Subtyping and Subgrouping: Processes for the Prevention and Promotion of Stereotype Change

Two processes of stereotyping, subtyping and subgrouping, are compared. Subtyping occurs when perceivers respond to members of a target group who disconfirm their stereotypes by seeing them as exceptions to the rule and placing them in a separate subcategory apart from members who confirm the stereotype. The more recently defined process of subgrouping refers to the perceiver's organization of information in terms of clusters of individuals based on their similarities and differences; subgroups can include confirmers and disconfirmers. We consider how subtypes and subgroups are defined, operationalized, and measured, their consequences for stereotype change, and the role of typicality. It is concluded that the clearest difference between subtyping and subgrouping is in terms of their consequences (subtyping leads to the preservation and subgrouping to differentiation of the stereotype). There are, however, some similarities between the processes, and attention is drawn to whatfuture research is required, both to deepen our knowledge of each process and clarify their distinction.

Exclusion As Self-Protection

Three studies examined the consequences of subtyping ingroup members for evaluations of the self. The first study examined the impact of subtyping high-performing or low-performing ingroup members on self-evaluations. Study 2 employed an alternative manipulation of subtyping. Given the observed benefits of subtyping low-performing ingroup members for the group and the benefits of subtyping high-performing ingroup members for the self, Study 3 investigated participants’ subtyping target selection (i.e., high-performing vs. low-performing ingroup members) when the focus of the sorting task was on self-evaluations or group evaluations. In sum, these studies suggest that subtyping ingroup members can serve a self-protective function.