DRAFT PAPER-PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

In this paper, I consider a construct ("stereotypes") and an associated activity ("stereotyping") that have become central to much social psychological research on intergroup relations, as well as being prominent resources for everyday people in designing their actions and interpreting the actions of categorically-identifiable others. Specifically, I examine some ways in which stereotypes and stereotyping are treated as morally accountable by social psychologists, their research participants, and participants in everyday interactions, and how each of these groups of people may work to manage the implications of this moral accountability. I focus in particular on what can learned about stereotypes by closely examining their deployment in everyday interactions - in contrast to currently dominant experimental approaches that tend to strip stereotypes of the social context of their expression, and the moral accountability associated therewith. My analysis applies a conversation analytic approach to recorded interactions from radio call-in shows to demonstrate some ways in which the "accuracy" (for participants) of particular stereotypes is produced as an important factor in the interactional negotiation and contestation of the moral implications possible instances of stereotyping. In addition, I consider some possible exceptions to the apparent importance accorded to the accuracy of stereotypes, including "positive stereotypes", "self-stereotypes", and the use of stereotypes in producing jokes or humour. I conclude by suggesting, based on this analysis, that a holistic understanding of stereotypes and stereotyping requires attention to the social-moral contexts in which they are produced, and the participant-administered accountability associated with these contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]