The Irish names also caused a fall in ratings. The falling of likability of the Jewish-named girls was twice as great for the Italian-named girls and five times as great as those given Irish names. Not all the ratings fell: the Jewish names caused the girls to be rated higher in intelligence and in ambition. This shows that not all stereotypes of out-groups are unfavorable. LoPP may also represent goals that other groups aspire to. For instance, many East Asians strive to be fairer or more "white" skinned. Though aiming to achieve "whiteness" may seem positive in potential social effects for an individual, it still is a label that blinds every other trait of a single person and reduces the person to their skin colour - possibly outcasting those who cannot fit into the mould. This is especially evident in China, where the idea of being "white" is a sign of social status having long been associated with the ideal of being "beautiful" in the eyes of Eastern societies. Chinese advertisers have been using proverbs (such as 一白遮三丑 which implies that being “white” will mask “ugly” traits about a person) and models with fair skin tones to draw on the LoPP of “whiteness” as part of ethnic identity development which in turn, maintains the growth in product consumption. The use of LoPP can also be observed in the American market where - whether intentional or not - advertisers often draw on LoPPs in their marketing strategies, which serves to reinforce the stereotypes evoked n LoPPs. MacGregor (2015) records examples of LoPP used in multi-ethnic marketing environments. Certain groups that have been disadvantaged by negative LoPPs have turned to reappropriation as a form of rejection of the negative stereotypes and/or associations that have been foisted on them. Another area in which LoPP are frequently used is in the discussion of gender. McConnell-Ginet (2003) explains the connotations of LoPP relating to gender in the examples below. Here the "but" shows that the speaker rejects the label probably due to the negative stereotypes associated with it. Here, the speaker attributes sexual promiscuity to the labeled person. This label typically evokes a female image. It can be used both to mock or reinforce sexual double standards, depending on the context. In a resource for teachers with regards to the language within a classroom, it was written that labels in such environments are possibly laden with negative connotations and relative to specific cultures, “serving to erase individuality through categorisation and generalisation, and to dehumanise or reductively cast the individual.”