Stereotype Content Model Scale (SCM)

1. Abstract

The Stereotype Content Model Scale (SCM) is a foundational psychometric instrument developed by Susan T. Fiske, Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu (2002) to assess how individuals, social groups, organizations, and cultural outgroups are perceived across interpersonal, intergroup, and sociological contexts. Grounded in evolutionary, social-cognitive, and structural intergroup theories, the SCM posits that human social perception is universally organized around two fundamental, orthogonal dimensions: Warmth (capturing perceived morality, trustworthiness, friendliness, benevolence, and sincere intent) and Competence (capturing perceived capability, skill, agency, efficacy, and intelligence). The canonical operationalization of the scale comprises 9 trait-adjective items divided into two primary subscales: Competence (evaluated via five items: Competent, Confident, Capable, Efficient, and Intelligent) and Warmth (evaluated via four items: Friendly, Warm, Good-natured, and Sincere). Participants rate target groups or entities on a standard 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely).

Extensive psychometric investigations across dozens of cultures and diverse experimental settings demonstrate that the SCM exhibits exceptional structural validity, high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging from .80 to .94 across subscales), robust cross-cultural measurement invariance, and strong convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. By mapping social entities into a two-dimensional Cartesian space, the SCM delineates four discrete stereotype quadrants characterized by distinct emotional prejudices—admiration (high warmth, high competence), contemptuous prejudice (low warmth, low competence), paternalistic prejudice (high warmth, low competence), and envious prejudice (low warmth, high competence)—which systematically govern downstream behavioral tendencies of active/passive facilitation and harm (the BIAS map). Beyond traditional sociology and social psychology, the SCM has achieved ubiquitous adoption in organizational behavior, brand management, consumer psychology, political science, healthcare disparities research, and artificial intelligence ethics.

2. Keywords

Stereotype Content Model, SCM, Warmth, Competence, Intergroup Relations, Social Perception, Ambivalent Stereotypes, Social Cognition, BIAS Map, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The Stereotype Content Model and its operational psychometric scale were formulated and validated by a collaborative team of prominent social psychologists:

• Susan T. Fiske, Ph.D.: Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Professor of Public Affairs at Princeton University. An internationally renowned expert in social cognition, stereotyping, prejudice, and intergroup relations. Fiske served as the principal investigator in the conceptualization of the Stereotype Content Model and its empirical validation.
• Amy J. C. Cuddy, Ph.D.: Social psychologist, author, and former Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Cuddy contributed extensively to the empirical operationalization of the SCM, cross-cultural comparative studies, and the development of the complementary Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS) Map framework.
• Peter Glick, Ph.D.: Henry Merritt Wriston Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Psychology at Lawrence University. Co-creator of Ambivalent Sexism Theory and a leading scholar on systemic forms of prejudice, ambivalent stereotyping, and ideological justifications of inequality.
• Jun Xu, Ph.D.: Quantitative methodologist and sociologist, currently Professor of Sociology at Ball State University, who collaborated on the statistical modeling, structural equation modeling (SEM), and multidimensional scaling (MDS) analyses in the foundational 2002 investigations.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Stereotype Content Model Scale is to quantitatively capture and analyze the cognitive dimensions that underlie human social perception, stereotyping, and interpersonal judgment. For decades, traditional psychological theories of prejudice operated under a unidimensional antipathy paradigm, rooted in Gordon Allport’s classic formulation that prejudice is an unmitigated antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. However, this historical model failed to explain pervasive real-world phenomena characterized by ambivalent or mixed stereotypes—wherein social groups are concurrently perceived positively on one set of attributes but negatively on another (e.g., traditional gender stereotypes characterizing women as loving yet incompetent, or anti-Semitic and anti-Asian stereotypes characterizing targets as hyper-competent yet cold and calculating).

The SCM Scale addresses this theoretical limitation by establishing that stereotype content is fundamentally multidimensional and structural. The scale serves several critical theoretical, empirical, and applied functions across multiple domains:

• Elucidating Ambivalent and Uniform Stereotypes: The scale enables researchers to diagnose whether a target group occupies an ambivalent quadrant (paternalistic or envious) or an univalent quadrant (admiration or contempt), thereby resolving paradoxes in social categorization that unidimensional attitude scales (e.g., simple feeling thermometers) systematically obscure.
• Predicting Intergroup Emotions and Behaviors: By quantifying warmth and competence, researchers can accurately forecast the specific affective reactions elicited by target groups—specifically admiration, pity, envy, or contempt—and map these directly onto downstream behavioral orientations of active help, passive association, active harm, or passive neglect as formulated in the Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS) Map.
• Investigating Structural Antecedents of Bias: The scale serves to test sociological and evolutionary hypotheses concerning the origins of stereotype content, empirically demonstrating that perceived social status directly predicts attributions of competence, whereas perceived intergroup competition or interdependence directly predicts attributions of warmth.
• Clinical, Healthcare, and Social Policy Diagnostic Applications: In public health and clinical settings, the SCM scale is employed to evaluate implicit and explicit biases directed toward psychiatric patients, geriatric populations, individuals with physical disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, allowing institutional interventions to target the specific cognitive deficit (e.g., rectifying low competence perceptions versus mitigating low warmth suspicions).
• Consumer Psychology and Organizational Research: Beyond human targets, the scale has become an industry and academic benchmark for evaluating corporate social responsibility (CSR), brand perception, corporate crises, brand anthropomorphism, and leader evaluations. Organizations are evaluated as intentional actors; consumers routinely appraise a corporation’s warmth (ethics, customer orientation, corporate citizenship) alongside its competence (product quality, technical capability, operational efficiency).

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the SCM Scale is rooted in social cognitive representations of social targets. Evolutionary psychobiology suggests that whenever human beings encounter an unfamiliar individual, outgroup, or entity, two survival-critical questions must be answered almost instantaneously:

1. What are this target’s intentions toward me, my kin, or my group? Does the target intend to harm me or help me?
2. Does this target possess the capability to enact those intentions?

These two evolutionary queries map directly onto the psychological dimensions of Warmth and Competence, which account for approximately 80% of the variance in global evaluations of social targets.

The Warmth Dimension

The Warmth dimension captures the perceived morality, social intent, benevolence, and relational orientation of the target. When an entity is perceived as possessing high warmth, observers impute positive social intentions: friendliness, trustworthiness, empathy, fairness, honesty, and altruism. Conversely, an entity perceived as possessing low warmth is suspected of harboring hostile, predatory, exploitative, selfish, or insincere intentions. In the psychometric structure of the SCM Scale, Warmth is operationalized through four core trait adjectives: Friendly, Warm, Good-natured, and Sincere.

Psychologically, the warmth dimension carries primary evolutionary primacy over competence. Research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that warmth judgments are processed significantly faster in chronometric reaction-time paradigms and evoke faster automatic neural activations within the amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). An individual or group’s intent determines whether an observer is in imminent physical or social danger; their competence is only relevant once their intention is recognized.

The Competence Dimension

The Competence dimension captures the perceived capability, operational efficacy, agency, intelligence, and resourcefulness of the target. When an entity is judged as high in competence, observers infer that it possesses the requisite knowledge, skill, strength, stamina, and organizational acumen to successfully execute its goals and implement its intentions. Conversely, low-competence assessments denote perceived helplessness, passivity, intellectual limitation, operational clumsiness, or structural weakness. The SCM Scale operationalizes Competence through five core trait adjectives: Competent, Confident, Capable, Efficient, and Intelligent.

Although secondary in evolutionary chronometry, competence judgments fundamentally dictate the magnitude of the impact that a target can exert. A benevolent actor with high competence represents a powerful ally, while a malevolent actor with high competence constitutes an existential threat.

The 2×2 Orthogonal Stereotype Matrix

Crossing perceived warmth (low vs. high) with perceived competence (low vs. high) produces a robust four-quadrant matrix characterized by distinct socio-emotional dynamics:

• High Warmth, High Competence (Admiration / In-group Pride): Targets falling into this quadrant include cultural reference groups, in-groups, societal normative majorities, and close allies. They elicit feelings of pride, admiration, respect, and unconditional affinity. In behavioral terms, they receive both active facilitation (help, protection) and passive facilitation (cooperation, association).
• Low Warmth, Low Competence (Contemptuous Prejudice): Targets relegated to this quadrant include the most marginalized and disenfranchised outgroups in society (e.g., homeless individuals, drug addicts, undocumented transient laborers). They elicit visceral reactions of contempt, disgust, antipathy, and moral revulsion. In behavioral terms, they are subjected to active harm (harassment, violence) and passive harm (dehumanization, social neglect, systematic ostracism).
• High Warmth, Low Competence (Paternalistic Prejudice): This ambivalent quadrant includes groups such as the elderly, individuals with developmental or physical disabilities, and traditional homemakers. Observers perceive these targets as benevolent and harmless, but structurally incapable and dependent. Consequently, they evoke emotional responses of pity, sympathy, and paternalistic compassion, coupled with behaviors of patronizing assistance alongside exclusionary neglect.
• Low Warmth, High Competence (Envious Prejudice): This ambivalent quadrant encompasses successful minority groups, financial elites, international competitors, and high-achieving outgroups (e.g., Asians or Jewish people in Western contexts, dominant commercial minorities). Observers acknowledge their operational talent, work ethic, and intelligence, but perceive them as clannish, self-serving, and competitive. This yields affective reactions of envy, resentment, jealousy, and suspicion. In times of social stability, they enjoy passive association, but during socioeconomic crises, they are frequently scapegoated and targeted for active harm and expropriation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Stereotype Content Model Scale is grounded in structural functionalism, evolutionary psychology, and social cognitive approaches to intergroup relations. The conceptual architecture rests on three interlocking foundational propositions:

Proposition 1: Structural Social Determinants

The SCM explicitly bridges macro-sociological realities with micro-level psychological appraisals. Fiske et al. (2002) theorized that warmth and competence do not emerge arbitrarily from cognitive idiosyncratic bias; rather, they are the direct psychological reflections of structural intergroup relations within a social hierarchy:

• Status Predicts Competence: The perceived socioeconomic, cultural, or physical status of a group dictates its perceived competence. Groups that possess wealth, prestige, institutional power, and educational attainment are perceived as intrinsically competent, skilled, and intelligent. Under systemic social psychological mechanisms such as System Justification Theory and the fundamental attribution error, societal inequality is rationalized by assuming that high-status groups achieved their standing through innate ability and effort, whereas low-status groups remain disenfranchised due to personal deficiency.
• Competition Predicts Warmth: The perceived structural competition versus interdependence between groups dictates perceived warmth. When an outgroup is perceived as competing for zero-sum resources (jobs, political power, territory, cultural dominance, prestige), it is viewed as having conflicting, hostile intentions, leading to low warmth ratings. Conversely, groups perceived as cooperative, non-competitive, subordinate, or mutually dependent are perceived as possessing high warmth.

Proposition 2: Ubiquitous Ambivalence

Prior prejudice literature treated bias as a linear, bipolar continuum from positive to negative. The SCM revolutionized this paradigm by demonstrating that ambivalence is normative rather than exceptional. Ambivalent stereotypes (high on one dimension, low on the other) serve a system-justifying, palliative social function. By granting high warmth to low-status groups, society softens structural subordination through benevolent paternalism. Conversely, by granting high competence to envied competitors, society justifies resentment and creates ideological justifications for defensive aggression or persecution under crisis conditions.

Proposition 3: The BIAS Map (Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes)

Expanding the SCM, Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick (2007) formalized the BIAS Map framework, establishing an explicit causal chain: Social Structure (Status & Competition) → Stereotypes (Warmth & Competence) → Distinct Emotional Affects (Admiration, Pity, Envy, Contempt) → Behavioral Tendencies. The BIAS map differentiates behavior across two axes: Active versus Passive, and Facilitative (Helping) versus Harmful (Attacking). Warmth dictates active behavioral tendencies (high warmth evokes active helping; low warmth evokes active attacking), whereas Competence dictates passive behavioral tendencies (high competence evokes passive cooperation or association; low competence evokes passive neglect or exclusion).

7. Validity

The Stereotype Content Model Scale has undergone exhaustive psychometric validation across multiple decades, geographic regions, target types, and experimental paradigms.

Construct and Structural Validity

The two-dimensional construct validity was originally established by Fiske et al. (2002) across four distinct survey samples comprising diverse societal groups. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) consistently demonstrated that a two-dimensional solution accounts for substantial variance in group space (stress values < .15, RSQ values typically exceeding .90). Confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) modeling routinely confirms that a two-factor correlated model (Warmth and Competence) demonstrates superior fit compared to a single-factor general evaluation model, confirming that the traits do not collapse into an undifferentiated “halo effect.”

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive validity of the SCM Scale is among the most robust in social psychology:

• Prediction of Structural Indices: Empirical status indices (group educational attainment, income, occupational prestige) correlate strongly with scale-derived Competence scores ($r = .75$ to $.92$, $p < .001$). Conversely, measures of perceived intergroup resource competition correlate negatively with Warmth scores ($r = -.50$ to $-.78$, $p < .001$).
• Prediction of Affect and Behavior: In multiple regression and structural equation analyses, Cuddy et al. (2007) demonstrated that the Warmth subscale uniquely accounts for up to 60% of the variance in active helping versus harming behaviors, whereas the Competence subscale uniquely predicts up to 55% of the variance in passive association versus neglect.
• Neurological Correlates: Neuroimaging studies by Harris and Fiske (2006) revealed that targets categorized in the extreme low-warmth, low-competence quadrant fail to activate the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC)—a region universally implicated in social cognition and human mentalizing—while simultaneously activating the amygdala and insula, providing neural construct validation for extreme dehumanization and disgust.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity is supported by strong correlations between SCM Warmth and constructs such as Communion, Morality, and Benevolence from alternate frameworks (e.g., Abele & Wojciszke’s Agency-Communion framework, $r > .85$). The Competence subscale shows strong convergence with Agency, Instrumentality, and Efficacy measures ($r > .80$). Discriminant validity is affirmed by the structural orthogonality of the two dimensions: across hundreds of unmanipulated target evaluations, the correlation between Warmth and Competence hovers close to zero ($r = -.10$ to $.15$, non-significant), demonstrating that the two scales measure discrete cognitive phenomena.

Cross-Cultural Generalizability

In a landmark cross-cultural investigation across 10 European nations and 3 Asian nations, Cuddy et al. (2009) demonstrated that the SCM’s two-dimensional structure replicates across Western and Eastern cultures. Later studies spanning over 37 countries across Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America confirmed that the warmth-by-competence mapping of social structures is a cross-cultural psychological universal, although collectivist societies display slightly less ingroup favoritism in the high-high quadrant.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and test-retest stability of the Stereotype Content Model Scale have been established through extensive psychometric testing across diverse demographic groups and cultural settings.

Internal Consistency Reliability

The SCM Scale items demonstrate high internal consistency across empirical studies:

• Competence Subscale (5 items): Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients consistently range between .82 and .94. In the foundational validation studies by Fiske et al. (2002), subscale alphas across multiple sample targets averaged .88 (Sample 1: $lpha = .85$ to $.91$; Sample 2: $lpha = .87$ to $.93$). McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) coefficients routinely match or exceed .90, confirming that the five items—Competent, Confident, Capable, Efficient, and Intelligent—form a cohesive, unidimensional measure of target agency and capability.
• Warmth Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients consistently range between .80 and .92. In Fiske et al. (2002), the average alpha across group evaluations was .86 (Sample 1: $lpha = .82$ to $.90$; Sample 2: $lpha = .84$ to $.91$). McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) values regularly surpass .88 across diverse target evaluations, confirming high internal coherence across the four items: Friendly, Warm, Good-natured, and Sincere.

Inter-Rater and Group-Level Reliability

Because the SCM is frequently administered to evaluate cultural stereotypes at the societal or collective level (asking respondents how a target group is viewed by society in general), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) are utilized to establish inter-rater consensus. Intraclass correlations for aggregate group-level evaluations ($ICC(1)$ and $ICC(2)$) routinely exceed .85, indicating exceptionally high cultural agreement regarding where specific social targets fall in the warmth-by-competence multidimensional space.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal assessments and repeated-measures stability evaluations yield test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from $r = .78$ to $.88$ over intervals spanning two to six weeks in stable social contexts, indicating that while immediate contextual cues can modulate ratings, the underlying perceptual schemas remain highly stable over time.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural underpinnings of the Stereotype Content Model Scale have been rigorously evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In initial scale validation studies, principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with varimax and promax rotations were conducted on the full pool of trait adjectives. Across iterations, eigenvalues and scree test criteria consistently revealed a clear two-factor structure accounting for 65% to 75% of the total item variance:

• Factor 1 (Competence): Items 1 through 5 reliably load onto the first factor, with primary factor loadings ranging from .71 to .89. Cross-loadings onto the Warmth dimension are negligible (rarely exceeding .20).
• Factor 2 (Warmth): Items 6 through 9 load onto the second factor, with primary factor loadings ranging from .68 to .88. Cross-loadings onto the Competence dimension consistently remain below .22.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural equation modeling has rigorously evaluated the hypothesized two-factor orthogonal or correlated model against competing nested structural models. The standard two-factor model demonstrates exceptional goodness-of-fit indices across diverse populations:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom ($\chi^2/df$): Typically between 1.45 and 2.50, indicating excellent model fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely exceeds .95 (often ranging from .96 to .99).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently maintains values above .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values consistently range between .035 and .058 (with 90% confidence intervals well below the conventional .08 cutoff).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently fall below .045.

In competitive model testing, the two-factor model demonstrates decisive statistical superiority over a unidimensional global evaluation model ($\Delta\chi^2(1) > 450.00, p < .0001$), formally establishing that human social judgment cannot be reduced to a single evaluative valence dimension.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Stereotype Content Model Scale (SCM)
• Primary Operational Developers: Susan T. Fiske, Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu (2002)
• Test Classification: Psychometric Rating Scale / Social Cognitive Assessment Instrument
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil self-report inventory, computerized online assessment, or experimental computer-based questionnaire
• Administration Modality: Can be administered as an individual assessment (measuring personal perceptions of targets) or as a cultural consensus assessment (measuring how targets are perceived by society in general, which reduces social desirability bias)
• Total Item Count: 9 trait items
• Subscales:
  • Competence Subscale (5 items): Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Competent, Confident, Capable, Efficient, Intelligent)
  • Warmth Subscale (4 items): Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Friendly, Warm, Good-natured, Sincere)
• Authentic Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Not at all
  • 2 = Slightly
  • 3 = Moderately
  • 4 = Very
  • 5 = Extremely
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Reverse Scoring: No items are reverse-scored.
  • Subscale Score Calculation: The Competence score is calculated by taking the unweighted arithmetic mean of items 1 through 5. The Warmth score is calculated by taking the unweighted arithmetic mean of items 6 through 9.
  • Score Range: Both subscale scores range from 1.00 to 5.00.
  • Quadrant Mapping: Target scores are typically plotted on a two-dimensional Cartesian plane with Warmth on the horizontal X-axis and Competence on the vertical Y-axis, utilizing either the theoretical midpoint (3.00) or the grand sample mean as the quadrant intersection threshold.
• Target Adaptability: Highly adaptable across experimental and correlational stimuli; can evaluate social demographic groups, professional roles, nations, corporate brands, public leaders, or automated robotic/AI agents.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Original Publication Year: 2002 (published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology).
• Intellectual Property and Copyright: The conceptual framework and original validation study are copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA). However, the 9-item scale itself is placed in the public domain for non-commercial academic, scientific, and educational research purposes.
• Licensing and Fee Structure: The Stereotype Content Model Scale is an open-access psychometric instrument. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for academic, governmental, or basic scientific investigations.
• Commercial Use: Use of the scale for commercial consulting, commercial market research, proprietary organizational development programs, or intellectual property monetization may require attribution, prior authorization, or commercial permissions adhering to standard APA fair-use and copyright licensing guidelines.
• Ethical Requirement: When utilizing the scale in empirical publications, proper scholarly attribution to Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu (2002) is mandatory.

12. References

• Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751
• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
• Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
• Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00402-2
• Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-P., Bond, M. H., Croizet, J.-C., Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E., Htun, T. T., Kim, H.-J., Maio, G., Perry, J., Petkova, K., Todorov, V., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Morales, E., Moya, M., … Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X314935
• Durante, F., Fiske, S. T., Kervyn, N., Cuddy, A. J. C., Akande, A. D., Adetoun, B. E., Adewuyi, M. F., Tserere, M. M., Al-Bahrani, A., Mogaji, A., Garcia-Sanchez, E., & Storari, C. (2013). Nations’ income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: How societies mind the gap. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 726–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12005
• Fiske, S. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
• Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17(10), 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x
• Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents: Warmth and competence predict brand perception, choice, and loyalty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.006

13. Items of the Scale