Falling for Stereotypes Can Allow Emotion to Trump Reality

This short blog is not intended to be an analysis of complex international political relations, or a treatise on whether the President of the USA is playing 4D chess. What we do know is that when we feel and show the emotions of Admiration, Contempt, Envy, and Pity, they can stem from our assumptions about others. There is a danger that these emotions arise from our imagined stereotypes rather than cold reality. These emotions typically lead us to act in predictable ways. As such, we can at least explore the specific event of the Oval Office clash through this lens, using the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) and the BIAS (Behaviours from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes) Map as our guides.

Falling for Stereotypes can Allow Emotion To Trump Reality: Analysing the Trump-Zelenskyy Clash on 28th February 2025

A week has passed since the heated exchange between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, giving time and space to reflect and watch the outcomes unfold.

This diplomatic incident has left many shocked and puzzled, prompting us to explore whether social psychology models could help us understand what transpired. Let's examine how the Stereotype Content Model (SCM)* and the Behaviours from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS)* Map might shed light on this situation, while considering the crucial role of emotional intelligence in high-stakes interactions.

The SCM, developed by Susan Fiske and colleagues, posits that we evaluate others along two primary dimensions: warmth and competence. Warmth assesses intentions (friendly or threatening), while competence gauges ability to act on those intentions, our level of power. These perceptions then influence our emotions and behaviour towards different groups.

In this particular instance of Trump's interaction with Zelenskyy, it appears that Trump's approach did not rely on a nuanced analysis of the situation.  For example, Trump's statement that Zelenskyy was "not showing any gratitude" contradicts Ukraine's consistent expressions of appreciation for U.S. support. Similarly, his apparent doubts about Zelenskyy's ability to manage the conflict seemed to overlook the immense challenges Ukraine faces in resisting Russian aggression.

This perception aligns with the SCM's "low-low" quadrant, typically associated with contempt and disgust. The BIAS Map extends this model, predicting that such perceptions lead to both active harm (direct attacks) and passive harm (neglect or exclusion). 

Indeed, we saw this play out during the meeting. Trump's active harm manifested in his verbal criticism of Zelenskyy. The passive harm was evident in his threat to withdraw support, potentially leaving Ukraine vulnerable in its fight for sovereignty. (This has since turned to active harm as he has carried out his threat post meeting). What's striking is how quickly this situation escalated—Trump's apparent contempt seemed to drive a rapid emotional response rather than a calculated diplomatic strategy.

This incident highlights the critical importance of emotional intelligence in leadership roles, for both leaders in this situation.

Could Zelenskyy, anticipating potential challenges in the meeting, have worked to build his perceived warmth and competence in Trump's eyes? The intention to build competence and assert some authority may have been partly what Zelenskyy was doing when he pushed back against historical inaccuracies posited in the meeting. It didn't work. Could he have done more? While it's worth exploring, the history between the two leaders and the geopolitical context make it unlikely that Zelenskyy could have significantly shifted these perceptions in a single encounter.

In this example, Trump behaved as if he were feeling contempt for the invaded and admiration for the invader. 

As leaders with power, this underscores the need to notice our emotions (such as contempt) as they arise and be curious about their origins.

By tracing our assumptions back to their source, we can check whether we're leaning into simple stereotypes—a particularly dangerous tendency when we're stressed or under pressure.

This approach to emotional intelligence is crucial not just in high-level diplomacy, but in all aspects of life.

Whether at work as leaders of complex systems, at home with our family and friends, or in everyday interactions, we are all susceptible to relying on quick judgments or emotional shortcuts when assessing others.

These models remind us of the potential pitfalls of acting on assumptions rather than engaging with the full complexity of a situation.

As we continue to navigate an increasingly interconnected world, these psychological frameworks offer valuable tools for reflection—not just for understanding global incidents but also for improving our own relationships and decision-making processes.

They remind us of the importance of pausing, especially in high-pressure situations, to check our emotions and assumptions before acting. After all, reducing people or situations to simplistic judgments rarely leads to productive outcomes, whether on the world stage or in our personal lives.

* 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

* Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviours from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631-64845 

A key element of Emotional Intelligence is being able to notice our emotions as they arise and be curious about their origin.  Below is a reflection-sheet for the key emotions we can feel when acting out of stereotype. Its worth catching ourselves when we feel this way before acting in a way which may surprise and alarm those around us (or the World at large!)