Lecture 9 The role of stereotypes in intercultural communication and their significance

Madaniyatlararo muloqotda stereotiplarning roli va ularning ahamiyati

Plan:
[Link] and their features
[Link] of stereotypes
3. Stereotypes in intercultural communication

To offer a clearer understanding of what stereotypes are it is not aimless to mention a

few aspects about what culture is, and what it refers to. Culture reflects the values, attitudes
and beliefs of groups of people that make them behave in a certain way. Roughly, cultures
differ in terms of language, religion, ethnicity, and, as mentioned, values, attitudes and
beliefs. A stereotype is a simplified concept or image and / or standard that is common to
people on another group. Stereotypes can be positive or negative and usually occur when
we have minimal knowledge about a group of people. These simplistic views, opinions or
images, are based on what they have in common within members of another group. There
are as many definitions of stereotypes as the authors who dealt with this subject.
Altogether a stereotype may be defined as a fixed and preconceived idea that people hold
about what something or someone is. If used, they generate superficial images about the
people we interrelate with. Stereotypical beliefs can be involved in conflicting events,
especially referring to race discrimination, which are likely to appear among the members
of multinational ship crews. Stereotypes are distorted ideas, disguised myths and
superficial thoughts. They obstruct our minds, thus determining us to gather the opinions
formulated by others, and not letting us judge with our own minds. We see life according
to predefined standards, and also in the light of the experience lived by others. Stereotypes
tend to numb our senses and thinking. We internalize them into our way of thinking, in
which we no longer distinguish who we really are. We have to admit that in order to come
to understand others we have to know ourselves first, so as to have a term of reference.
We give the measure of the “other”. Often, stereotypes are used to justify and support the
beliefs and values of the majority. 'Common' is perceived as 'normal' and things done by
distinct social groups or minorities are devaluated when they do not conform to these
'norms'.
Stereotypes are widely accepted generalized ideas about people' actions and
traits based on their membership in specific social groups, such as race, ethnicity,
gender, age, socioeconomic position, or gender orientation (McCauley, Stitt, et al.,
1980). These ideas are frequently permanent and unchangeable, lasting even when
confronted with contrary information. Stereotypes, on the other hand, are not
constantly at the forefront of consciousness and may only be activated in certain
contexts. Prejudice, which comprises unfavorable thoughts or attitudes against
persons from specific social groups, can be based on stereotypes (McCauley et al.,
1980). Many modern social challenges are founded in stereotypes and bias,
necessitating substantial research into their causes, implications and techniques to
reduce dependence on stereotypes in social judgements. Stereotypes were
historically seen as inflexible, overgeneralized views that applied consistently to all
members of a group [Katz D., Kenneth B. "Racial Stereotypes of One Hundred College
Students." The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 28 (3), 1933. –P. 280-290].
Katz and Braly's fundamental study in 1933 defined stereotypes as stable sets of
qualities linked with social groupings. However, stereotypes are now viewed as
probabilistic predictions that identify one group from another, with roots in
associative networks in semantic memory and automatic activation [McCauley C.,
Stitt L., Segal M. "Stereotyping: From Prejudice to Prediction." Psychological
Bulletin 87 (1), 1980. –P. 195–208]. Cultural information obtained via experience
and exposure within a social network shapes implicit stereotypes, which are not
actively supported but might impact judgements unconsciously [Tajfel, Henri.
"Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice." Journal of Social Issues 25 (4), 1969. –P.79-97].
Implicit stereotypes are more than simply cognitive biases; they are the result of a
predictive brain that adjusts probability based on past experiences and cultural
exposure to minimize prediction error [Clark Y. "Whatever next? Predictive brains,
situated agents and the future of cognitive science." Behavioral and Brain Sciences
36 (3), 2013. –P.181-20]. Individuals within a culture establish common
representations through communication within their social networks and culture
plays a crucial influence in developing implicit stereotypes.
Stereotypes and Generalizations
Whenever the topic of cultural difference is discussed, the allegation of
stereotyping usually is not far behind. For instance, if cultural patterns of men and
women are being compared, someone may well offer that she is a woman and
doesn’t act that way at all. Stereotypes arise when we act as if all members of a
culture or group share the same characteristics. Stereotypes can be attached to any
assumed indicator of group membership, such as race, religion, ethnicity, age, or
gender, as well as national culture. The characteristics that are assumedly shared by
members of the group may be respected by the observer, in which case it is a positive
stereotype. In the more likely case that the characteristics are disrespected, it is a
negative stereotype. Stereotypes of both kinds are problematic in intercultural
communication for several obvious reasons. One is that they may give us a false
sense of understanding our communication partners. Whether the stereotype is
positive or negative, it is usually only partially correct. Additionally, stereotypes
may become self-fulfilling prophecies, where we observe others in selective ways
that confirm our prejudice. Despite the problems with stereotypes, it is necessary in
intercultural communication to make cultural generalizations. Without any kind of
supposition or hypothesis about the cultural differences we may encounter in an
intercultural situation, we may fall prey to naive individualism, where we assume
that every person is acting in some completely unique way. Or we may rely
inordinately on “common sense” to direct our communication behavior. Common
sense is, of course, common only to a particular culture. Its application outside of
one’s own culture is usually ethnocentric. Cultural generalizations can be made
while avoiding stereotypes by maintaining the idea of preponderance of belief.
Nearly all possible beliefs are represented in all cultures at all times, but each
different culture has a preference for some beliefs over others. The description of
this preference, derived from large-group research, is a cultural generalization. Of
course, individuals can be found in any culture who hold beliefs similar to people in
a different culture. There just aren’t so many of them—they don’t represent the
preponderance of people who hold beliefs closer to the norm or “central tendency”
of the group. As a specific example, we may note that despite the accurate cultural
generalization that U.S. Americans are more individualistic and Japanese are more
group-oriented, there are U.S. Americans who are every bit as group-oriented as any
Japanese and there are Japanese who are as individualistic as any U.S. American.
However, these relatively few people are closer to the fringe of their respective
cultures. They are, in the neutral sociological sense of the term, “deviant.”

The Functions of Stereotypes

In spite of stereotypes having negative impacts on how individuals perceive out-
groups, it does exert positive effect on assisting intergroup perception and intercultural
communication. As Hewstone and Giles suggested, “stereotypes serve important
functions, such as reducing the complexity of incoming information, facilitating rapid
identification of stimuli, and predicting and guiding behavior” [Matusitz J. Relationship
between Knowledge, Stereotyping, and Prejudice in Interethnic Communication. Revista
de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 10, 2012. –P.89-98].
Stereotypes serve as “cognitive shortcuts”
In an intergroup encounter, individuals usually have little information about their
object except their own group [Hepburn C., Locksley A. Subjective Awareness of
Stereotyping: Do We Know When Our Judgements are Prejudiced? Social Psychology
Quarterly, 46(4), 1983. –P. 311-318]. Furthermore, on account of communication
obstacles and cultural difference, individuals probably feel awkward and anxious
[Hepburn C., Locksley A. Subjective Awareness of Stereotyping: Do We Know When
Our Judgements are Prejudiced? Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(4), 1983. –P. 311-318].
In this case, individual may desire a guideline for their discourse or behavior. In order to
meet this requirement, individuals may call on a stereotype as a part of their knowledge,
to help instinctively. As Hepburn and Locksley highlight, stereotypes are easily triggered
when an individual is facing a low-information condition. Under the pressure of relative
multiplex and unpredictable information, stereotypes can function as “cognitive
shortcuts” in an intergroup encounter [Peng S. Y. Impact of Stereotypes on Intercultural
Communication: a Chinese Perspective. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev., 11, 2010. –P. 243-252].
This idea is also favored by Tajfel. He indicates that categorization is the basic cognitive
process in stereotyping. Individuals employ stereotyping in their cognitive processes to
“simplify information from the social environment”, then “make sense of a world that
would otherwise be too complex and chaotic for effective action”. To explain, Allport
illustrates the resources which are used to form categorizations, gathered on the basis of
the realistic, and assimilated to the cluster to the utmost extent [Tajfel, Henri. "Cognitive
Aspects of Prejudice." Journal of Social Issues 25 (4), 1969. –P.79-97].
Categorization, in this situation, composites social information of a target group and
presents its typical characteristics. Therefore, stereotyping is rational to some extent. It
may have the function of guiding individual daily adjustments and should be treated as
valuable. In communication, sharing information to establish “common ground” is a key
to creating coordination among involved groups [Collins E. C., Biernat M., Eidelman S.
Stereotypes in the Communication and Translation of Person [Link] of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 2009. –P. 368-374]. However, individuals
inevitably face a context where they meet members from other clusters in an intergroup
encounter. In order to create opportunities for positive interaction, individuals may rely
on culturally shared information. At such a time, stereotypes play a role in providing
processing resources [Krieglmeyer R., Sherman J. W. Disentangling Stereotype
Activation and Stereotype Application in the Stereotype Misperception [Link] of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 2012. –P.205-224]. For example, by
activating the stereotype “British people prefer to start a conversation by talking about the
weather”, the non-British person may be able to fit quickly into the indigenous society.
Although stereotyping cannot guide individuals to a successful communication wholly, it
fulfills the desire to avoid inappropriateness.
Stereotype could be used to explain social events.
Tajfel regarded the “cognitive shortcuts” function of stereotypes tended to be related
to the individual, but he thought stereotyping also has a social function, such as motivating
individuals to preserve their group values and providing clues to explain certain social
events. As mentioned above, stereotyping presents typical characteristics of a certain
cluster. It guides individuals establishing criteria for their target object once it becomes
known. Tajfel said most categorizations in the physical environment are neutral, such as
“Swedes are tall”. However, this depends on the preferences for one over another: some
classifications are regarded as “value-loaded” [Tajfel, Henri. "Cognitive Aspects of
Prejudice." Journal of Social Issues 25 (4), 1969. –P.154]. Taijfel argues that “tall” is
not consequentially value-free, even it is neither commentary nor derogatory. The trait
“tall” is obvious for categorizing Swedes. In this case, the fact that an individual
encounters tall Swedes who dislike their social categories may modify the general
stereotype. However, Tajfel argues that, when the instances relate to a trait with a strong
value, a differentiation will arise, since individuals tend to preserve their group value. In
other words, the people who do not fit the feature of their group will be treated as outsiders.
Furthermore, in order to avoid the threat to the values of a certain group, individuals prefer
to keep out the “right person” rather than let in the “wrong person” [Tajfel, Henri.
"Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice." Journal of Social Issues 25 (4), 1969. –158]. The
classic example to this case could be regarded as the witch-hunt. Tajfel concludes that “it
represents a powerful protection of the existing system of social values, and any mistakes
made are mistakes to the extent that they endanger that system”. Following this example,
it can be seen that stereotypes bear responsibility for arousing social events, as they explain
collective actions to a certain extent. Tajfel proposes that social groups may employ
stereotypes to justify their behaviors against out-groups. Humanity has a psychological
need to establish causality for what they perceive. In this case, a stereotype is occasionally
asked to fulfill this demand. Moreover, a stereotype could act either as cause or result. For
example, a stereotype is deemed as a result where it generated Americans’ negative image
of Turks after World War 2 [Korten F. F. The Stereotype as a Cognitive Construct. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 90, 1973. –P. 29-39]. However, a stereotype is employed
as a cause to explain the existence of anti-Semitism. In any case, stereotypes play an
important role in justification
Stereotypes may benefit both individuals and their social group
According to the social function of stereotypes, a social group provides and maintains
positive identities for members through distinguishing itself from other groups by the
prominence of its valuable characteristics [Tajfel H. Social Stereotype and Social groups.
In: Turner, J. and Giles, H. (eds.) Intergroup Behaviour. United Kingdom: Blackwell
Publishers, 1981.]. In this case, stereotypes play a positive role in encouraging social
group to preserve and create positively valued differentiations. Besides, individuals may
shape their self-respect or social identity by comparing the characteristics of their own
group with other social groups characteristics [Tajfel H. Social Stereotype and Social
groups. In: Turner, J. and Giles, H. (eds.) Intergroup Behaviour. United Kingdom:
Blackwell Publishers, 1981.]. This process is not only to fulfilling individuals’
ethnocentrism, but it also guides them to locate their own group accurately. On account
of stereotypes providing multidimensional references for distinguishing each social group,
individuals may easily find similarities or differences between themselves and the
members in a certain group. Furthermore, it may stimulate them to act positively to
integrate into that group. From another aspect, stereotypes do not always draw a negative
image. Czopp [Czopp A.M. When is a Compliment not a Compliment? Evaluating
Expressions of Positive [Link] of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
2008. –P. 413] says “unlike negative stereotypes, positive stereotypes are often perceived
as admirable qualities”. As mentioned above, positive stereotypes are regarded as valuable
by groups, which attempted to preserve them. Positive stereotypes not only highlight the
advantages of its target group but also build up an active relationship among groups. For
instance, the stereotypes of African Americans innately having athletic prowess and
musical ability [Czopp A.M. When is a Compliment not a Compliment? Evaluating
Expressions of Positive [Link] of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
2008. –P. 413-420] may create a positive interaction among African Americans and other
groups who value these capabilities. According to Tajfel characteristics [Tajfel H. Social
Stereotype and Social groups. In: Turner, J. and Giles, H. (eds.) Intergroup Behaviour.
United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers, 1981], groups’ reciprocal images exert a vital
influence on the relations between groups. In this case, the involvement of positive
stereotypes may create a platform for promoting group interaction.
Culture and stereotypes
Stereo types are often considered to be among the oldest social phenomenon that has
persisted along historical epochs. Conceptions burdened by stereotypes and prejudices
concerning everything that is related to others have always been a constant. Whenever it
comes to work or personal interactions it is easy and handy to call on a collective memory
where we find ready-made information about the others, without checking or filtering it.
prejudices from generation to generation and clichés become stronger irrespective of the
development of the society. By clinging to cultural stereotypes we focus our attention on
certain features, amplify them, and offer interpretations of our observations. The fact that
all human beings are born free and equal in their dignity and rights, and are endowed with
reason and conscience should lead them to act in a spirit of brotherhood and friendship,
which is not always the case. Despite this noble ideal, prejudice and discrimination
continue to affect humanity. This cruel reality is a reflection not only of the times in which
we live, but also of the imperfect nature of man. Most often we define first and then see,
we do not follow the logical, or common- sense order of see first and then defining. From
the confusion of the outside world, we choose what culture already defined in our name,
and we tend to perceive what we receive as a stereotype of our culture, or of other cultures.
To this end, it would be wise to recognize that anyone can have prejudices or resort to
stereotypes. The question is whether we can get rid of them, and fight against them, so as
not to affect us and the ones we come into contact with, in different instances. Education
was described as the "most powerful weapon" in the fight against prejudice. A proper
education can reveal the true causes of prejudice, can help us to examine our way of
thinking, and also react wisely when we ourselves are the target of prejudice.
Englishmen even if they know that their ancestors were from different parts conjoined
with multiplicity of tribes coming to the island treat everything and everybody from a
mixed point of view: respect and contempt. They are sure that England is one of the
civilized countries in the world, especially in the way people act and behave in society.
England is the land of law and order. It was not always in such a way but for 100 years
and even more it has been the very paragon of lawabidingness, orderliness, the right and
fairness. For English people it is not a surprise that they are the nation of old customs and
traditions, stereotypes known and laughed at all over the world, but they love the way they
are and cherish old English Victorian style; they somehow even nowadays create a self-
image of enigmatic “foggy hazy Albion”, being proud of it.
Pride is also common for Americans who think that their nation is unique and differs
from other ones. However, and here comes the 1st paradox, there are no pure Americans
in America. There is a mixture of blood in every American: Irish, Mexican, Italian,
Russian, Jewish, Indian, etc. Variety of nations and ethnic groups leads to well-known
American “political correctness” with hierarchy of origins, gender, nationality and class –
so it is like diversity within the unity! The Melting pot. Such are Americans (and British
people, and all other people in the world) where an indigenous character is absorbed and
sponged by immigration waves in a course of history.
In 1980-s there was a popular song, few lines out of which can be applied to the idea
of how the British see other people.
Germans live in Germany,
Yankee lives in Oklahoma,
Spanish live in Spain
But Englishman lives at home…
Their home is their castle and it is valued a lot showing certain disrespect (hidden in
most cases not to be blamed for harassment or intolerance) to other countries and people
there. It is interesting that British people as well as Americans are 100%sure in their own
superiority so that other nationalities definitely want to be and to live like them.
The world is separated into various places with certain attitudes. According to a
cultural survey, neighbors of Englishmen on the British Isles (the Welsh, the Scottish, and
the Irish) should not be trusted, although the image of Scots is that they are intelligent, the
Irish are brave and the Welsh are just nice. The French and the English have always been
partners based on a “love and hate” contract – the history cannot but prove it. The English
like France because of wine, cuisine (because even coffee in Great Britain tastes like a
chemistry experiment) and warm climate, but despite that France is not for French people
– so every holiday it is invaded by English tourists trying to “conquer” that valuable
country. All these aspects can be explained foremost by the past long and bitter opposition
of these two allies.
 Stereotypical ideas of the Brits about the Germans are the following: the Germans are
organized, serious, and time adhering but they tend to bully others (no one knows where
Englishmen get this viewpoint) and the Germans cannot cook…
Italians according to Britons are too emotional, the Spanish are over-energetic and
loud, but Spain heads the list of UK’s 10 top holiday destinations abroad. Russians are too
gloomy and smart; the Belgians and Scandinavians are a little bit slowthinkers; people
from the Southern countries are dangerous and inconceivable (although Asian and Orient
food is tasty to British people, and there are a lot of workers from these countries in the
UK occupying leading managing, supervisory and service slots in business sphere). Such
is the controversy of English people: there is an exception and lots of “ifs and buts” for
every statement.
A bright example is the way British and American people see each other through the
prism of cultural code and cliché. Americans have a “warm” feeling towards Britons, as
Great Britain is the country of good literature and music (especially The Beatles and The
Rolling Stones). The Americans are very much interested in the Queen’s family,
monarchy and they just revel in scandals and gossips happening in the UK; sometimes
even coming especially to see multiple royal ceremonies and participate in special
occasions. However, at the same time they cannot understand why these Brits are not
willing to get the American way of life, why they behave like isolated islanders, still have
their pound system and are vehement about the Brexit. But English people do not accept
this global “Americanism” and are sure that there is nothing to boast about. Firstly, every
American has English roots be cause of English settlers who came to the USA long time
ago. Secondly, the American culture being pop and invasive is not civilized and badly
influences a true British one. Thirdly, how a nation could be proud of itself when it even
speaks the “wrong” English knowing nothing about RP and having literacy suffrage
slightly acceptable due to the English educational standards. At the same time Englishmen
make a conclusion that it is worth having America as a good companion with political and
commercial benefit, playing bromance against Russia. But this fact does not stop criticism
and comparison of the countries.

REFERENCES
1. Appel, M., (2012). Anti-Immigrant Propaganda by Radical Right Parties and the
Intellectual Performance of Adolescents. Political Psychology, 33(4), 483-493.
2. Bonacich, P., (1990). Communication Dilemmas in Social Networks: An
Experimental Study. American Sociological Review, 55(3), 448-459.
3. Cardon, P. W., (2010). Using Films to Learn about the Nature of Cross-cultural
Stereotypes in Intercultural Business Communication [Link]
Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 150-165.
4. Chew, W. L, (2006). What’s in a National Stereotype? An Introduction to
Imagology at the Threshold of the 21st Century. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 6(3-4), 179-187.
5. Collins, E. C., Biernat, M., and Eidelman, S., (2009). Stereotypes in the
Communication and Translation of Person [Link] of Experimental
Social Psychology, 45, 368-374.
6. Czopp, A.M., (2008). When is a Compliment not a Compliment? Evaluating
Expressions of Positive [Link] of Experimental Social Psychology,
44, 413-420.
7. Eilers, J., (1992). Communicating between [Link] Introduction to
Intercultural [Link] Institute, 87(4/6), 646.
8. Fein, S., Hippel, W., and Spencer, J., (1999). To Stereotype of Not to Stereotype:
Motivation and Stereotype Activation, Application, and Inhibition. Psychological
Inquiry, 10(1), 49-54.
9. Hepburn, C., and Locksley, A., (1983). Subjective Awareness of Stereotyping: Do
We Know When Our Judgements are Prejudiced? Social Psychology Quarterly,
46(4), 311-318.
10. Hill, M.E., and Augoustinos, M. (2001). Stereotype Change and Prejudice
Reduction: Short- and Longterm Evaluation of a Cross-cultural Awareness
Program. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 243-262.
11. Korten, F. F., (1973) The Stereotype as a Cognitive Construct. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 90, 29-39.
12. Krieglmeyer, R., and Sherman, J. W., (2012). Disentangling Stereotype Activation
and Stereotype Application in the Stereotype Misperception [Link] of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 205-224.
13. Kunda, Z. and Sinclair, L., (1999). Motivated Reasoning with Stereotypes:
Activation, Application, and Inhibition. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 12-22.
14. Kurylo, A., (2012). What Are They Like? Non-Expert Definitions of Stereotypes
and their Implications for Stereotype [Link] Research in
Psychology, 9 (4), 337-350.
15. Lyons, A., and Kashima, Y., (2003). How Are Stereotypes Maintained Through
Communication? The Influence of Stereotype [Link] of Personality
and Social Psychology, 85(6), 989-1005.
16. Matusitz, J., (2012). Relationship between Knowledge, Stereotyping, and
Prejudice in Interethnic Communication. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio
Cultural, 10, 89-98.
17. McKown, C., and Weinstein, R., (2003). The Development and Consequences of
Stereotype Consciousness in Middle [Link] Development, 74(2), 498-
515.
18. Peng, S. Y., (2010), Impact of Stereotypes on Intercultural Communication: a
Chinese Perspective. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev., 11, 243-252.
19. Spencer-Rodgers, J., (2001) Consensual and Individual Stereotypic Beliefs about
International Students among American Host [Link] Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 25, 639-657.
20. Spencer-Rodgers, J. & McGovern, T., (2002) Attitudes toward the Culturally
Different: The Role of Intercultural Communication Barriers, Affective responses,
Consensual Stereotypes, and Perceived [Link] Journal of
Intercultural Relations.26(2002). p. 609-631.
21. Tajfel, H. (1981) Social Stereotype and Social groups. In: Turner, J. and Giles, H.
(eds.) Intergroup Behaviour. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers.
22. Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., & Schultz, P. (2012). The
consequences of chronic stereotype threat: domain disidentification and
abandonment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103(4), 635.
23. McCauley, Clark, C. L. Stitt and M. Segal. 1980. "Stereotyping: From Prejudice to
Prediction." Psychological Bulletin 87 (1): 195–208.
24. Katz, Daniel and Kenneth Braly. 1933. "Racial Stereotypes of One Hundred
College Students." The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 28 (3): 280-
290.
25. Tajfel, Henri. 1969. "Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice." Journal of Social Issues 25
(4): 79-97.
26. Clark and y. 2013. "Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents and the future
of cognitive science." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (3): 181-204