Three models of stereotype change
Rothbart (1981) distinguished two ways stereotypes change. The bookkeeping model holds that stereotypes are revised gradually as disconfirming information accumulates piece by piece, while the conversion model holds that a single dramatic disconfirming instance can change a stereotype suddenly. The subtyping model was added to these. As in Taylor's (1981) categorization approach, people group disconfirming cases into separate subtypes, such as "female executives" or "exceptional individuals," and detach them from the superordinate category. As a result, the stereotype survives despite disconfirmation.
Weber and Crocker's experiment
Weber and Crocker (1983) presented participants with information about members of groups such as corporate lawyers and librarians, distributing stereotype-inconsistent information either evenly across many members or concentrated in a few. Stereotypes changed more when disconfirming information was dispersed across many members; when it was concentrated in a few, those people were split off as exceptions and change was small. The results supported the bookkeeping and subtyping models but not the conversion model. Johnston and Hewstone (1992) showed that the more typical disconfirmers were in other respects, the less subtyping occurred and the greater the stereotype change.
Motivation and conditions for change
Kunda and Oleson (1995) showed that when people encounter a disconfirming case, they seize on even trivial differences, such as "that person is from a big city," as grounds for setting the person aside as an exception. Hewstone (1994) and Richards and Hewstone (2001) distinguished subtyping, which fences off disconfirmers as exceptions, from subgrouping, which divides a group into several diverse subgroups. Subgrouping makes people aware of variability within the group and is thought to aid stereotype change. This research connects to the argument that the effects of contact generalize when outgroup members encountered are seen not as exceptions but as representative of their group.
FAQ
- What is the subtyping model in simple terms?
- Even when you meet someone who defies a stereotype, you file them away as "an exception," so your view of the group as a whole stays the same.
- What conditions help stereotypes change?
- Stereotypes change more when disconfirming cases are spread across many people and those people are otherwise typical of the group.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Rothbart, M. (1981). Memory processes and social beliefs. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 145–181). Erlbaum. Introduced the bookkeeping and conversion models.
- Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 961–977. The classic experiment comparing the three models.
- Johnston, L., & Hewstone, M. (1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: (3) Subtyping and the perceived typicality of disconfirming group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(4), 360–386. Typicality of disconfirmers drives subtyping.
- Hewstone, M. (1994). Revision and change of stereotypic beliefs: In search of the elusive subtyping model. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 69–109. Comprehensive review of stereotype change.
- Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 565–579. People find grounds to fence off deviants.
- Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 52–73. Distinguishes subtyping from subgrouping.
- Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 83–114). Erlbaum. Categorization view of how subcategories form.