No Warmth, No Competence, & No Homes

According to the stereotype content model, the stereotypes we have of different groups span along two dimensions: competence and warmth, resulting in four different types of stereotypes: admiration stereotypes, paternalistic stereotypes, envious stereotypes, and contemptuous stereotypes (Fiske 2002). Admiration stereotypes appear when social groups are perceived as competent and warm. Paternalistic stereotypes are when members of outgroups perceive a social group as warm but not competent. Envious stereotypes are when social groups are deemed competent but not warm. Contemptuous stereotypes are when outgroups regard a social group as incompetent and not warm.

Homeless people are often stereotyped as incompetent and not warm. Like other social groups that are stereotyped contemptuously, they elicit strong negative emotions like disgust and resentment from the outgroup, which in this case is people who are not homeless ( Durante 2009). Stereotypes of homeless people might be one of the reasons why despite the majority of Americans being in favor of building more affordable housing (Data for progress 2021), efforts to do so are met with backlash. One common reason for the backlash is, while people know that affordable housing is beneficial, they do not want it in their backyard.  


Figure 1. Showcase the placement of different social groups within the dimension of competence and warmth, with homeless people being stereotyped as having low warmth and competence. (figure from Fiske 2002).

Behaviors like protesting the building of affordable housing is not the only thing that showcases our disgust of homeless people; brain imaging does too. In a study by Harris (2006), using an fMRI, they image the brains of 10 participants while viewing 48 photographs. Of the 48 photographs, they showed eight social groups (including homeless people), with each social group belonging to one of the four stereotype groups. 

While analyzing the brain imaging of the participants, they paid particular attention to the medial prefrontal cortex. In previous studies, researchers found the medial prefrontal cortex necessary for social cognition abilities like self-reflection, person perception, and mentalizing (Grossmann 2013) and activated whenever people think of a person (whether themselves or another person). For social groups that elicit a feeling of pride (admiration stereotypes), envy (envious stereotypes), and pity (paternalistic stereotypes), there was activity in the medial prefrontal cortex. But in social groups that elicited disgust ( contemptuous stereotypes), there was no activity in the medial prefrontal cortex. Additionally, when viewing social groups stereotyped contemptuously, participants had more activity in their amygdala and insula (both are brain regions implicated in negative emotions like disgust). This study suggests beside being disgusted by social groups stereotyped contemptuously, like homeless people, we do not even perceive them as people. 

Figure 2. Showcase the brain activity of participants viewing the 48 photographs. From left to right is the brain imaging of the participant when viewing social groups within the admiration stereotype quadrant, then social groups within the envious stereotype quadrant, then social groups within the paternalistic stereotype quadrant, and lastly, social groups within the contemptuous stereotype quadrant. The red circle indicates activity in the medial prefrontal cortex. (Figure from Harris 2006).

The dehumanization of homeless people observed in the study by Harris (2006) translates into real-life consequences. In 2021, Warren Barnes, a homeless man affectionately called ‘The reading man’ by his peers, was murdered and beheaded by a man believing he could get away with it because ‘he did not think people would notice if Barnes went missing’(Lofholm 2021). The murder of Barnes highlights the issue of violence against the homeless. In a peer-reviewed article by Meinbresse (2014), they questioned homeless people living in 5 cities across the united states (Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Houston, and Worcester) about their experience with violence. They found that 49 % of participants were victims of violent attacks. They also found that older participants (43 or older) and participants who experienced chronic homelessness (homeless for two years or more) were more likely to experience a violent attack.

Figure 3. Showcase the percentage of participants who experience violence based on demographic characteristics. Two significant characteristics are age and the number of years homeless. (Figure from Meinbresse 2014).
Figure 4. Showcase the cycle of dehumanization of homeless people.

While it is clear that we dehumanize homeless people, and that leads to violence against homeless people,  it is harder to answer the questions: Where do the stereotypes of homeless people come from? How do we justify the dehumanization of homeless people? I think stereotypes of homeless people are the cause and justification of the negative feelings towards people without homes. In other words, people are disgusted by homeless people because they regard them as incompetent and cold, and people justify their disgust of homeless people through contemptuous stereotypes. 

How can we break the cycle of dehumanization of homeless people? In a study by Batson (1997), they explore using empathy as a source of attitude change. In this study, they were specifically interested in whether empathy could improve attitude towards homeless people regardless if the researchers portray homeless people as responsible for their homelessness. They divided 46 participants into four groups: low empathy and high victim responsibility, low empathy and low victim responsibility, high empathy and high victim responsibility, and high empathy and low victim responsibility. 

Each group watched a video of Harold Mitchell (a fictitious character) explaining his experience as a homeless man. In the two high empathy groups, the experimenter instructed the participant to imagine how Harold felt about the events that occurred in his life. In the two low empathy groups, the experimenter told the participant to be objective and not get caught up with Harold’s emotions. After watching the video, the experimenters gave each group background information on Harold. In the two low victim responsibility groups, the background information stated that Harold’s homelessness and inability to gain employment were due to health issues. In the two high victim responsibility groups, the background information stated that Harold’s homelessness and inability to gain employment were due to Harold being lazy and not wanting to work. Afterward, the participants were given a survey measuring their empathy for Harlod and another survey measuring their attitudes towards homeless people. 

The most convincing evidence that empathy can improve attitude towards homeless people is that participants in the high empathy and high victim responsibility group had a more positive attitude towards homeless people than participants in the low empathy and low victim responsibility group. Meaning despite Harold’s homelessness being portrayed as his fault (high victim responsibility), participants instructed to imagine how Harold is feeling (high empathy) reported a more positive attitude toward homeless people than the participant in the low empathy and low victim responsibility group. 

Figure 5. Showcase attitude towards homeless people based on the four experimental conditions. (figure from Batson 1997).

Increasing empathy towards homeless people potentially provides us a way to combat the negative attitudes and stereotypes of homeless people and decrease the violence they experience. One way we can increase empathy is through media, either through TV shows and movies or news coverage.  In 2018,  0.002 percent of news reported on homelessness and other housing instability issues (Center For Media & Social Impact). When the news does report on homelessness, it is often in a way that is unsympathetic and blames the homeless person for their homeless (Center For Media & Social Impact). Also, in other media, such as TV shows and movies, the majority of homeless characters have less than ten speaking lines (even in TV shows where homelessness is a topic they discuss) (Center For Media & Social Impact). 

One way to increase empathy towards homeless people is to increase the amount of good representation homeless people get in the media. Good representation means having homeless characters with nuanced stories actually have speaking roles and the news reporting on the stories of people experiencing homelessness, not just abstract mention of homelessness (i.e homeless increases or decreases this much in this area, etc). 

I also think that the everyday person can work to combat negative feelings and stereotypes of homeless people by the words they use. For example, while editing this blog, I continuously had to change where I wrote ‘the homeless’ with homeless people or people without homes. Additionally, before editing my blog post, the section about the murder of Warren Barnes was focused on his murderer, and I had referred to Barnes as ‘A homeless man’ rather than by his name. That is to say, the way we communicate is significant, and we often, without thinking, dehumanize certain social groups (ex. referring to black people as the blacks, queer people as the gays, and homeless people as the homeless). Part of generating empathy for homeless people as a way to combat the violence they face is changing the way we talk about them.  


Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.

Durante, F., Volpato, C., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Using the stereotype content model to examine group depictions in fascism: An archival approach. European Journal of Social Psychology.

Data For Progress. (2021, June 30). Memo: Voters want a public option for broadband, Child Care and Housing. Data For Progress. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from

Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low. Psychological Science, 17(10), 847–853.

 Grossmann, T. (2013). The role of medial prefrontal cortex in early social cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.

Lofholm, N. (2021, May 10). “The reading man” of Grand Junction was killed by a stranger. His friends in downtown aren’t done telling his story. The Colorado Sun. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from

Meinbresse, M., Brinkley-Rubinstein, L., Grassette, A., Benson, J., Hall, C., Hamilton, R., Malott, M., & Jenkins, D. (2014). Exploring the experiences of violence among individuals who are homeless using a consumer-led approach. Violence and Victims, 29(1), 122–136.

Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118.

Homelessness & Housing Security in U.S. culture: How popular culture & news depicts an American Challenge – CMSI. Center for Media and Social Impact. (2019, September 10). Retrieved March 27, 2022, from

5 thoughts on “No Warmth, No Competence, & No Homes

  1. Hi Bashaina, I enjoyed how informative this post was in explaining stereotypes and perceptions of homelessness. I didn’t know that stereotypes are distinguished based on competence and warmth. The graph was really helpful in understanding the different ways we may perceive various social groups. I was shocked by how our views of social groups can be reflected in the medial prefrontal cortex and amygdala. I would be interested in learning about the brain activity in individuals who have had experience with homelessness in the past. Would their brain activity show that they have conformed their perceptions about homelessness or have a more empathic view towards homeless people? After reading this post, I will surely be more thoughtful about the way I think and talk about individuals without homes.


  2. I really liked how you emphasized how a major way we can communicate empathy for homeless people is deliberately changing the way we talk about them. This reminded me how one way to work on your mental health / self esteem is to monitor negative self talk; it has been established that self-talk / the narrative you continuously play in your head subconsciously validates insecurities and therefore hinders any mental health growth. Your post also reminded me about the in-group out-group phenomenon that is often talked about in social psychology, and individuals are more likely to distrust / not reward people that are not in their community / group. I think this post stresses a crucial issue in our society, specifically how the dehumanization of homeless people contributes to violence against homeless people. I think social media / how digitalized our society is desensitizes individuals from true connection / allows people to view gruesome news headings with ease because they do not directly know the people involved / therefore do not see them as as human as they would maybe see their family member.


  3. I like that at the end you mention that our language affects how we perceive certain groups of people. I think taking it a step further and using language such as “people experiencing homelessness” enables us to see that being homeless is not their identity. It is condition that they are experiencing and we should be more empathetic of their experience.


  4. A lot of people don’t realize they dehumanize other humans just because they are homeless, without knowing anything about the person. I never thought of it as stereotyping but it is! This is a very common issue and I’m glad you were able to shed some light on it and back it up with research.


  5. Reading this was so captivating! It was beautifully thought, written, and executed!

    I found it fascinating how the brain’s activity reflects outward behaviour as I was reading. I started thinking about the chicken or egg analogy corresponding to the brain and behaviour. Though it is believed that they are mutually interactive, it often still fascinates me. It fascinates me that it seems we are born a certain way and can do very little to change that (e.g., our initial behaviour or reaction to specific groups of people). Although, as you mentioned, we can take smaller steps to help this issue by exercising caution in what and how we say and think about things and having representation that presents more perspectives.

    I genuinely believe that humans (especially in the 21st century) need to be held to a higher standard in addressing one another. It’s embarrassing that these petty categories still exist and are incredibly impactful in daily lives. I believe that genuine exposure and empathy can be beneficial.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s