How long do we take to judge a person?
It depends what kind of judgement we’re talking about. If it’s a psychologist who has to give an assessment on a child, it will take long, because they have to follow a certain protocol. And in everyday life? Well, a fraction of a second.
That’s fast.
And how much time does it take you to have a look at somebody and think “a hausfrau”, “a dumb blonde”, “a loser”, “a bad mother”, etc. It’s a rapid process, because we judge people automatically.
Is it beyond our control?
The initiation of the stereotyping process is. We see somebody and an evaluative thought crosses our mind instantly. You can say that it’s been so since the dawn of time, as stereotypes and evaluation processes accompany us since the beginning of mankind. One might suppose that they are a by-product of the creation of social groups, or, as Yuval Harari would have it, the most important evolutionary invention of Homo sapiens.
Functioning in any social group is based on the recognition that one belongs to it. Just look at babies who very quickly begin to differentiate between female and male faces, and then to create groups: mum and dad, that is us, and others, that is strangers. Most likely, rapid evaluation was very useful in the evolutionary sense, because it helped people survive. By using stereotypes, they were able to quickly define a stranger who could be a threat.
But our evaluation of a person is not completely arbitrary, is it?
It’s the outcome of several factors. First of all, the way our brain is constructed makes us automatically classify people. This process is based on some distinctive features, such as sex, race or age, and some less distinctive features, for example when we talk of classifying by sexual orientation or religion. Such automation allows us to save cognitive resources, because our brain is not able to process all information. Quite often, it has to make use of simplification, routine and automation. These tools are convenient and quick, and reflective processing of information takes time and effort. In the case of stereotypes, we get a ready-to-use pattern and we no longer have to analyse information.
And the way we describe a given group, i.e. the content of a stereotype, is part of our culture and is passed on to subsequent generations, who repeat and reinforce it. A father passes it on to his son and a mother to her daughter, with only minor changes.
It sounds as if we were submissive victims of imprinted patterns.
We are, to a certain degree – at the level of initiating a stereotype and filling it with content. Because it’s beyond our control that, for example, attractive blondes or bold and muscular men are perceived as not very clever. And it is difficult to block this stereotype out, because even if, for example, you as a mother don’t want to be judgemental and pass stereotypes on to your children, unfortunately you’ll fail.
Stereotypes are passed on through commercials, billboards, fables, books, and movies. And such simple and easily accessible messages already recognised by our brain as familiar sell best. Like in the Bareja movie where Mr. Mamoń says that the songs we like best are ones that we already know.
You said that even if I wanted to avoid repeating stereotypes, I’m bound to fail. How come?
Because you have them imprinted and developed in the process of social learning and, whether you want it or not, you pass them on. And children learn by copying. They mimic a group that they want to belong to and people that are close to them, because this builds a community, affection and positive bonds.
You go for a walk with your child and you see a homeless person. You try not to judge, but all it takes is a moment, a brief grimace of revulsion, a gesture of disgust, an automatic step back or clenching your child’s hand, which you do without even realising it. Children are excellent radars and very quickly and unquestioningly record your reaction. Then they build up a whole story based on it and form a certain evaluation of a homeless person. Sometimes it’s totally unconscious.
Professor Bogusława Błoch and Professor Dariusz Doliński conducted a very interesting study among schoolchildren. They told students about a certain fictional social group. They labelled it because it is necessary in the stereotyping process, and made a single brief negative remark about the group. After some time, they met the same children to see what they had to say about the social group. It turned out that based on the brief negative remark, the children have built up a whole story. The remark was blown up by their minds and gaps were filled with further information according to the patters we have followed since time immemorial. This is how our mind works. It builds stories and fills gaps even at the cost of departing from the truth. This gives rise to stereotypes which affect our judgements, emotions and behaviour.
And there’s no way to fight it?
We may try not to judge, but it doesn’t come easy. We’ll keep acting mostly according to patterns, which come down to two dimensions. Susan Fiske, an American feminist and social psychologist who studies stereotypes, distinguishes two dimensions which describe the content of stereotypes – warmth and competence.
What does it mean?
Let’s take the simplest stereotype of a hausfrau. What do we think of her? Nice, warm, helpful, caring. We speak highly of her warmth, but at the same time think that she’s dumb, incompetent and not very resourceful or ambitious. This judgement breeds a certain, pitiful approach towards a hausfrau. A business woman, on the other hand, is considered intelligent and ambitious, but at the same time unscrupulous and cold. We envy her.
Do these dimensions always exclude each other?
Yes, although there are groups that get low marks in both dimensions, for example drug addicts or homeless people.
Are there people who score high in both dimensions?
If we judge others, then no, not really. A high judgement in both dimensions is reserved for one social group only – our own, the one we strongly identify with. So if you work and raise children at the same time, you will find working mothers intelligent and warm. If, of course, you value belonging to this group. Other people will use a stereotype and see working mothers as not very bright.
That’s not fair.
But this is exactly what stereotypes are like – ruthless and one-sided. Stereotypes generate plenty of errors in judgement. Of course, they are not the only cognitive errors. Let’s take the fundamental attribution error. It consists in thinking about someone else’s failures, for example the failures of someone else’s children, as resulting from their personal traits. If your neighbour’s child gets a fail grade at school, we believe that the child is a dunce and is simply not bright enough. However, if our child fails, we attribute it to external factors (not enough sleep, a bad day, distress).
Because of the attribution error we make judgements that obscure true reasons for the behaviours we observe in people.
Interestingly, when we think about ourselves and our successes, it works the opposite way. We attribute our successes to our internal traits and talents and we rarely think that we succeeded because we were lucky.
Doesn’t the way we judge others change depending on the social, political or economic context? After all, a hausfrau is viewed differently today than 40 or 50 years ago.
No, it doesn’t. It’s still the same stereotype, except that 40 years ago nobody reflected on it and the stereotypical approach could be seen in the way women were treated.
We often fail to identify our feelings towards certain groups in general, but it shows in our behaviour. I don’t want to offend anybody, so I will draw on my experience. The SWPS University is located in Warsaw’s Praga district where there’s quite a lot of people of Romani descent. If a Romani gets on the bus with me, it is quite possible that I will move away. There’s a stereotype of the gypsy thief, so I won’t even notice that I’m taking a step back and I won’t be aware of that.
And it won’t change even if the Romani are your best students?
No, it won’t. These automatic reactions can only change when I recognise them and start controlling them. So, if I sit on the examination board and a student of Romani descent enters the room, I can do two things – ignorantly use the stereotype and automatically condemn the student to a lower grade, or focus on this specific person and judge them based on their individual skills. But this process is extremely straining for our brain. It requires large cognitive resources, self-reflection and mental fitness.
And we like to cut corners...
And what makes the matter even more complicated is the fact that a judgement is quite often not even conscious. So, we judge unconsciously and this determines the way we act. This can often be seen in companies that discriminate against women.
How come?
Well, do you know a manager who will openly admit that he discriminates against women by offering them a lower salary and position?
No.
Well, that’s because it’s not like the manager consciously decides, “OK. She’s a woman, so she must be dumb. I will propose lower salary then”. The stereotype that a woman has lower competences may not resurface in a conscious judgement, but she will receive a lower salary.
Are women at a greater risk of judgement than men?
No, they aren’t. Both sexes are subject to similar pressure, but in different areas. Men possibly even more, because not that much attention is paid, for example, to assessing the competence of a man taking a paternity leave. And such a man is less valuable in the eyes of the employer, too.
Besides, I think that stereotypes are most dangerous when they concern groups and minorities that are not effectively protected.
LGBT?
That’s one example. It’s a group that is not protected and is also judged in terms of a third dimension, not distinguished by Susan Fiske, but mentioned by Bogdan Wojciszke. Non heterosexual people are considered immoral and all immoral behaviours are attributed to them, such as the cruelly unjust stigma of a gay person being a paedophile. This stereotype is spreading like a virus.
What’s even worse, it also begins to function within the LGBT community itself. In the United States, Élisabeth Bosson and her team conducted a study on this phenomenon. They asked homosexual men to play with children for a while. The sheer fact of interacting with a child triggered a negative stereotype of a homosexual man in the heads of the study subjects. And even though these men knew that they are not dangerous, they still were aware that they are seen as a threat. Therefore, they couldn’t help thinking that they had to be careful and cautious and keep a distance.
Unfortunately, each of us belongs to some group that is judged stereotypically. Sometimes we do it to ourselves. When I make a mistake while driving my car, I think that I drive “like a blonde”.
This phenomenon of stereotype threat was first demonstrated by American psychologists Steele and Aronson on Afro-American students, who are considered less smart. It turned out that when this stereotype was triggered in their heads, they did worse in tests. And if nobody reminded them of the stereotype, their scores were on par with those of white students.
It seems so simple! All we have to do is stop telling girls that they are worse in science and they’ll do better?
You touched upon an interesting issue, as new research has appeared on this subject. It needs some additional analysis, but its conclusions are interesting.
Two researchers, Stoet and Geary, analysed scores of lower secondary school pupils in PISA studies and checked how pupils performed in math tests in countries with different approach to gender equality. It turned out that in Scandinavian countries, in which gender equality is of great importance and where pupils choose courses themselves, girls don’t perform better at all. They hypothesised that the reason could be stereotypes, which, despite lack of discrimination, resurface through other channels and do their dirty job, causing girls, who are guided by them, to take no interest in science courses.
In post-Soviet states, math test scores of boys and girls are similar, perhaps because the economic pressure is greater there and this limits the impact of stereotypes. When choosing fields of study, girls take into consideration economic prospects rather than interests. They select science courses because it pays off, so the influence of stereotypes might be weaker in this case.
So is there a chance that we will fight them?
I don’t think so. They’ll always be there. This is how our brain works. Besides, the underlying mechanism of stereotypes is sometimes beneficial.
From what I hear, there are no benefits.
A stereotype is a kind of a pattern. Thanks to stereotypes, when entering a room, we know what to sit on, because a pattern of a chair allows us to locate the correct piece of furniture, even if it is a designer chair and has three legs. The stereotype itself does no harm, because it’s a kind of a cognitive structure. The harm is done by people who use stereotypes in their judgements and allow them to control their behaviour. Of course, there are certain benefits, because stereotypes are also used for building a positive image of one’s own social group and for building its unity. Stereotypes simplify the world, although sometimes excessively.
That’s why we shouldn’t fight stereotypes, but judging each other based on these automatic thoughts. We should fight the application of these patterns in our lives. We should be aware of their existence and be able to stop them before taking any action. That’s what procedures are for. Job applications in the United States often give no indication of the applicant’s sex. There’s an anecdote of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra where women were not admitted for a long time because, allegedly, they had lower competence than men. However, when a procedure of auditions behind the curtain was put into place, women joined the orchestra. They still raise controversy, but they are hired.
Procedures may be used in professional life, but using them in personal life and in relationships is more difficult.
It takes a lot of effort, understanding the mechanisms of our own mind and learning self-awareness. It also requires not taking ourselves too seriously and admitting to ourselves that we sometimes use stereotypes. On the other hand, it requires recognising that others also use stereotypes for various reasons, often not very consciously, and judge us. For example, a woman who is a working mother will always be judged at some point and labelled as a careerist who sacrifices her children or as a “crazy” mum. It’s not pleasant, but as long as such judgements don’t result in aggression or law violation – as in the case of black or LGBT people – we should ignore them and go on with our life. And accept that our brain is not perfect and has flaws, one of which is the inclination to cut corners.
Dominika Wantuch talks to Sylwia Bedyńska, PhD
Graphics: Arkadiusz Hapka
- Sylwia Bedyńska, PhD – a psychologist, head of the Institute of Fundamentals of Psychology at the SWPS University. She works at the Centre for Research on Social Relations. She studies stereotype threat, i.e. how negative labelling of group members’ abilities affects their actual social functioning and achievements.
The interview was published in "Wolna Sobota” magazine of "Gazeta Wyborcza” on 19 September 2020
