Static Versus Dynamic Theories and the Perception of Groups: Different Routes to Different Destinations

Research on lay theories suggests that people who begin the task of social perception with different starting assumptions follow different cognitive paths and reach different social endpoints. In this article, we show how laypeople’s fixed (entity) versus dynamic (incremental) theories of human nature foster different meaning systems for interpreting and responding to the same group information. Using research with adults and children, in the United States and East Asia, and concerning familiar and novel groups, we document how these theories influence susceptibility to stereotyping, perceptions of group homogeneity, the ultimate attribution error, intergroup bias, and discriminatory behavior. Further, we discuss social-cultural factors that produce and perpetuate these theories as well as why and when these theories are maintained and changed. The implications of this work for reducing stereotyping and intergroup conflict are considered.