↓ Skip to main content

Open-Minded Midwifes, Literate Butchers, and Greedy Hooligans—The Independent Contributions of Stereotype Valence and Consistency on Evaluative Judgments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Open-Minded Midwifes, Literate Butchers, and Greedy Hooligans—The Independent Contributions of Stereotype Valence and Consistency on Evaluative Judgments
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01723
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Schubert, Anita Körner, Berit Lindau, Fritz Strack, Sascha Topolinski

Abstract

Do people evaluate an open-minded midwife less positively than a caring midwife? Both open-minded and caring are generally seen as positive attributes. However, consistency varies-the attribute caring is consistent with the midwife stereotype while open-minded is not. In general, both stimulus valence and consistency can influence evaluations. Six experiments investigated the respective influence of valence and consistency on evaluative judgments in the domain of stereotyping. In an impression formation paradigm, valence and consistency of stereotypic information about target persons were manipulated orthogonally and spontaneous evaluations of these target persons were measured. Valence reliably influenced evaluations. However, for strongly valenced stereotypes, no effect of consistency was observed. Parameters possibly preventing the occurrence of consistency effects were ruled out, specifically, valence of inconsistent attributes, processing priority of category information, and impression formation instructions. However, consistency had subtle effects on evaluative judgments if the information about a target person was not strongly valenced and experimental conditions were optimal. Concluding, in principle, both stereotype valence and consistency can play a role in evaluative judgments of stereotypic target persons. However, the more subtle influence of consistency does not seem to substantially influence evaluations of stereotyped target persons. Implications for fluency research and stereotype disconfirmation are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Researcher 2 11%
Unspecified 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 9 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Unknown 9 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,844
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,473
of 30,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,546
of 324,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#504
of 600 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 600 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.