From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reputation as opposed to Stereotype[edit]

Can a reputation result in a stereotype? For example, when someone asked why Italians have a stereotype as violent people the response was "After the brutalities of the Roman Empire (who nailed Jesus Christ to the Cross), the deceit and sneakiness of the Venetians doges and Maciavelli, the oppression of Mussolini and the violence and conspiratorial nature of the Mafia, that is the kind of reputation the Italians have earned." That sounds as if history makes stereotypes, or are the two concepts of stereotype and reputation interrealted? (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Reputation and stereotype are the terms of a similar level of perception. The difference is that reputation is based on some kind of evaluation, based on certain criteria, while formation (and perpetuation) of a stereotype has more ways. It would be interesting to have a section on the interaction of the two. I am not an expert, but the following aspects may be covered:
    • Stereotype for a group formed as transfer of reputation of a excessively visible subgroup onto the whole group ("blacks are thugs and drug dealers")
    • Stereotype as past reputation "frozen in time"
    • A reputation of a person in influenced by the stereotypes about the group the person belongs ("a woman has to work twice as hard to earn respect given to a man with equal skills")
I guess there is much more. Is anybody willing to take the job? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding Additional Information[edit]

I plan on adding new information to the page as a project for my Social Psychology class. My purpose is to better organize the page and provide more cited facts and relevant studies that contribute to the overall importance of stereotype within society.

The sections I plan to edit include:

The Introductory Paragraph - adding a new definition for stereotype as well as an introduction on the differences between prejudice, stereotype, and discrimination. Also will add generalizations about the usage of stereotype.

Social Functions - I have new information to add about in-group and out-group justifications and differences under the social categorization subheading. I find the functions section in general full of unnecessary information that is just confusing to follow, so I may attempt to better organize the section into more relevant features.

Effects - I am going to add another paragraph under the subheading Stereotype Effect in order to cite more experimental research and provide more information on the concept. Also, the discrimination section is very weak and does not embody the importance of its relationship to stereotype, so I may add more information to that as well.

Role in Art and Culture - I believe this section is bringing down the rating due to its lack of citations, so I will attempt to find outside sources that describe the importance of stereotype in this setting. If I am not able to, I believe the section needs to be deleted in order to provide the most accurate justification of stereotype - unless someone else would like to take over this responsibility.

I also have information regarding stereotype susceptibility with research involving children and socioeconomic status, but I am undecided where to place that as of now.

There are grammar mistakes (i.e. first sentence has a comma before the period, socialization is spelled wrong in "socialisation and upbringing", etc) that I will fix. I also would like to reword some of the sentences in order to provide better clarity while keeping the same information as before (i.e. automatic behavioral outcomes section, etc). Dalesska (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Article seems a little off[edit]

The article appears to have been moved to solely deal with racial and behavioural stereotyping.

Where does it talk about "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing:" (OED)

For example, London can be seen as stereotypically "foggy", or New York as "dangerous at night" - why have these sterotypes not got a mention? Chaosdruid (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid. It is true that the article is concerned almost completely with stereotyping processes for human subject matter, while at times 'stereotype' be used in non-human contexts. Really though, I think this just reflects the dominant approach to stereotyping in the literature. That is, for quite understandable reasons, stereotyping has been primarily studied as something that is done to us / done to them. And I am ok with this. It seems like a pretty safe bet that the Wikipedia audience will be coming here looking for information on person stereotyping. That being said, if you wish to expand the article then go ahead. Just be sure to use reliable sources and not to create too much redundancy with the Categorical_perception article. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
An article is not complete until it covers all factors relevant to the topic. "Things" are 50% of the definition according to the OED, so please, do go ahead and fix the article. I am merely pointing out this deficiency. I have plenty of things to do and am not an expert in this particular field. I can, however, apply myself to this topic later in the year if you cannot fix it. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding stereotype threats[edit]

I believe that the article comes up short with regard to its discussion of stereotype threats. Stereotype threats, as in when someone perceives him or herself to be stereotyped and thus conforms to the given stereotype, is one topic that I hoped to read more about on the "stereotype" wiki page. This section of the article was well-cited but could have gone into more detail, perhaps, into what types of effects are seen by stereotype threats. The author of the article claims that stereotype threats can "undermine performance in a variety of domains", but the reader is left to imagine what those domains may be. Also, what are the social implications of this undermined performance. In the last sentence of the article, the author lists sports, business, and chess as "arenas" where stereotype threats have been studied, but fails to elaborate further. Perhaps adding to this article should be placed on my to-do list.

-Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seancascarano (talkcontribs) 17:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School announcement[edit]

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article has been selected to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd like to ask the English Wikipedia community to join our efforts and improve the article before December 31, 2014 (any timezone); a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review in early 2015. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that editors can decide if and how to use them. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

do you thinck this is a joke its not because you ARE — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Two pages were improperly redirected to this one[edit]

There were separate articles on Wikipedia about sexual stereotyping and stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans. Both of these articles were redirected to the stereotyping article, but this article has no information about these topics.

Should these articles be separated again, or should their contents be merged into the stereotyping article instead? Jarble (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this article there are Gender role#Gender stereotypes and Ethnic stereotype which are I think better targets for sexual stereotyping and stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans respectively.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Error in the "illusory correlation" section[edit]

In the paragraph about a study from 1976 documenting illusory correlation, the following passage occurs:

"Negative behaviors outnumbered positive actions and group B was smaller than group A, making negative behaviors and membership in group B relatively infrequent and distinctive. Participants were then asked who had performed a set of actions: a person of group A or group B. Results showed that subjects overestimated the frequency with which both distinctive events, membership in group B and negative behavior, co-occurred, and evaluated group B more negatively."

It seems the first line is wrong, and that it ought to read: "Negative behaviors were outnumbered by positive actions...". I have not corrected it myself because I am not familiar with the study in question.MelancholyRose (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Stereotypes in Consumer Behaviour[edit]

Stereotypes in Consumer Behaviour seems to be better suited as a section in Stereotype, rather than being its own article. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 12:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Uninformative lead[edit]

"However, this is only a fundamental psychological definition of a stereotype. Within psychology and spanning across other disciplines, there are different conceptualizations and theories of stereotyping that provide their own expanded definition. Some of these definitions share commonalities, though each one may also harbor unique aspects that may contradict the others."
Okay, then why can't they be explained? The article sure is long enough for a longer lead and I really don't think saying "but that's only the basic definition and there are other definitions that are both similar and distinct" (but with a lot more fluff) is in any way useful. I'll add a template. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)