Teaching Students About Stereotypes, Prejudice,

and Discrimination: An Interview With Susan Fiske

Amy Hackney
Georgia Southern University

Susan T. Fiske is professor of psychology, Princeton University

Fiske: My great-grandmother and grandmother were suffra-
(PhD, Harvard University; honorary doctorate, Université
gists (never suffragettes!), and my mother worked with
Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). She wrote Social
urban community groups to improve their neighbor-
Cognition (with Taylor) on how people make sense of each
hoods. I came of age in the 1960s and 1970s, so I was
other. Currently, she investigates emotional prejudices (pity,
primed to notice injustice. During the 1968 Democratic
contempt, envy, and pride) at cultural, interpersonal, and
Convention in Chicago, National Guard Troops
neural levels. She won the American Psychological
camped out on the Midway (park) in our neighbor-
Association’s Early Career Award for Distinguished
hood, so the national protests became salient to me. I
Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest for
went to a racially integrated school and grew up with a
antidiscrimination testimony and the Society for the
variety of ethnicities and religions. However, I
Psychological Study of Social Issues’ Allport Intergroup
noticed in high school that cliques formed along racial
Relations Award for ambivalent sexism theory (with Glick). She
and eth- nic, as well as social class lines. When I went to
edits the Annual Review of Psychology (with Schacter and
college, I protested the Vietnam War and sex-biased
Kazdin) and the Handbook of Social Psychology (with Gilbert
admissions.
and Lindzey). She just finished Social Beings: A Core Motives
Hackney: How did you relate these experiences to psy-
Approach to Social Psychology and a year as President of the
chology?
American Psy- chological Society.
Fiske: One experience made me realize that psychology was
Amy Hackney received her BA in psychology from Indiana
relevant to injustice. In a personality course, I
Uni- versity and her MS and PhD in social psychology from Saint
realized that you could always tell a test-inventor’s
Louis University. She began her career as an assistant professor of
favored end of every personality dimension. There
psychol- ogy at Georgia Southern University in the Fall of 2003. She
was always a healthy, better way to be, and usually it
teaches courses in social psychology, psychology and law,
was identified with the (male) researcher’s own
psychology of gen- der, and research methods. She conducts
perspective. I started thinking about how the
research on racial and gen- der stereotypes and prejudice. She is
researchers’ perspectives in- formed how they framed,
particularly interested in how stereotypes and prejudice affect
labeled, and studied the prob- lem. For example, field
jury decision making and how mi- nority members experience
dependence showed an inability to maintain a
and cope with prejudice.
personal sense of which way is up, being led astray
by the context. Women and minorities turned out
Hackney: You’ve written that your social conscience di- to be at the “wrong” (field-dependent) end of the
rected you toward becoming a social psychologist. scale. Well, why not call it field sensitivity? Framed
What made you first realize the social injustices of this way, it sounds like maybe a good personal- ity trait
our world? to have. I realized that people’s values shape their
research, so we needed people with a variety of

values to do methodologically rigorous research on hy-
potheses that matter to them. The best science will tri-
umph when a variety of perspectives come to bear on a
problem. That notion made me realize I had to have the
right tools or else my perspectives would be ignored.
Hackney: What tool have you found most useful in your
work?
Fiske: I think the discipline of having to operationalize
ideas. When you have to choose a working definition of
your idea, then you have to be very clear about what
it is. For example, I had a vague sense that people pay
at- tention to other peoples’ individual (counter-
stereotypic) characteristics when it is sufficiently im-
portant to do so. Eventually, we operationalized that
idea as looking at inconsistency under conditions of
high interdependence. The data we gathered then
made us think harder about how the intergroup contact
hypothesis actually works in terms of nitty gritty mecha-
nisms—but it was all driven by a concern that stereo-
types cause people to gloss over individual qualities.
Hackney: It seems that today’s cultural climate is not as vig-
ilant against injustices as the climate in the 1960s and
1970s was. Do you have any teaching strategies to help
undergraduate students become aware of social justice
issues?
Fiske: Oh yes. One of the first things I do in my Psychology of
 Racism class—but you could easily do it in Introductory
have been described as the cognitive component of
Psychology (and I have done it in Introductory Social
an attitude, prejudice the affective component, and
Psychology)—is to get everyone to list several answers
dis- crimination the behavioral component. What do
to the question “Who am I?” Then I ask them to draw a
we know about the temporal development of these
line under what they have written so far and list their
compo- nents? For example, does one tend to develop
ethnic- ity. Almost to a person, the White students do
negative thoughts that then lead to negative emotions?
not spon- taneously list their race (a few will say Italian-
Or might one have a negative feeling first, which is then
American, and so on, but almost never White or
justified by negative thoughts?
European Ameri- can). Almost to a person, the
Fiske: I don’t think we really know yet. We do know that so-
students of color (espe- cially Black, Latino, and
cial structure can cause stereotypes. People view com-
Asian, but sometimes also the Jewish students) will
petitive groups as not being nice and high-status groups
spontaneously list their ethnicity. I collect my students’
as being competent. This finding is reliable across
anonymous answers and when I present the data to
American, European, and Asian samples. Amy Cuddy,
them in a2×2 matrix (White/Non- White Student ×
Peter Glick, and I have some preliminary
Mention/No Mention of Ethnicity), they are
correlational evidence for a sequence of stereotypes
impressed. Another thing I do as a didactic exer- cise is
leading to emo- tional prejudices leading to
the Implicit Association Test (IAT) in class (see
behavioral tendencies (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, under
http://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit). People can feel
review).
how much longer the counterstereotypic associations
Hackney: Is there any evidence that one component is
take. A third exercise involves calling out students’
more harmful to a target than another? That is,
names to separate them into groups, then asking
which has a more detrimental consequence on the
them why they think they have been divided up—
tar- get—stereotypes, prejudice, or discrimination?
what their group has in common, and so on. This
Fiske: Discrimination is illegal; biased thoughts and feelings
exercise prompts them to discuss social identity. All
are not. However, if you put both stereotypes and emo-
three exercises pro- voke a lot of discussion. I also
tional prejudices in the equation, it’s the emotions that
bring in my cultural bag- gage on the first day of class:
predict discrimination the most strongly. Sylvan
a paper bag containing arti- facts symbolizing my varied
Tomkins often described emotions as the motor for be-
background. For example, I bring both a lace collar
havior (as cited in Zajonc, 1998).
from my Yankee great- grandmother and a tie-dye
Hackney: How do you introduce students to this sequential
scarf from my own hippie days. I bring a photo of my
model? Do you have any good examples?
Jewish great-grandparents, too, as well as a strip of
Fiske: I think it’s intuitive to students that gut reactions are
kente cloth from one of several visits to my brother
stronger than abstract concepts. I show them our meta-
in Africa. Then I get them to do the same for the next
analytic results. The stereotype–behavior correlation
class and introduce themselves to each other in
(.20) is half the emotional prejudice–behavior correla-
groups of two to four.
tion (.38). A bar graph makes this point very clear.
Hackney: Those are great lead-in activities for lectures on
Hackney: You’ve shown recently that stereotypes of
stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Stereotypes
outgroups are composed of two independent dimen-
sions—warmth and competence (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick,
& Xu, 2002). Can you describe these research findings?
Fiske: People want to know if strangers are friend or foe (i.e.,
allies or competitors). From this perception follows
strangers’ alleged warmth, friendliness, and
trustworthi- ness. People then want to know whether
the strangers can act on their own intentions (e.g., high
status or not). From this perception follows the
strangers’ alleged com- petence, intelligence, and
skill. We have found the Warmth × Competence
space in every culture we have tested, with their own
societal groups, so we think it is a basic human
proclivity to group people this way (Cuddy et al., in
press). In most cultures, perceived competition predicts
perceived lack of warmth in competitors, and in every
culture, perceived status predicts perceived com-
petence. It’s odd that we would assume our competitors
are not nice people and that high-status people
automat- ically deserve it, but we do.
Hackney: Why do you think that warmth and status are
such important dimensions? Do these dimensions have
some special meaning to humans?
Fiske: I think people have a core social motive to belong.
Thus, the first thing people want to know about
other people is whether they are with them or
against them—in my group or not in my group. You
can make a
 social evolutionary argument for this point. I tell stu-
borers, versus now when they are seen as highly
dents about the health psychology data showing cardio-
competent entrepreneurs. Blacks are now viewed en-
vascular and immune risks to social isolates. I point out
tirely differently depending on whether they are per-
that throughout human history, being banished from
ceived to be rich or poor. Women are also viewed differ-
the group has amounted to a death sentence. People
ently depending on their social status, which is the basis
need other people to survive and thrive, so they are mo-
of Peter Glick’s and my ambivalent sexism theory
tivated to identify and stay close to ingroup others. The
(Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001). So definitely, yes, as
other dimension, status, tells you whether the others
groups change social position, the stereotypes of them
can act effectively on their intentions. Some ingroup
also change. These stereotypes are not accurate,
others are low status and cannot act on behalf of the
though, because the entire group gets lumped wherever
group but instead need the group’s help (e.g., children,
the prototypic members are located.
older people, those with disabilities, some people down
Hackney: You’ve mentioned stereotypes based on ethnic-
on their luck). Outgroup others who are low status can
ity, gender, age, sexual orientation, and so on. Does
be ignored. High-status people can enact their will,
there seem to be any qualitative difference in these
whether it is in your favor or not. One attends
kinds of stereotypes?
upward because those people control one’s
Fiske: Some stereotypes are unambivalently positive (e.g.,
outcomes.
us and our allies) or negative (e.g., drug dealers, poor
Hackney: How do you introduce these ideas to your students?
people, homeless people), whereas others are ambiva-
Fiske: I sometimes introduce the ingroup–outgroup idea by
lent. One kind of ambivalence targets pitied groups
walking into class and reading students’ names off a list,
(e.g., older people, people with disabilities), and the
dividing them into a few groups, as if there is a pattern. I
other kind targets envied groups (e.g., Asians, Jews,
ask them to figure out the basis for the division—what
rich people). The pitied and envied groups each elicit a
they have in common within their group. Usually
mix of positive and negative behavior, according to
they find something, but then someone suggests that
work with Amy Cuddy (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick,
maybe the groups are random, which in fact they are.
under review). Pitied groups get active help but
As for status and power, I’ve never done this activity,
passive ne- glect, whereas envied groups get passive
but I think the Star Power exercise (people are
cooperation but active harm when the chips are down.
divided ran- domly into arbitrary groups and given
Both of these kinds of stereotypes differ from the active
subtle rules for trading points, which results in one
and passive harm (attack and neglecting) directed
group becoming privileged over time; for details, see
toward the unambivalently negative groups.
Elihu, 1974) would be a brilliant, though time-
Hackney: After the recent presidential election, my stu-
consuming way to demon- strate status differences. It
dents and I discussed whether Americans would elect a
creates a microcosm of status hierarchies in the
White female president or a Black male president first.
classroom.
Interestingly, the White female students felt certain
Hackney: You’ve also written a lot about the importance of
that a Black male would be elected first, but both
social power in the development of stereotypes and
male and female Black students felt that a White
prejudice (Fiske, 1993; Fiske & Berdahl, in press).
female would be elected first. Can social
Can you describe this research?
psychological re- search give insight to these
Fiske: By our definition, people with power (often corre-
contrasting answers? That is, do we know what the
lated with status) control resources. Therefore they do
quantitative difference is in the extent to which we
not depend as much on other people. They can do what
stereotype or are prejudiced against different group
they want, which may mean that they act for good or ill.
members?
Because they do not depend on others, they do not need
Fiske: Quantitative degrees of prejudice differ on two di-
to attend to them as much. I think this tendency makes
mensions. Black professionals are seen as highly compe-
them vulnerable to using their most available stereo-
tent but not very warm. Female professionals are seen
types, by default. Stephanie Goodwin, my
as less warm than male professionals, so I suspect
collaborator in some of this work, pointed out that
the White female students are right, but we’ll see.
they may also want actively to maintain their
These, of course, are public reports. The IAT data
position, so they may also stereotype by design to
indicate warmth toward women generically, but that
justify their position (Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, &
picks up people’s own mothers, not female political
Yzerbyt, 2000). Sometimes, because of personality,
candidates. People like and respect women, as Alice
values, or situation, power hold- ers may feel
Eagly has often noted, but it is less clear that people
responsible for others and so attend care- fully to them
want women in po- sitions of power, as her work also
as individuals. People may use power for greed or
indicates (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). It’s
for good.
hard to compare ap- ples and oranges. I always avoid
Hackney: Do these research findings imply that the content
talking about which group is most oppressed. It’s
of stereotypes will change as the power of different
divisive and it doesn’t end up prioritizing any group’s
groups change or is the content of stereotypes stable?
concerns. It is better to ac- knowledge that there are
Fiske: Our work on the stereotype content model suggests
unique historical and current features to each group’s
that as groups’ perceived status and perceived coopera-
situation, but that some com- mon ground occurs in
tiveness improves, stereotypes of them will change ac-
the press for social justice. Preju- dices run in packs, so
cordingly (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, under review). We
combating one may well combat others.
have seen this process happen historically with Chinese
immigrants in the 1850s, who were seen as peasant la-
Hackney: You’ve also written about the importance of social
motivation (Fiske, 2004). How do social motives lead to
stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination? Does one
motivation seem to be more important than another? Or
are the motivations dependent on the situation?
Fiske: From teaching introductory social psychology in pub-
lic and private universities, to large lecture, small hon-
ors, and graduate proseminars, I became frustrated
with the lack of integrative themes for teaching this
fabulous material. In class I identify the core social
motives that personality and social psychologists keep
nominating over the years. I lay out an argument that
belonging is the most basic of the core social motives,
and of course, it means that we are inherently
oriented toward other people in order to survive and
thrive. From this point follows “cognitive” motives
for socially shared under- standing and for a sense of
control, as well as “affective” motives for enhancing
self and trusting others. These motives appear and
reappear throughout social psy- chology, but the point
here is that intergroup biases re- late to each of these
motives.
Hackney: What have you found to be the most effective
way to explain this complex point to students?
Fiske: As a BUC(k)ET of motives (belonging, understand-
ing, controlling, enhancing self, and trusting others),
and then weaving them into every topic in the course. I
believe in teaching from integrative themes. Social psy-
chology is wonderful, but it is often taught like by
throwing a handful of confetti at students. I believe in
streamers, so I constructed these themes, from what so-
cial and personality psychologists have been saying for
100 years. It tends to pull things together.
Hackney: Going back to the quantitative differences in ste-
reotypes and prejudice, some of my minority students
feel that racial prejudice will never end in the U.S.
and that it is pointless to keep hoping and trying.
Have you run across these feelings in your students?
How do you respond?
Fiske: Every time I teach psychology of racism, the students
get depressed halfway through the semester after I tell
them how automatic and natural it is to favor people
like themselves. We spend the rest of the semester look-
ing at solutions (constructive contact, liberal educa-
tion, multicultural population shifts). I remind them,
though, of how far we have come.
Hackney: Speaking of solutions, I have my students partici-
pate in a day of social justice, in which they are chal-
lenged to live each minute of that day in an inclusive,
unprejudiced, and nondiscriminatory way as possible
(adopted from Plous, 2003). Some students com-
mented that this assignment was mentally exhausting,
even stressful, and for that reason, they did not think it
was possible to live each day with social justice in mind.
How would you respond to these students?
Fiske: It takes practice. Everyone slips up. However, it can
become a habit of the heart and mind, even becoming
an enthusiasm for new cultural experiences. Being a
student of psychology (especially social psychology and
psychology of prejudice) shows how open they already
are.
Hackney: As a final note, can you suggest any tips on effec-
tive ways of helping students see the value of social psy-
chology in dealing with the many social ills of our time?
Fiske: Become a social psychologist—or a research assistant
to one!
Resources
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (under review). The BIAS
map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S.,
Leyens, J., Bond, M. H., Croizet, J., Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E.,
Htun, T. T., Yamamoto, M., Kim, H., Maio, G., Perry, J.,
Petkova, K., Todorov, V., Rodríguez-Bailó n, R., Morales, E.,
Moya, M., Palacios, M., Smith, V., Perez, R., Vala, J., & Ziegler, R.
(in press). Toward pancultural principles of stereotyping. British
Journal of So- cial Psychology.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender
and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 111, 3–22.
Elihu, C. (1974). An assessment of the Star Power game.
Simulation and Games, 5, 219–221.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power
on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social
psy- chology. New York: Wiley.
Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (in press). Social power. In A. Kruglanski
& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Ahandbook of basic princi-
ples (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of
(often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth re-
spectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
33, pp. 115–188). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000).
Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates
by default and by design. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations,
3, 227–256.
Plous, S. (2003). Day of social justice. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from
http://www.socialpsychology.org/teach/daysj.htm
Zajonc, R. B. (1998). Emotions. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 591–632). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Note
Send correspondence to Amy Hackney, Psychology Department,
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460; e-mail:
ahackney@georgiasouthern.edu.