Influences of Stereotypes on Intercultural Communication

黎顥

LI Hao

（School of Foreign Languages， Northeast Normal University， Changchun， Jilin 130024）

Abstract This paper aims to provide a snapshot of different aspects of stereotypes from the perspective of intercultural communication. It touches on the definition and classification of stereotypes， introduces contemporary empirical studies on stereotypes at home and abroad， and highlights influences of stereotypes on intercultural communication. Paradox of cross-cultural communication is cited to clarify the correlations between the advantages and drawbacks of stereotypes in the process of intercultural communication.

Key words stereotype； intercultural communication； influences

中圖分類號：G424 文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼：A

0 Introduction

In a globalized era， it stands to reason that increasing importance need be attached to the study of intercultural communication. Stereotypes， considered as a common occurrence in intercultural communication， are products of close-ended， narrow， and misleading perceptions in most circumstances. They are obvious， pervasive phenomena and more often than not are neglected in one way or another by communicators of different cultural backgrounds. The reason for the pervasive nature of stereotypes is that human beings have a psychological need to categorize and classify. The world is too complex and too transitory for us to know it in all its details.

1 Stereotype

1.1 Definition of Stereotype

The earliest version of the definition of stereotype was introduced in 1922 by the American Journalist Walter Lippman in his Public Opinion. He refers to stereotype as exaggerated “pictures in our head”（Lippmann， 1922）. Stereotypes are a means of organizing our images into fixed and simple categories that we use to stand for the entire collection of people （ibid）. Stereotyping is a complex form of categorization that mentally organizes your experience and guides your behavior toward a particular group of people （Samovar， Porter， Stefani， 1998）. Klineberg in 1966： “stereotype refers to the images which persons or groups have of each other， the pictures in their heads that they have of one another” （Kim & Yeh， 2002： 18）. Stereotyping is an over-generalization about an identity group without any attempt to perceive individual variations within the identity category （Ting-Toomey， 2007： 161）. Psychologists Abbate， Boca， and Bocchiaro offer a more formal definition： “A stereotype is a cognitive structure containing the perceivers knowledge， beliefs， and expectancies about some human social groups.”（cf. Samovar， Porter， McDaniel， 2009： 170） Stereotype is “a fixed idea or image that many people have of a particular type of person or thing， but which is often not true in reality.”（Hornby， 2009： 1979）

1.2 Classification of Stereotype

Different classifications can be reached according to different criteria. In terms of the content of stereotype， there are positive stereotype and negative/derogatory stereotype. “Chinese students excel in tests” is a positive stereotype while “American students are fun-seekers” is a negative stereotype. In light of group differentiation， there are auto-stereotype and hetero-stereotype. The term auto-stereotype refers to what insiders think of themselves as a group. Hetero-stereotype refers to what one group think of another group. When stereotypes have a high degree of external validity， they come to be known as socio-types.

According to information source， stereotypes can be categorized into normative stereotype and personal stereotype. Normative stereotypes are formed as the result of our guesses based on generalized knowledge we have acquired concerning another group via information from mass media or books. Personal stereotypes are reflected in our personal experiences and limited contacts with the other group. Since all individuals stereotype their in-group members and out-group members， we can classify stereotypes into mindless stereotyping and mindful stereotyping in terms of the key to dealing with the issue. Mindless stereotyping is characterized by ignorance of all new incoming information， in-group favoritism， out-group bias.

2 Previous Empirical Research on Stereotype

2.1 Previous Empirical Research on Stereotype Abroad

The most famous empirical study of stereotyping was published by David Katz and Kenneth Braly in 1933. They assessed Princeton University undergraduates beliefs about which 5 adjectives from a list of 84 ones correspond with ten ethnic and national groups. There is a considerable agreement on the first ten traits chosen for each group， which indicates a commonly agreed-upon stereotype. Their study was replicated in 1951 by Gilbert and in 1967 Karlins respectively in the same university （ibid： 189-191）. The study results reveal that Princeton undergraduates basically held positive stereotype towards Japanese despite some negative contents. However， after World War II during which Japanese sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor， there was a dramatic change in Princeton undergraduates attitude towards Japanese in 1951 and there was barely positive reputation for Japanese. However， in 1967， negative stereotypes of Japanese turned positive. From this case， we can see that stereotypes are not stable.

Hughes and Baldwin （2002） conducted an empirical study on 108 black undergraduates and 159 white undergraduates in the US. All respondents were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of two parts： communication behaviors identified in the literature representing “Black” and “White” communication and overall perceptions of the other， after recalling a past interaction with the racial “other” group. Results suggest that the exact order of stereotypes/perceptions might change from place to place， depending on how the instrument is used， and may be influenced by interpersonal interaction.

2.2 Previous Empirical Research on Stereotype in China

Zhang Peng and Chen Junsen （2000） investigated one hundred Chinese college science students by asking them to pick out 5 adjectives that best describe the attributes of the British， Americans， Japanese and Chinese from a list of 25 adjectives in the questionnaire about stereotype. Zhang and Chen aimed to discover the relationship between stereotype acquisition and foreign language teaching and attempted to point out that incorporating cultural perspective in foreign language teaching materials and establishing an objective understanding of alien culture facilitate the formation of a correct stereotype. However， their research method was relatively simple and the results are consequently not convincing. Having been aware of the flaws in the Zhang and Chens research， Peng Shiyong （2008） utilized the method of Kuhn and McPartland to inquire into stereotypes of Chinese， Americans， and Japanese as held by a Chinese sample of 115 English majors. The students were required to write as many sentences in Chinese as possible describing their perceptions and impressions respectively of Chinese， Japanese， and Americans. Then the first ten adjectives with the highest frequencies were selected and tabulated for analysis. The research results provide a new approach to the study of intercultural communication in China. The research method is more acceptable and feasible because it improves Zhang and Chens method by avoiding preconceptions.

3 Influences of Stereotypes on Intercultural Communication

3.1 Factors Influencing Stereotypes

Bar-Tal isolates three groups of factors that impact the content of stereotypes： background factors， transmitting factors， and personal mediating factors. The background factors encompass the history of relations among the groups involved， the political and social climate in which we live， economic conditions etc. The transmitting factors include direct contact with members of the other group and our families， as well as the political， cultural institutions. Our attitudes， personalities， motivation， and cognitive styles play a role in how these factors contribute to the formation of our stereotypes. The influences of stereotypes on intercultural communication can be categorized into two dimensions： advantages and drawbacks.

3.2 Advantages of Stereotypes on Intercultural Communication

A stereotype is the abstraction and generalization of different racial or ethnic groups. By stereotyping we infer that a person has a whole range of characteristics and abilities that we assume all members of that group have. The pattern of stereotypes is the projection upon the world of our own sense of our own value， our own position and our own rights. The stereotypes are， therefore， highly charged with the feelings that are attached to them （Lippmann， 1922： 96）.

3.3 Drawbacks of Stereotypes on Intercultural Communication

Any form of stereotyping is potentially an obstruction to successful intercultural communication， because it blinds us to the real differences that exist between the participants in the communication process. Positive stereotypes include judges （the phrase “sober as a judge” would suggest this is a stereotype with a very respectable set of characteristics）， overweight people （who are often seen as “jolly”） and television newsreaders （usually seen as highly dependable， respectable and impartial）. However， most stereotypes probably tend to convey a negative impression and seem far more common. Whether stereotypes are positive or negative， it should be clear that stereotyping is a perennial problem in intercultural communication and it stands in the way of successful communication， because it blinds us to major areas of difference. It hampers intercultural communication.

Stereotyping is an over-generalization about an identity group without any attempt to perceive individual variations within the identity category （Ting-Toomey， 2007： 161）. It does not necessarily increase the accuracy of our predictions. Use of dialects， jargons and slang are typical behaviors characterized by ethnocentrism； it leads to a longer avoidance distance between the two sides （Wen， 2002： 16）. Stereotyping contrasts two cultures or two groups on the basis of some single dimension and it drives us to remember more favorable information about our in-groups and more unfavorable information about out-groups.

4 Conclusion

We live in a world so complex and transitory that it becomes difficult for us to comprehend it in detail. Hence we have the psychological need to classify and categorize. Stereotypes facilitate our classification and help people in different cultures to understand each other in an instant way. In this sense， culture stereotypes are inevitable and omnipresent. However， the “overgeneralization” or “l(fā)abeling” of these differences in stereotypes may also bring artificial block， which impedes the communication and understanding between cultures. This phenomenon is summarized by Gao Yihong （1995： 38） as the paradox of cross-cultural communication. It can be vividly clarified by the image of a bridge which facilitates intercultural communication and the image of wall which impedes the communication.

Bibliography

[1] Hornby A. S. Oxford Advanced Learners English-Chinese Dictionary （7th Edition）[Z]. Beijing： Oxford University Press.

[2] Hughes P.C. & Baldwin J.R. 2002. Communication and Stereotypical Impressions[J]. The Howard Journal of Communication 13： 113-128.

[3] Kim A. & Yeh C.J. 2002.Seterotypes of Asian American Students[M]. New York： Clearinghouse on Urban Education.

[4] Lippmann W. 1922. Public Opinion[M]. New York： Harcourt， Brace and Company.

[5] Samovar L. A.， Porter R. E. & McDaniel E. R. 2009. Communication Between Cultures[M]. Boston： Wadsworth.

[6] Ting-Toomey S. 2007. Communicating Across Cultures[M]. Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

[7] 高一虹.“文化定型”與“跨文化交際悖論”[J].外語教學(xué)與研究，1995（2）：35-42.

[8] 彭世勇.英語學(xué)習(xí)者對中、日、美三國人的刻板印象[J].解放軍外國語學(xué)院學(xué)報，2008（3）：52-55，68.

[9] 文衛(wèi)平.跨文化交際中的定型觀念[J].外語教學(xué)，2002（3）：12-18.

[10] 張萍，陳俊森.大學(xué)生的英美日中定型觀念調(diào)查[J].華中科技大學(xué)學(xué)報，2000（4）：122-124.