Greeks, Mexicans, and so on. When you ignore these differences—when you assume that all per- sons covered by the same label (in this case a national or racial label) are the same—you’re guilty of stereotyping. A good example of this is seen in the use of the term “African American.” The term stresses the unity of Africa and of those who are of African descent and is analogous to “Asian American” or “European American.” At the same time, it ignores the great diversity within the Afri- can continent when, for example, it’s used as analogous to “German American” or “Japanese Amer- ican.” More analogous terms would be “Nigerian American” or “Ethiopian American.” Within each culture there are smaller cultures that differ greatly from each other and from the larger culture.
Differences in Meaning
Meaning exists not in words but in people (a principle we’ll re- turn to in Chapter 5). Consider, for example, the differences in meaning that exist for words such as religion to a born-again Christian and an atheist, and lunch to a Chinese rice farmer and a Madison Avenue advertising executive. Even though the same word is used, its mean- ings will vary greatly depending on the listeners’ cultural definitions.The same is true of nonverbal messages. For example, a child who avoids eye contact with an adult may be seen in one culture as deference (the child is showing respect for the older person) and in another as disrespect or even defiance (the child is indicating a lack of concern for what the older person is saying).
Confront Your Stereotypes
Stereotypes, especially when they operate below the level of conscious awareness, can create serious communication problems (Lyons & Kashima, 2003). Originally, the word stereotype was a printing term that referred to the plate that printed the same image over and over. A sociological or psychological stereotype is a fixed impression of a group of people. Everyone has atti- tudinal stereotypes—images of national groups, religious groups, or racial groups or perhaps of criminals, prosti- tutes, teachers, or plumbers. Consider, for example, if you have any stereotypes of, say, bodybuilders, the op- posite sex, a racial group different from your own, mem- bers of a religion very different from your own, hard drug users, or college professors. It is very likely that you have stereotypes of several or perhaps even of all of these groups. Although we often think of stereotypes as nega- tive (“They’re lazy, dirty, and only interested in getting high”), stereotypes also may be positive (“They’re smart, hardworking, and extremely loyal”).If you have these fixed impressions, you may, on meeting a member of a particular group, see that person primarily as a member of that group. Initially this may provide you with some helpful orientation. However, it creates problems when you apply to that person all the characteristics you assign to members of that group without examining the unique individual. If you meet a politician, for example, you may have a host of character- istics for politicians that you can readily apply to this person. To complicate matters further, you may see in the person’s behavior the manifestation of various
VIEWPOINTS The stereotype of the male generally defines him as logical, decisive, aggressive, insensitive, unemotional, non- nurturing, talented mechanically, and impatient. The stereotype of the female generally defines her as illogical, variable, nurturing, emotional, sensitive, untalented mechanically, and impatient (Cicarelli & White, 2012). Do your acquaintances maintain any of these stereotypes? What are some of the implications of thinking through these stereotypes?
For a brief rant on stereotyping of men, see “Stereotyping in Cartoons,” etc., at tcbdevito .blogspot.com. Can you add any examples from your own experience where stereotyping was involved?
characteristics that you would not see if you did not know that the person was a politician. In online communication, because there are few visual and auditory cues, it’s not surprising to find that people form impressions of online communication partners with a heavy reliance on stereotypes (Jacobson, 1999).
Consider, however, another kind of stereotype: You’re driving along a dark road and are stopped at a stop sign. A car pulls up beside you and three teenagers jump out and rap on your window. There may be a variety of possible explanations. Perhaps they need help or they want to ask directions. Or they may be about to engage in carjacking. Your self- protective stereotype may help you decide on “carjacking” and may lead you to pull away and into the safety of a busy service station. In doing that, of course, you may have escaped being carjacked—or you may have failed to help people who needed assistance.
Stereotyping can lead to two major barriers. The tendency to group a person into a class and to respond to that person primarily as a member of that class can lead you to perceive that a person possesses certain qualities (usually negative) that you believe characterize the group to which he or she belongs. Then you will fail to appreciate the multifaceted nature of all people and all groups. For example, consider your stereotype of someone who is deeply into computers. Very likely your image is quite different from the research findings on such individuals, which show that in fact they are as often female as male and are as sociable, popular, and self-assured as their peers who are not into heavy computer use (Schott & Sel- wyn, 2000).
Stereotyping also can lead you to ignore the unique characteristics of an individual; you therefore may fail to benefit from the special contributions each person can bring to an encounter.
Reduce Your Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism is the tendency to see others and theirbehaviors through your own cultural filters, often as distortions of your own behaviors. It’s the tendency to evaluate the values, beliefs, and behaviors of your own culture as superior— as more positive, logical, and natural than those
of other cultures. For example, highly ethnocen- tric individuals would think that other cultures should be more like theirs, that people from other cultures often don’t know what’s good for them, that the lifestyles of people in other countries are not as good as theirs, and that people from other cultures are not as smart or trustworthy as people from their own culture (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997). To achieve effective interpersonal commu- nication, you need to see yourself and others as different but as neither inferior nor superior. You need to become aware of the potential blinders that ethnocentrism might impose—admittedly, not a very easily accomplished task.
But ethnocentrism also can create consider- able problems. Although the research is not con- clusive, it appears that it may create obstacles to communication with those who are culturally dif- ferent from you. It can also lead to hostility toward outside groups and may blind you to seeing other perspectives, other values, other ways of doing things (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997; Cashdan, 2001; Jörn, 2004).
Ethnocentrism exists on a continuum (see Fig- ure 2.2, p. 48). People aren’t either ethnocentric or not ethnocentric; rather, most are somewhere between
VIEWPOINTS What other suggestions would you offer for de- creasing ethnocentrism, increasing cultural awareness and sensitivity, and making intercultural communication more satisfying and more pro- ductive?
these polar opposites. Of course, your degree of ethnocentrism varies, depending on the group on which you focus. For example, if you’re Greek American, you may have a low degree of ethnocentrism when dealing with Italian Americans but a high degree when dealing with Turkish Americans or Japanese Americans. Most important for our purposes is that your de- gree of ethnocentrism (and we are all ethnocentric to at least some degree) will influence your interpersonal interactions.
There is nothing wrong with classifying. In fact, it’s an extremely useful method of dealing with any complex matter; it puts order into thinking. The problem arises not from classifica- tion itself but from applying an evaluative label to a class and using that label as an “adequate” map for each and every individual in the group.
Adjust Your Communication
Intercultural communication (in fact, all interpersonal communication) takes place only to the extent that one person can understand the mean- ings of the words and nonverbals cues of the other—that is, only to the extent that the two individuals share the same system of symbols. Because no two people share the identical meaning system for symbols, each person needs to adjust in all interpersonal interactions, but especially, perhaps, in intercultural interactions. Figure 2.3 illustrates the connection between degrees of cultural difference and the degree of adjustment that will be necessary for successful communication.Parents and children, for example, not only have different vocabularies but also, even more importantly, have different meanings for some of the terms they have in common. People in close relationships—either as intimate friends or as romantic partners—realize that learning the other person’s signals takes a long time and, often, great patience. If you want to understand what another person means—by smiling, by saying “I love you,” by ar- Figure 2.2
The ethnocentric Continuum
This figure summarizes some of the interconnections between ethnocentrism and communication. In this figure, five areas along the ethnocentrism continuum are identified; in reality, there are as many degrees as there are people. The “Communication Distances” are general terms that highlight the attitude that dominates that level of ethnocentrism. Under “Communications” are some of the major ways people might interact given their particular degree of ethnocentrism. Can you identify your own degree of ethnocentrism on this continuum? For example, are there groups toward which you have low ethnocentrism? Middle? High? What accounts for these differences? This figure draws on the work of several intercultural researchers (Lukens, 1978; Gudykunst & Kim, 1992; Gudykunst, 1991).
Communications
Lacks concern for others but is not hostile
Wants to decrease distance between self and others Treats others as equals; evaluates other ways of doing things as equal to own ways
Engages in hostile behavior; belittles others; views own culture as superior to other cultures
Avoids and limits interpersonal interaction with others: prefers to be with own kind
Degree of Ethnocentrism High Low Communication Distances Disparagement Equality Sensitivity Indifference Avoidance
Great Small Great Cultural Differences Amount of A djustmen t Great Figure 2.3
Cultural Differences and interpersonal Adjustment
As you can see from this diagram, the greater the cultural differences, the greater the communication adjustment you’ll need to make in order to accomplish your interpersonal goal. Try identifying a specific interpersonal encounter in which little adjustment would be necessary and another in which a great deal of adjustment would be necessary. In what ways are these situations different?
guing about trivial matters, by self-deprecating comments—you have to learn their system of signals.
This principle is especially important in intercultural communication—largely because people from different cultures use different signals and/or use the same signals to signify quite different things. As previously mentioned, focused eye contact means honesty and openness in much of the United States. But in Japan and in many Hispanic cultures that same behavior may signify arrogance or disrespect if it occurs between a youngster and someone signifi- cantly older.
Part of the art of intercultural communication is learning the other person’s signals, how they’re used, and what they mean. Furthermore, you have to share your own system of signals with others so that they can better understand you. Although some people may know what you mean by your silence or by your avoidance of eye contact, others may not. You cannot expect others to decode your behaviors accurately without help.
An interesting theory focusing on adjustment is communication accommodation theory. This theory holds that speakers will adjust to or accommodate the speaking style of their listeners to gain, for example, social approval and greater communication efficiency (Giles, 2008; Giles & Ogay, 2007). For example, research shows that when two people have a similar speech rate, they’re attracted more to each other than to people with dissimilar rates (Buller, Le- Poire, Aune, & Eloy, 1992). Another study found that roommates who had similar com- munication competence and were both low in verbal aggressiveness were highest in roommate liking and satisfaction (Martin & Anderson, 1995).
People even accommodate in their e-mail. For example, responses to messages that contained politeness cues were significantly more polite than responses to e-mails that did not contain such cues (Bunz & Campbell, 2004).
As you adjust your communications, recognize that each culture has its own rules and customs for communicating (Barna, 1997; Ru- ben, 1985; Spitzberg, 1991). These rules identify what is appropriate and what is inappropriate (Serewicz & Petronio, 2007). Thus, for ex- ample, in American culture you would call a person you wished to date three or four days in advance; in certain Asian cultures you might call the person’s parents weeks or even months in advance. In American culture you say, as a general friendly gesture and not as a specific invita-
Interpersonal ChoICe poInt
Misusing Linguistic Privilege
You enter a group of racially similar people who are using terms normally considered offensive to refer to themselves. Trying to be one of the group, you too use such terms—but are met with extremely negative nonverbal feedback. What are some things you might say to lessen this negative reaction and to let the group know that you don’t normally use such racial terms?
tion, “Come over and pay us a visit.” To members of other cultures, this comment is suffi- cient for the listeners to actually visit at their convenience. A good example of a series of rules for an extremely large and important culture appears in Table 2.3, “Interpersonal Com- munication Tips between People with and without Disabilities.”