My (Mai) Personal Pageにもどる

Crosscultural communication

"Stereotype research"

Mai Asano

1, Introduction

      This report considers stereotypes which different cultures have. This research is based on the recognition that even in a globalized society like ours, stereotypes about each nation do exist and that these stereotypes sometimes cause discomfort and prevent people of different cultural backgrounds from communicating with each other successfully. Although it is thought that having prejudices or stereotypes should be avoided, it is hard not to have any stereotypes about people having different cultural backgrounds.

      Being in Japan, one may notice that crimes which are caused by Iranians appear on Japanese newspapers quite often. Of course, as a country, which has a　so-called homogeneous culture, Japan has few crimes which are caused by people from other countries. The percentage of Iranians living in Japan is not large, however, compared to the media representation of other ethnic groups living in Japan, Iranian incidents can be found more easily in newspapers or in the news on television. However, if these articles or reports are examined carefully, it can be noticed that the real criminals of these incidents are not always Iranians. There are plenty of descriptions such as “according to the witness, the snatcher has the look of an Iranian,”[1] however, in the end the criminal is actually not of Iranian nationality. It is not clear why it is emphasised that they are specifically Iranians and are not generally referred to as Middle Easterns. Although Japan is said to be considerate in dealing with criminal suspects, it seems that this tendency is not observed with foreigners. It can be said that these misunderstandings and discriminations are clues to some sort of stereotypes.

      Whether we like it or not, stereotypes do exist and it is true that these stereotypes have a great influence on cross-cultural communication. I believe that national stereotypes play a significant role in the field of cross-cultural communication and that to understand the way of categorizing according to a stereotype will help us make cross-cultural communication more successful.

2, Definition of objectives

      It is normally understood that each nation living in a certain country has certain characteristics. As Peabody states, there is a basic concept of national characteristics. He explains that judgments about national characteristics made by ordinary people are traditionally called “national stereotypes.”[2] National stereotypes are generally regarded as irrational, more specifically, false and evil. However, Brown explains that they are not always harmful or evil.[3] Peabody also suggests that stereotypes are not always wrong because there are some similarities between the judgments by people who belong to that culture and the judgments by those who are outsiders.

      My question is what kind of national stereotypes people have about different nations and how different the recognition of national characteristics is between ingroup judgments, the judgments by people who belong to that culture and outgroup judgments, the judgments by those who are outsiders. In this research, through comparison of Anglo-Saxon Australian judgments and Japanese judgments, differences of each national characteristic are examined and how these stereotypes affect cross-cultural communication is considered. Also, through the comparison of data of the Japanese living in Japan and that of the Japanese living in Australia, how stereotype grows and is eliminated is considered.

3, Method

      I asked seven Japanese living in Japan, nine Japanese living in Sydney and seven Anglo-Saxon Australians to fill out a questionnaire. These surveys were conducted between the 1^st of December and the 9^th of December 2002. Judges are all students who are studying at the University of New South Wales in Australia or at the Nagoya City University in Japan. All Japanese judges, who live in Japan have no experience of living abroad for a long time. In this questionnaire, they were required to measure some characteristics about different nations. There are seven dimensions of characteristics; optimistic v. pessimistic, friendly v. unfriendly, industrious v. lazy, confident v. unconfident, clever v. dull, stoic v. epicurean and honest v. dishonest and each category is evaluated using the numbers from 1 to 7. Required targets are six nations; the Anglo-Saxon Australians, the Japanese, the Australian Aborigines, the Italians, the Thais and the Americans. Judges measured each characteristic of each nation including the nation they belong to.

4, Data analysis

4-1, Judgments about the Anglo-Saxon Australians

      As has been shown in graph1-a to 1-g (p.10), Japanese judges tend to measure more polarized than the Australians do. While the Australians use 2 to 5 in most characteristics, the Japanese evaluate more extremely. Generally, the outcome of Japanese living in Japan shows consistency, on the contrary, that of Japanese living in Australia becomes more separate.

About the characteristics of optimistic v. pessimistic (Graph1-a), friendly v. unfriendly (Graph1-b), confident v. unconfident (Graph1-d) and clever v. dull (Graph1-e), judges by three groups show a kind of consensus. About the content of industrious v. lazy (Graph1-c), while the Australians regard themselves as middle or a kind of lazy, the Japanese living in Japan tend to think the Australians more industrious and the Japanese living in Australia tend to think more lazy. About stoic v. epicurean (Graph1-f), the Japanese regard the Australians as more epicurean than the Australians do. About honest v. dishonest (Graph1-g), although the Japanese living in Japan and the Australians regard the Australians as honest, the outcome of the Japanese living in Australia shows no consensus.

4-2, Judgments about the Japanese

      Graphs (Graph2-a to 2-g, p.11) show that the Australians estimate Japanese characteristics higher than the Japanese think what they really are. It is interesting that about the contents of optimistic v. pessimistic (Graph2-a), friendly v. unfriendly (Graph2-b), clever v. dull (Graph2-e) and honest v. dishonest (Graph2-g), the Australian overestimate the Japanese, scoring much better marks.

      From the score of industrious v. lazy (Graph2-c), it can be understood that Japanese tend to think themselves industrious and some consensuses are shown from the Australian judgments. About confident v. unconfident (Graph2-d), there is strong agreement that the Japanese are normally not confident. About stoic v. epicurean (Graph2-f), the outcome is far from consensus. Generally, the score tends to be middle, however, even in either group, no consensus can be seen.

4-3, Judgments about Australian Aboriginal people

      From the judgments about the Aborigines (Graph3-a to 3-g, p.12), the Australians seem to have more pessimistic image. Generally, the Japanese living in Japan tend to have higher estimation and that of the Japanese living in Australia and the Australians is lower. This tendency is obvious in the scores of optimistic v. pessimistic (Graph3-a), friendly v. unfriendly (Graph3-b) and confident v. unconfident (Graph3-d). About the content of industrious v. lazy (Graph3-c), the Australians tend to measure middle, however, the Japanese living in Japan tend to measure more industrious and the Japanese living in Australia tend to think that Aborigines are lazy. It is surprising that about industrious v. lazy, clever v. dull (Graph3-e) and stoic v. epicurean (Graph3-f), the Japanese living in Australia have the severest judgments of these three groups. About honest v. dishonest (Graph3-g), three groups seem to think that Aborigines are honest.

4-4, Judgments about the Italians

      In the outcome of the Italians (Graph4-a to 4-g, p.13), strong consensuses are shown in some characteristics. About the judgments of optimistic v. pessimistic (Graph4-a), friendly v. unfriendly (Graph4-b), confident v. unconfident (Graph4-d) and clever v. dull (Graph4-e), three groups reach very strong agreement. Most of judges tend to estimate the Italians to be optimistic, friendly, quite confident and rather clever. The outcome of industrious v. lazy (Graph4-c) is a kind of chaotic. However, the Italians tend to be thought rather lazy. The scale of stoic v. epicurean (Graph4-f) shows that although the Japanese living in Japan and the Australians tend to regard the Italians as epicurean, some Japanese living in Australia do not agree with it. The outcome of honest v. dishonest (Graph4-g) shows another diverging opinions. However, as has been shown in Table 1,2 and 3 (pp.16-17) the Italians tend to be regarded as untruthful.

4-5, Judgments about the Thais

      As graphs (Graph5-a to 5-g, p.14) show, through the comparison of judgments of the Japanese living in Japan and that of the Japanese living in Australia, one thing is clear. Unlike judgments about the other nations, two Japanese groups show strong disagreement in some characteristics. About friendly v. unfriendly (Graph5-b), although the Japanese living in Australia tend to regard the Thais as quite friendly, the Japanese living in Japan tend to regard as less friendly. A clearer contrast is described in the content of industrious v. lazy (Graph5-c). The Japanese living in Japan tend to estimate the Thais to be industrious, however, the Japanese living in Australia estimate opposite. About confident v. unconfident (Graph5-d), the Japanese living in Japan regard as rather confident, oppositely, the Japanese living in Australia do as rather unconfident. In the content of honest v. dishonest (Graph5-g), the Japanese living in Australia show more trust in the Thais, however, the Japanese living in Japan less. These contrasts can also be seen in table1 and 2 (pp.16-17). About optimistic v. pessimistic (Graph5-a), clever v. dull (Graph5-e) and stoic v. epicurean (Graph5-g), three groups reach a kind of agreement.

4-6, Judgments about the Americans

      In the judgments about the Americans (Graph6-a to 6-g, p.15), generally, consensuses can be seen in all contents. Especially, the score of confident v. unconfident (Graph6-d) shows extreme agreement of three groups. According to these judgments, American national characteristic is rather lazy, very confident and epicurean.

      However, some differences are also shown. In the content of clever v. dull (Graph6-e), although the Japanese tend to think that the Americans are clever, the Australians do not. About stoic v. epicurean (Graph6-f), the Japanese regard as rather epicurean and the Australians regard as rather stoic.

5, Discussion

      Generally, it can be said that the judgments of three groups about each nation show consensus including the evaluations about the Australians and the Japanese. These similarities between ingroup judgments and outgroup judgments mean that as Peabody suggests, stereotype is not always wrong and harmful but help individuals “be prepared to bypass differences and respond to similarities of events and people.”[4]

However, there is one obvious thing that the Japanese living in Japan about the judgments of the Australians and the Australians about the judgments of the Japanese tend to have more fixed images about the opponent. It is normally said that judgments by outgroups tend to exaggerate the homogeneity within a group. That is why outgroup judgments tend to be more polarized and ingroup judgments tend to show less descriptive consistency.[5]

      Living in Japan, most of Japanese have few opportunities to become acquainted with people having different cultural backgrounds. Therefore, what they saw on the television and what they read in books or newspaper about different nations become exact images of national characteristics. After some Japanese came to Sydney, they may have become more flexible so the score of the Japanese living in Australia shows less consistency.

      The judgments by the Australians about the Japanese can be explained as the same way. However, the judgments by the Australians seem to be more flexible. This may be because living in a multicultural country, the Australians have more opportunities to know about the Japanese. Also, the Australians tend to overestimate the Japanese characteristics. However, it is also possible that the Japanese tend to underestimate themselves.

      If every judgment is compared, one can notice that the judgments about the Australians, the Italians and the Americans have more similarities one another and the judgments about the Japanese and the Thais have more similarities each other. Moreover, it can be said that in the judgments by the Japanese, the similarities between the Australians, the Italians and the Americans are more emphasised and in the judgments by the Australians, those of the Japanese and the Thais more. About the images of the Australians, the Italians and the Americans, some similarities can be seen in the scores of optimistic, confident and epicurean (Table1, 2 and 3, pp.16-17). They are regarded as more optimistic, friendly, confident and epicurean than the other nations. However, this kinship is less emphasised in the judgments by the Australians. Oppositely, the Japanese and the Thais are thought a kind of unconfident and stoic. However, in the judgments by the Australians, the similarities between two groups are more obvious and the Australians tend to regard the Japanese and the Thai as more industrious, unconfident, clever and stoic than the other nations, even the Japanese do not find any similarities of two nations in the content of industrious v. lazy and clever v. dull.

More interestingly, it is noticeable that compared with the judgments by the Japanese living in Japan, the Japanese living in Australia show weaker agreement about the similarities of the Australians, the Italians and the Americans in the contents of friendliness and confidence. However, the Japanese living in Australia emphasise the similarity of these three groups, regarding them as dishonest, even the Japanese living in Japan do not think so. This change can explain that after Japanese come to Sydney, they will be sometimes disappointed to notice that the national characteristics of other nations are different from what they expected before.

      If the judgments about the Aborigines are considered, it can be noticed that the judgments by three groups are more chaotic and there is no fixed image, which satisfy all groups. This may be because the Japanese do not know about the Aborigines well and do not have any images. Even in Australia, there is not so many opportunities to get acquainted with the Aborigines, so the judgments by three groups show a kind of diversity compared with those of other nations.

6, Conclusion

      It is true that this research has some weak points. Firstly, the data here is not enough. So this generalization possibly creates another stereotype. Secondly, this research did not consider the differences of age and sex. Unfortunately, I could not collect as many male data as females. It is natural that stereotypes will change up to gender difference. Thirdly, even categorized as the Japanese living in Australia, all of them have lived in Australia so far less than a year. Therefore, there are some possibilities that the differences between the group of the Japanese living in Japan and that of the Japanese living in Australia did not come out clearly. In these concepts, it may be inevitable to take some complaints.

      However, some points are clearly described in this research. Firstly, the outgroup judgments tend to be more polarize and consistent. This is because the outgroup judgments normally have acquired fixed image of certain nation mostly through books or televisions. However, as has been shown in the judgments about the Aborigines, if the certain nation is unknown well, the judgments become more diverse because of lack of information. But normally, the better the nation become known, the less consistency is shown. This is why generally the judgments by the Japanese living in Australia seem to be more flexible than that of the Japanese living in Japan.

      Through this process, the stereotype can be changed or even eliminated. It is true that the stereotype is a kind of overgeneralization and overlooks individual differences. The most obvious problem of stereotypes is that a biased knowledge of national characteristics possibly creates a fixed image, which may not be actually true. The best thing to make cross-cultural communication successful is to be flexible and it can be fulfilled through more opportunities to communicate with people from different cultural backgrounds.

Although it is thought that the stereotypes should be eliminated, when the similarities between ingroup judgments and outgroup judgments are considered, it seems to be possible to make cross-cultural communication somehow better, making the best of these stereotypes. To understand the way of categorizing according to a stereotype is one of the shortcut to make cross-cultural communication more successful, and also, shortcut to understand own culture itself.

7, Bibliography
- R. Brown, Words and things, Free Press, Glencoe, III, 1958

- Chunich newspaper, Nagoya, Japan, January 5^th, 2000, evening paper

- Dean Peabody, National Characteristics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985