The standard social science approach presumes that human social preferences are culturally determined, essentially arbitrary, and thus highly variable across social contexts. While not denying a critical role for sociocultural processes, I suggest that human social preferences are significantly (but imperfectly) constrained by our evolved nature as ultrasocial animals. In light of the extensiveness of human social interdependence and group investment, I believe that people value individuals and groups seen as facilitating effective ingroup functioning and stigmatize those seen as threatening it. Based on a consideration of group processes and structures fundamental to group success, we have derived preliminary taxonomies of (1) specific social threats to which people are generally attuned, and (2) the specific functional emotional and behavioral responses these threats elicit.

Currently emerging from this “sociofunctional” approach are a set of studies supporting the above framework, revealing (1) the predicted presence of qualitatively different prejudice syndromes elicited by different ethnic, religious, ideological, and sexual orientation groups, (2) the qualitatively different emotional and behavioral reactions elicited by “deviant” members of cooperative teams as a function of the types of threat they pose to the internal workings of the team, and (3) that certain, predictable person characteristics are seen as important across different types of interdependent groups and relationships, whereas other characteristics vary substantially in importance across group and relationship types.

Neuberg, S. L., & Cottrell, C. A. (2008). Managing the threats and opportunitites afforded by human sociality. Group Dynamics, 21, 63-72.

Schaller, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (2008). Intergroup prejudices and intergroup conflicts. To appear in C. Crawford and D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Foundations of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, applications, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208-231.

Neuberg. S. L., & Cottrell, C. A. (2006). Evolutionary bases of prejudices. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 163-187). New York: Psychology Press.

Kurzban, R. O., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Managing ingroup and outgroup relations. In D. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 653-675). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different Emotional Reactions to Different Groups: A Sociofunctional Threat-Based Approach to ‘Prejudice.’ Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 88, 770-789.

Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., & Asher, T. (2000). Why people stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31-61). New York: Guilford.

Schaller, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (in preparation). The nature in prejudice(s).

Shapiro, J. R., Wilbur, C. J., Neuberg, S. L., Goldstein, N. J., & Hofer, B. (in preparation). Putting together the pieces: A sociofunctional account of intragroup relations.

Wilbur, C. J., Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (in preparation). A sociofunctional analysis of prejudice syndromes.

Who do we attend to, think about, and later remember? And how are the answers to this question linked to our goals at the moment? Douglas Kenrick, Mark Schaller, and I recently embarked on a program of research to explore the processes that influence the selective and automatic direction of perceptual and cognitive resources. We’ve been developing a conceptual framework that begins to articulate the role that fundamental social goals play in governing these processes. We focus, in particular, on the ways in which self-protection and mating goals selectively facilitate attention toward people who have characteristics relevant to those goals. Integrating theory and research on selective attention processes, the influence of goals on social cognition and behavior, and ecological theories of motivation and social cognition, our framework yields novel hypotheses about how self-protection and mating goals influence attention to, perceptions of, and cognitions about individuals who differ in gender, physical attractiveness, and ethnicity.

Duncan, L. A., Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Adaptive allocation of attention: Effects of sex and sociosexuality on visual attention to attractive opposite-sex faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 359-364.

Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Blackwell. K. C., & Smith, D. M. (2007). The confounded nature of angry men and happy women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 179-190.

Kenrick, D. T., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T., Becker, D. V. & Neuberg, S. L. (in press). How the mind warps: Processing disjunctions may elucidate ultimate functions. In J. P. Forgas, W. von Hippel, & M. Haselton (Eds.). The evolution of the social mind: Evolution and social cognition. New York: Psychology Press.

Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., Schaller, M., Becker, D. V., Griskevicius, V., & Maner, J. K. (2006). They all look the same to me (unless they're angry): From out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity. Psychological Science, 17, 836-840.

Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Becker, D. V., Butner, J., & Schaller, M. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 88, 63-78.

Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J. K., & Schaller, M. (2004). From evolved motives to everyday mentation: Evolution, goals, and cognition. In J. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and unconscious processes (pp. 133-152). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schaller, M., Faulkner, J., Park, J. H., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2004). Impressions of danger influence impressions of people: An evolutionary perspective on individual and collective cognition. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 231-247.

Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85, 1107-1120.

From stereotype threat to stereotype threats

When negative stereotypes about one's group are salient--for example, when one bubbles in one's gender or race prior to taking a standardized academic exam, when one is the only member of one's group in a stereotype-relevant situation, when one sees another group member acting stereotypically, etc.--one may become concerned by the possibility of confirming the negative stereotype. This "stereotype threat" can sometimes impair performance in the stereotyped domain, as when women or ethnic minorities underperform relative to their potential on adademic tests.

A review of existing literature reveals that the term "stereotype threat" often means quite different things to different researchers, and has been employed to describe and explain processes and phenomena that appear to be fundamentally distinct. Jenessa Shapiro and I have recently begun to explore a model of stereotype threat that complements existing models. Our Multi-Threat Framework posits six qualitatively distinct stereotype threats--to one's self-concept, group-concept, own personal reputation in the eyes of outgroup individuals, ingroup reputation in the eyes of outgroup individuals, own personal reputation in the eyes of ingroup individuals, and/or ingroup reputation in the eyes of ingroup individuals. We propose that these six threats constitute the core of the broader stereotype threat construct and provide the foundation for understanding additional, as of yet uncharacterized, stereotype threats. The proposed threats likely (1) have different eliciting conditions, (2) differentially peril those with different stigmatizing characteristics, (3) are mediated by somewhat different mechanisms, (4) are moderated by different person and situation factors, (5) are coped with and compensated for in different ways, and (6) require different interventions to overcome.

Relevant papers:  

Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a Multi-Threat Framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 107-130.

Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481-494.

Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (in press). When Do the Stigmatized Stigmatize? The Ironic Effects of Being Accountable to (Perceived) Majority Group Prejudice-Expression Norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Morse, K. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2004). How do holidays influence relationship processes and outcomes? Examining the instigating and catalytic effects of Valentine's Day. Personal Relationships, 11, 509-527.

Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D., Hoffman, J. C., & Russell, F. J. (1994). When we observe stigmatized and 'normal' individuals interacting: Stigma by association. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 196-209.

Judice, T. N., & Neuberg, S. L. (1998). When interviewers desire to confirm negative expectations: Self-fulfilling prophecies and inflated applicant self-perceptions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 175-190.

Smith, D. M., Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., & Biesanz, J. C. (1997). Target complicity in the confirmation and disconfirmation of erroneous perceiver expectations: Immediate and longer term implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 974-991.

Neuberg, S. L., West, S. G., Judice, T. N., & Thompson, M. M. (1997). On dimensionality, discriminant validity, and the role of psychometric analyses in personality theory and measurement: Reply to Kruglanski et al.’s (1997) Defense of the Need for Closure Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1017-1029.

Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., & West, S. G. (1997). What the Need for Closure Scale measures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1396-1412.

Neuberg, S. L. (1996). Social motives and expectancy-tinged social interactions. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 225-261). New York: The Guilford Press.

Neuberg, S. L. (1994). Expectancy-confirmation processes in stereotype-tinged social encounters: The moderating role of social goals. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 103-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal Need for Structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113-131.

Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., Virdin, L. M., & Carrillo, M. A. (1993). Perceiver self-presentational goals as moderators of expectancy influences: Ingratiation and the disconfirmation of negative expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 409-420.

Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press.

Neuberg, S.L. (1989). The goal of forming accurate impressions during social interactions: Attenuating the impact of negative expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 374-386.

Neuberg, S.L., & Fiske, S.T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431-444. [reprinted in M. A. Hogg (2002), Sage benchmarks in psychology: Social psychology. London: Sage.]

Fiske, S.T., Neuberg, S.L., Beattie, A.E., & Milberg, S.J. (1987). Category-based and attribute-based reactions to others: Some informational conditions of stereotyping and individuating processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 399-427.