Reports an error in "A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition" by Susan T. Fiske, Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick and Jun Xu (, 2002[Jun], Vol 82[6], 878-902). In the fourth paragraph of the Status Predicts Competence, and Competition Predicts Warmth section, the results are worded in a confusing way, and some values are wrong. In the fourth paragraph's first sentence, all correlation coefficients mistakenly omitted the negative sign implied in the text ("negatively correlated") and shown in the correct values reported in Table 6. The text should appear instead as follows: Perceived competition negatively correlated with perceived warmth for the student sample, group-level (21) .68, < .001; individual-level (71) .22, < .1, and the nonstudent sample, group-level (21) .53, < .001; individual-level (36) .11, . (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2002-02942-002.) Stereotype research emphasizes systematic processes over seemingly arbitrary contents, but content also may prove systematic. On the basis of stereotypes' intergroup functions, the stereotype content model hypothesizes that (1) 2 primary dimensions are competence and warmth, (2) frequent mixed clusters combine high warmth with low competence (paternalistic) or high competence with low warmth (envious), and (3) distinct emotions (pity, envy, admiration, contempt) differentiate the 4 competence-warmth combinations. Stereotypically, (4) status predicts high competence, and competition predicts low warmth. Nine varied samples rated gender, ethnicity, race, class, age, and disability out-groups. Contrary to antipathy models, 2 dimensions mattered, and many stereotypes were mixed, either pitying (low competence, high warmth subordinates) or envying (high competence, low warmth competitors). Stereotypically, status predicted competence, and competition predicted low warmth. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).