Affective meanings of stereotyped social groups in cross-cultural comparison

This paper compares affective meanings of various stereotyped social groups in U.S., German, and Japanese cultures along the three basic dimensions of emotional experience (evaluation, potency, and activity). Analyses exploring similarities in affective meanings between respondents revealed considerable consensus within cultures, but less across cultures. These analyses indicated greater consensus for the U.S. and German sample than for the Japanese sample, supporting past research which indicates that Japanese social perception is more contextualized than in Western cultures. Analyses of cross-cultural differences also identified meaningful patterns of culture-specific deviation, interpretable in terms of the placement of each national sample on cultural dimensions such as power distance, masculinity, and individualism/collectivism. We argue that affective meanings reflect the social order of specific cultures, making variations in consensus significant as affective meanings guide intergroup behavior and emotion.

The Affective Structure of Stereotype Content

Affect control theory and the stereotype content model share explanatory goals and employ compatible measurement strategies but have developed in largely separate literatures. The present article examines the models’ commensurability and discusses new insights that can be gained by comparing theories. We first demonstrate that the unique measurement dimensions used by each theory (evaluation/potency/activity vs. warmth/competence) describe much of the same semantic content. We then show how simulation techniques developed by affect control theorists can be applied to the study of interactions with stereotyped groups. These simulations indicate broad consistencies between the theories’ predictions but highlight three distinctive emphases of affect control theory. Specifically, affect control models predict that actors are motivated to behave in ways that (1) are consistent with self-meanings, (2) maintain cultural norms about the suitability of behaviors and emotions to role relations, and (3) account for behavior and emotion in prior interactions.