Ambivalent stereotypes link to peace, conflict and inequality across 38 nations

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift


A cross-national study, 49 samples in 38 nations, N=4,344, investigates whether national peace and conflict reflect ambivalent
warmth-competence stereotypes: High-conflict societies (Pakistan)
may need clearcut, unambivalent group images-distinguishing
friends from foes. Highly peaceful countries (Denmark) also may
need less ambivalence because most groups occupy the shared
national identity, with only a few outcasts. Finally, nations with
intermediate conflict (U.S.) may need ambivalence to justify more
complex intergroup-system stability. Using the Global Peace Index
to measure conflict, a curvilinear (quadratic) relationship between
ambivalence and conflict highlights how both extremely peaceful and extremely conflictual countries display lower stereotype
ambivalence, whereas countries intermediate on peace-conflict
present higher ambivalence. These data also replicated a linear
inequality-ambivalence relationship.


  • Federica Durante
  • Susan T Fiske
  • Michele Gelfand
  • Franca Crippa
  • Chiara Suttora
  • Amelia Stillwell
  • Frank Asbrock
  • Zeynep Aycan
  • Hege H Bye
  • Rickard Carlsson
  • Fredrik Björklund
  • Munqith Daghir
  • Armando Geller
  • Christian Albrekt Larsen
  • Hamid Latif
  • Tuuli Anna Mähönen
  • Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti
  • Ali Teymoori
Enheter & grupper
Externa organisationer
  • University of Milano-Bicocca
  • Princeton University
  • University of Maryland
  • Stanford University
  • Chemnitz University of Technology
  • Koc University
  • Linnaeus University
  • Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies (IACSS)
  • Scensei, Zurich
  • Aalborg University
  • The Egyptian Research and Training Center
  • University of Helsinki
  • University of Bordeaux
  • University of Bergen

Ämnesklassifikation (UKÄ) – OBLIGATORISK

  • Psykologi


Sidor (från-till)669–674
TidskriftProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Tidigt onlinedatum2017 jan 9
StatusPublished - 2017
Peer review utfördJa