The belief that ethnic majorities dominate ethnic minorities informs research on intergroup processes. This belief can lead to the social heuristic that the ethnic majority sets an upper limit that minority groups cannot surpass, but this possibility has not received much attention. In three studies of perceived income, we examined how this heuristic, which we term the White ceiling heuristic leads people to inaccurately estimate the income of a minority group that surpasses the majority. We found that Asian Americans, whose median income has surpassed White median income for nearly three decades, are still perceived as making less than Whites, with the least accurate estimations being made by people who strongly believe that Whites are privileged. In contrast, income estimates for other minorities were fairly accurate. Thus, perceptions of minorities are shaped both by stereotype content and a heuristic.

Introduction

The belief that ethnic majorities dominate ethnic minorities has been supported by considerable research on intergroup processes. Scholars have labeled this belief the majority–minority paradigm [1] or minority disadvantage [2]. In the North American context, this belief has also been called White privilege [3], and has been promoted in higher-education pedagogy [4], [5]. Nevertheless, there are also instances in which ethnic minorities dominate a majority or surpass a majority in some indicator of status [6].

Given this state of affairs, how do people perceive members of an ethnic minority that does not conform to stereotypes held about minorities? It is possible that people rely on an aggregate stereotype, but it is also possible that people rely on a social heuristic that minorities cannot surpass the majority, which we term the White ceiling heuristic in the American context. Perceptions of groups may reflect a combination of both stereotypical thinking and the operation of the heuristic. The present study examined these possibilities by focusing on lay perceptions of the incomes of different ethnic groups in the US, and by analyzing these perceptions in terms of stereotypic and heuristic thinking.

Stereotypic and Heuristic Information No single definition of stereotype has been consistently used by social psychologists, but the scholarly consensus is that “stereotypes involve ascribing characteristics to different social groups or segments of society” [7]. According to the Evaluation–Potency–Activation (EPA) model, stereotypes exist in the mind, and their activation hinges on the potency (or latency) of the stereotype [8]. Stereotypes vary in the evaluative dimension (positive–negative), such that stereotypes can be anywhere on a spectrum between highly favorable and highly unfavorable. Stereotypes vary in terms of accuracy, some stereotypes being more accurate than others [7]. And stereotypes vary in terms of whether they are modeled at the population level or individual level. For instance, if American adults, on average, believe that the typical income of professors is $50,000, this constitutes a population-level stereotype about professors. This type of stereotype is termed a consensual or cultural stereotype in the EPA model. Of course, referring to such a belief as a stereotype only makes sense if the distribution of estimates is normal, and the standard deviation of estimates is reasonably low. These two conditions are typically satisfied. If an individual holds the belief that the typical income of professors is $50,000, this constitutes an individual-level stereotype about professors. This type of stereotype is termed a personal stereotype [7]. Cultural stereotypes are typically modeled by averaging the personal stereotypes of a sample. In the current study, we focused on cultural stereotypes about race (or ethnicity) and income. Our primary focus was on the accuracy of such stereotypes, although we were also concerned with the evaluative dimension, which we discuss later. We did not focus on potency. Much psychological research on stereotypes (and the related topics of prejudice and discrimination) has focused on irrational negative stereotypes that powerful groups hold about subordinate groups [7]. Thus, the study of stereotypes has become intertwined with the study of hierarchical relationships, with only a small group of social psychologists focusing on stereotype accuracy [9]–[11]. This neglect of stereotype accuracy may also arise from skepticism about whether accuracy can be quantitatively modeled and whether accuracy can ever be achieved. Regardless, such concerns have been comprehensively rebutted by research which has established ways of measuring accuracy and demonstrated that stereotypes vary in their accuracy [10]. Within the American context, social scientists who use the hierarchical paradigm sometimes group all ethnic minorities together and term them people of color [12]–[16]. This label does not necessarily indicate that non-White subgroups are homogeneous; rather, it reflects a common experience of White racism. Nevertheless, the inclusive term people of color can be misleading because it suggests that these subgroups share some common attributes, even though category membership depends upon the lack of an attribute (i.e., Whiteness). Because the term people of color is inclusive rather than exclusive, it can lead to the perception that non-Whites are a well-defined group of people who are disadvantaged relative to Whites. Even though this bipartite division permits the acknowledgment of numerous inter-group differences among non-Whites, it also suggests that Whites dominate non-Whites, and that Whites may set the ceiling on any measure of success [17]. Thus, the use of the term people of color may make it more difficult to perceive heterogeneity on dimensions such as income, where Whites are both above and below non-White subgroups. Given the dominance of this hierarchical paradigm during the past century—both within scholarship and everyday life [12], [16]—the paradigm has likely permeated the American consciousness. As a result, Americans might not only hold stereotypic beliefs about each ethnic group, but also perceive that a stable racial hierarchy underlies society, in which Whites outrank all ethnic minorities. Because hierarchies are easily detected and remembered [18], people may consequently create and apply a heuristic whereby Whites are seen as generally outranking non-Whites. The current study examined whether this heuristic exists, and whether it is relevant to perceptions of income. We gathered lay estimates of the incomes of four ethnic groups that are commonly distinguished: Asian, Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White. Using the mean difference of estimated and actual incomes, we examined if Asian-American income, which anomalously surpasses White income, is subject to significant underestimation in accordance with a White ceiling heuristic.

Asian-Americans and Income We focused on Asian-American income because Asian-Americans are an anomalous ethnic minority. Along with other ethnic minorities, Asian Americans were victims of severe discrimination in the past [19]–[21]. This discrimination reached a nadir during the Second World War when Japanese Americans were imprisoned in concentration camps [22]. Nevertheless, unlike most other American ethnic minorities, Asian Americans have surpassed White Americans in two important socioeconomic indicators: education and income. The average education level of Asian Americans is higher than that of Whites, and median Asian-American income surpassed White income about three decades ago [23], [24]. Income heterogeneity exists among Asian-Americans. Consider the median incomes of its six largest subcategories, who comprise approximately 83% of the Asian-American population: Indian ($88,000), Filipino ($75,000), Japanese ($65,390), Chinese ($65,050), Vietnamese ($53,400), and Korean ($50,000) [25]. Two of these subgroups have median incomes that are marginally lower than White American income ($56,178). Nevertheless, the incomes of Asian-Americans as a collective surpass White median income. One could argue that the Asian American anomaly only indicates a trivial shift in the racial hierarchy, given that education and income levels refer to merely one group on merely two dimensions. This counterargument fails because Asians are not merely one group among a hundred, but rather one group among three, the other two being Hispanics and Blacks. (We exclude Native Americans because they are mostly residentially segregated from the rest of the populace.) Given the “denominator” of three, an increase in the “numerator” from zero to one constitutes a dramatic shift. Furthermore, education and income are not marginal social indicators, but rather primary indicators of socioeconomic status (SES), a major factor in social research. In addition, this change is not ephemeral. As noted above, Asian income surpassed White income approximately three decades ago and has consistently remained higher [23], [24]. The reasons for Asian-American socioeconomic success involve manifold sociological and psychological factors. In the labor market, wage discrimination against Asian-American men has ended [29]. Culturally, Asian Americans, particularly Asian-American men, are driven by the cultural norm of high educational achievement [30], [31]. Psychologically, stereotype lift enhances Asian performance in domains where Asians are positively stereotyped [32], [33]. Stereotype lift is the converse of stereotype threat, which is the phenomenon of negative stereotypes triggering anxiety among targets of the stereotype. These factors likely converge to raise Asian-American income and education levels, causing people to perceive Asians as a model minority, a stereotype that is controversial but sociologically accurate in some respects [1], [34]. Some criticism has been leveled at attempts to show the accuracy of this stereotype. To falsify the stereotype, some social scientists have pointed out that Hmong Asians have a particularly low median income, and thus one should not treat Asians as generally well off. In evaluating such suggestions, it is important to note that Hmong Asians constitute only 4% of Asian-Americans. The White population can also be divided ethnically into subgroups, and some of these (e.g., the Amish) have low median incomes [1]. Researchers who rely on the stereotype content model (SCM) also claim that Asians are victims of negative prejudice. According to the SCM, warmth and competence are the two primary dimensions on which stereotypes vary. In this two-dimensional framework, Asians are typically evaluated by White Americans as high in competence but low in warmth. Although SCM researchers have claimed these findings indicate motivated prejudice against Asians, such a claim neglects the differences in Western and Eastern conceptions of happiness. The Western conception involves positive affect (i.e., effusive warmth), whereas the Eastern conception involves balanced affect (i.e., equanimity) [35]. From a Western perspective, East Asians may therefore seem insufficiently warm, but this is a cultural misinterpretation, not an instance of invidious prejudice. Similarly, SCM research shows that Asians are perceived to be high in foreignness [36], but SCM research researchers have neglected the fact that the biggest waves of immigration from Asia occurred in the past four decades, whereas Americans of African and European descent arrived much earlier. Any subgroup whose arrival has been relatively recent may seem more foreign, and this perception may not constitute invidious prejudice. Others have noted that Asians continue to be victimized through discriminatory treatment. Some evidence shows this is true [37], but all groups including Whites experience some degree of negative discrimination [38], and Asians also benefit from positive discrimination [33]. In addition, victimization neither confirms nor falsifies the model minority stereotype, because such information is orthogonal to the stereotype’s content. We do not claim that society should be indifferent to the unique problems faced by the Asian-American community, nor do we claim that Asians are always on the positive end of social disparities. We do claim that Asians have an anomalously positive standing in the socioeconomic domain, and if people assume a strict racial hierarchy, such standing may go unnoticed.

Stereotype Accuracy and Income Stereotypes are commonly portrayed as inaccurate in the psychological literature, but empirical studies of accuracy have shown that cultural stereotypes tend to concur with objective data, and the effect sizes of accuracy research are among the strongest in social psychology [10]. Over 20 studies have examined accuracy in stereotypes about race, ethnicity, sex, occupation, college major, nationality, and political ideology [7]. To quantify accuracy, data from participants were tested via correlations or discrepancy scores against population data from the U.S. Census or similar sources. High levels of accuracy were found for group-level stereotypes, and moderately high levels were found for person-level stereotypes. For instance, women’s socioeconomic progress over the past decades is accurately represented in participants’ retrospective, contemporaneous, and prospective perceptions of women’s salaries [39]. It is worth noting that SCM researchers are generally unconcerned with accuracy, whereas EPA researchers consider accuracy to be a primary attribute of stereotypes. Given the general accuracy of cultural stereotypes, participants in the current study who rely solely on stereotypes should accurately estimate income for different ethnic groups. Participants who rely solely on stereotypes should estimate Asian income as higher than White income. In contrast, if estimates of income reflect the operation of the White ceiling heuristic, participants should report Whites as having higher income than other ethnic groups. Given the reality that Asian-Americans make more money than Whites, believing that Whites make more than Asians requires grossly underestimating Asian incomes perhaps in combination with overestimating White incomes. If stereotypes and the proposed heuristic combine, participants’ perceptions will vary based on the target group. When accurate information about a group accords with the White ceiling heuristic, as in the case of Blacks and Hispanics, the agreement between the two will reinforce the reliance upon accurate information. When accurate information about a group conflicts with the heuristic, as in the case of Asian Americans, participants will use cognitive algebra [40] to arrive at an intermediate point between the stereotype and the heuristic.) For Asian-American targets, the conflict between the two types of information should produce an estimate of Asian Americans lagging slightly behind Whites. We caution that our use of the term stereotype here to denote a specific reasoning process doesn’t indicate that stereotypic reasoning is always distinct from heuristic thinking. We simply use the pragmatic terms stereotype and heuristic to describe two contrasting processes in a readable manner. Some may counter-argue that if Whites under-estimate Asians, this phenomenon may reflect aversive prejudice, but on empirical grounds, this counter-argument seems weak. White prejudice against Asian Americans seems to be minimal. (The first author, who is an Asian immigrant and has lived in the American South for 19 years, can attest to this experience in his own life.) In a recent cross-national survey [25], only a small percentage (13%) of Asian Americans viewed discrimination against their group as a major problem. When asked about whether their Asian identity makes a difference when it comes to gaining admission into colleges, finding a job, and getting a promotion, the percentage of respondents who stated that their identity would help matched or surpassed the percentages who stated it would hurt. In addition, approximately 60% of participants stated that their identity would neither help nor hurt them. Furthermore, 91% reported that they get along “very well” or “pretty well” with Whites. In addition, intergroup contact and cooperation occur frequently, as manifested by the extraordinary rate of intermarriage with other races and the low rate of Asian-American residential segregation [25], [41]. Even laboratory research shows that Whites implicitly believe Asians are less dangerous than Whites themselves [42], but we believe field research makes a more compelling case because of its greater external validity. Nevertheless, some aversive prejudice against Asians may cause people to perceive Asians as having lower incomes than Whites. To measure whether individual differences in intergroup prejudice cause estimates of Asian income to lag behind White income, we measured social dominance orientation (SDO) in the current study. As we discuss later, SDO was not correlated with estimates of the Asian–White gap, which suggests that intergroup prejudice does not manifest itself in a manner that concerns us. The over-estimation of Whites may not seem to have the same implications as, say, the under-estimation of minorities, but the majority–minority model rests upon the assumption that Whites can be unambiguously ranked at the top of the racial hierarchy. As a result, social scientists often rely on the majority–minority model by prescribing the acknowledgement of White Privilege. The current study suggests that people who rely on this model may have beliefs that are not factually justified. Among social scientists, the White privilege model may persist because Asians are often excluded from study samples, leading to comparisons between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics exclusively [43], [44]. The economist Thomas Sowell has suggested that statistics about Asians are excluded from reports about non-White minorities to maintain the simplistic heuristic of using raw statistics as evidence of discrimination. For instance Sowell notes, “There has been much indignant outcry in the media when statistics have shown that black applicants for mortgage loans were turned down more often than white applicants.... Yet statistical data on Asian Americans have been conspicuous by their absence.... If such data are included, it turns out that, in 2000, black applicants were turned down for primary mortgage loans twice as often as white applicants—and white applicants were turned down nearly twice as often as Asian American applicants” [6]. Similarly, the sociologist Arthur Sakamoto and his colleagues have noted that “instructors of Asian American Studies courses will invariably encounter the ‘Are we minorities?’ question from Asian American undergraduates. The typical answer is that Asian Americans are a sociological minority that is often not officially classified as a minority because their socioeconomic attainments are not significantly lower than those of whites” [1]. A search of articles in the database PsycInfo reveals that between 2000 and 2014, only 140 publications contained both “stereotypes” and “Asian Americans,” whereas 646 contained both “stereotypes” and “African Americans.” And the American Sociological Review has “apparently never published a paper focusing on the educational attainment or incomes of Asian Americans” [1]. Although the study of Blacks’ underprivileged status is critical to evaluate stratification in America, the exclusion of Asians can unwittingly bias conclusions about Whites’ status. Problematically, the application of the White ceiling heuristic may also cause people to overlook the positive attainments of ethnic minorities, a lack of recognition that cyclically maintains the heuristic’s superficial validity. Although publicized minority achievements in the U.S., such as those of African Americans in basketball and Asian Americans in spelling bees, are likely to be remembered, unpublicized achievements may go unnoticed.