prejudicial reactions.[8][9][12] In this tripartite view of
intergroup attitudes, stereotypes reflect expectations and beliefs about the characteristics of
members of groups perceived as different from one's own, prejudice represents the emotional
response, and discrimination refers to actions.[8][9]

Although related, the three concepts can exist independently of each other.[9][13] According to
Daniel Katz and Kenneth Braly, stereotyping leads to racial prejudice when people emotionally
react to the name of a group, ascribe characteristics to members of that group, and then evaluate
those characteristics.[10]

Possible prejudicial effects of stereotypes[3] are:

Justification of ill-founded prejudices or ignorance

Unwillingness to rethink one's attitudes and behavior towards stereotyped groups

Preventing some people of stereotyped groups from entering or succeeding in activities or

fields[14]

Content
Stereotype content model, adapted from Fiske et al. (2002): Four types of stereotypes resulting from
combinations of perceived warmth and competence.

Stereotype content refers to the attributes that people think characterize a group. Studies of
stereotype content examine what people think of others, rather than the reasons and mechanisms
involved in stereotyping.[15]

Early theories of stereotype content proposed by social psychologists such as Gordon Allport
assumed that stereotypes of outgroups reflected uniform antipathy.[16][17] For instance, Katz and
Braly argued in their classic 1933 study that ethnic stereotypes were uniformly negative.[15]

By contrast, a newer model of stereotype content theorizes that stereotypes are frequently
ambivalent and vary along two dimensions: warmth and competence. Warmth and competence
are respectively predicted by lack of competition and status. Groups that do not compete with the
in-group for the same resources (e.g., college space) are perceived as warm, whereas high-status
(e.g., economically or educationally successful) groups are considered competent. The groups
within each of the four combinations of high and low levels of warmth and competence elicit
distinct emotions.[18] The model explains the phenomenon that some out-groups are admired but
disliked, whereas others are liked but disrespected. This model was empirically tested on a
variety of national and international samples and was found to reliably predict stereotype
content.[16][19]

Functions
Early studies suggested that stereotypes were only used by rigid, repressed, and authoritarian
people. This idea has been refuted by contemporary studies that suggest the ubiquity of
stereotypes and it was suggested to regard stereotypes as collective group beliefs, meaning that
people who belong to the same social group share the same set of stereotypes.[13] Modern
research asserts that full understanding of stereotypes requires considering them from two
complementary perspectives: as shared within a particular culture/subculture and as formed in
the mind of an individual person.[20]
Relationship between cognitive and social functions

Stereotyping can serve cognitive functions on an interpersonal level, and social functions on an
intergroup level.[3][13] For stereotyping to function on an intergroup level (see social identity
approaches: social identity theory and self-categorization theory), an individual must see
themselves as part of a group and being part of that group must also be salient for the individual.
[13]

Craig McGarty, Russell Spears, and Vincent Y. Yzerbyt (2002) argued that the cognitive
functions of stereotyping are best understood in relation to its social functions, and vice versa.[21]

Cognitive functions

Stereotypes can help make sense of the world. They are a form of categorization that helps to
simplify and systematize information. Thus, information is more easily identified, recalled,
predicted, and reacted to.[13] Stereotypes are categories of objects or people. Between stereotypes,
objects or people are as different from each other as possible.[1] Within stereotypes, objects or
people are as similar to each other as possible.[1]

Gordon Allport has suggested possible answers to why people find it easier to understand
categorized information.[22] First, people can consult a category to identify response patterns.
Second, categorized information is more specific than non-categorized information, as
categorization accentuates properties that are shared by all members of a group. Third, people
can readily describe object in a category because objects in the same category have distinct
characteristics. Finally, people can take for granted the characteristics of a particular category
because the category itself may be an arbitrary grouping.

A complementary perspective theorizes how stereotypes function as time- and energy-savers that
allow people to act more efficiently.[1] Yet another perspective suggests that stereotypes are
people's biased perceptions of their social contexts.[1] In this view, people use stereotypes as
shortcuts to make sense of their social contexts, and this makes a person's task of understanding
his or her world less cognitively demanding.[1]

Social functions: social categorization

In the following situations, the overarching purpose of stereotyping is for people to put their
collective self (their ingroup membership) in a positive light:[23]

when stereotypes are used for explaining social events

when stereotypes are used for justifying activities of one's own group (ingroup) to another group
(outgroup)

when stereotypes are used for differentiating the ingroup as positively distinct from outgroups
Explanation purposes

An anti-semitic 1873 caricature depicting the stereotypical physical features of a Jewish male.

As mentioned previously, stereotypes can be used to explain social events.[13][23] Henri Tajfel[13]
described his observations of how some people found that the anti-Semitic contents of The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion only made sense if Jews have certain characteristics. Therefore,
according to Tajfel,[13] Jews were stereotyped as being evil and yearning for world domination to
match the anti-Semitic facts as presented in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Justification purposes

People create stereotypes of an outgroup to justify the actions that their ingroup has committed
(or plans to commit) towards that outgroup.[13][22][23] For example, according to Tajfel,[13]
Europeans stereotyped Turkish, Indian, and Chinese people as being incapable of achieving
financial advances without European help. This stereotype was used to justify European
colonialism in Turkey, India, and China.

Intergroup differentiation

An assumption is that people want their ingroup to have a positive image relative to outgroups,
and so people want to differentiate their ingroup from relevant outgroups in a desirable way.[13] If
an outgroup does not affect the ingroups image, then from an image preservation point of view,
there is no point for the ingroup to be positively distinct from that outgroup.[13]

People can actively create certain images for relevant outgroups by stereotyping. People do so
when they see that their ingroup is no longer as clearly and/or as positively differentiated from
relevant outgroups, and they want to restore the intergroup differentiation to a state that favours
the ingroup.[13][23]

Social functions: self-categorization

People change their stereotype of their ingroups and outgroups to suit context.[3][23] People are
likely to self-stereotype their ingroup as homogenous in an intergroup context, and they are less
likely to do so in an intragroup context where the need to emphasise their group membership is
not as great.[23] Stereotypes can emphasise a persons group membership in two steps: First,
stereotypes emphasise the persons similarities with ingroup members on relevant dimensions,
and also the persons differences from outgroup members on relevant dimensions.[23] Second, the
more the stereotypes emphasise within-group similarities and between-group differences, the
more salient the persons social identity becomes, and the more depersonalised that person is.[23]
A depersonalised person abandons individual differences and embraces the stereotypes
associated with their relevant group membership.[23]

Social functions: social influence and consensus

Stereotypes are an indicator of ingroup consensus.[23] When there are intragroup disagreements
over stereotypes of the ingroup and/or outgroups, ingroup members take collective action to
prevent other ingroup members from diverging from each other.[23]

John C. Turner proposed in 1987[23] that if ingroup members disagree on an outgroup stereotype,
then one of three possible collective actions follow: First, ingroup members may negotiate with
each other and conclude that they have different outgroup stereotypes because they are
stereotyping different subgroups of an outgroup (e.g., Russian gymnasts versus Russian boxers).
Second, ingroup members may negotiate with each other, but conclude that they are disagreeing
because of categorical differences amongst themselves. Accordingly, in this context, it is better to
categorise ingroup members under different categories (e.g., Democrats versus Republican) than
under a shared category (e.g., American). Finally, ingroup members may influence each other to
arrive at a common outgroup stereotype.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype