Does It Matter Who We are Communicating about - Essay Example

KURZ AND LYONSINTERGROUP INFLUENCES ON STEREOTYPE COMMUNICATIONDoes It Matter Who We are Communicatingabout?Tim KurzNewcastle University, UK and Murdoch University, AustraliaAnthony LyonsNewcastle University, UKPast research in the area of stereotype communication has shown, usingvarious paradigms, a reliable bias toward the communication of stereotypeconsistent information over stereotype inconsistent information (a stereotypeconsistency bias). One aspect of such communication that has receivedlittle attention, however, is the social context in which such communicationoccurs, and in particular, the group membership of the individualsinvolved.

In the present study, we further unpack the stereotype consistencybias by varying the relative group memberships of the communicator,target, and audience of a narrative and examine the effect of the communicationof stereotype consistent and inconsistent information. Our resultssuggest that these group memberships can have a dramatic effect uponstereotype communication, with the stereotype consistency bias only beingevident in specific communicative contexts. Findings are discussed interms of theoretical implications for the stereotype communication field,with particular focus on the socially connective functions of stereotypes.

The social cognition literature relating to stereotyping has identified a variety ofcognitive processes thought to underlie the formation, maintenance, and changeof stereotypes (e.g., Fiske, 1998; Hamilton, Stroessner, & Driscoll, 1994; Hilton &894 KURZ AND LY ONSvon Hippel, 1996; von Hippel, Sekaquaptewa, & Vargas, 1995). While this workprovides an invaluable insight into the individual cognitive processes involved,there is a growing body of work that has taken a somewhat different approachto the study of stereotypes.

This approach focuses on the interpersonal aspects ofstereotypes and conceptualizes them as being produced, shared, and maintainedthrough communication.One approach to the study of the communication of stereotypes focuses on discussionsbetween ingroup dyads about an outgroup, or a member of an outgroup.For example, Harasty’s (1997) content analysis of communication among ingroupdyads suggested that discussions about outgroups contained more group-levelcomments and fewer self-referent comments than ingroup discussions.

Moreover,Ruscher and colleagues have suggested that the prevalence of stereotypical descriptionsin discussions of outgroups within ingroup dyads may stem from a desireto affirm shared beliefs about the outgroup (for reviews, see Ruscher, 1998;Ruscher & Hammer, 2006). Thus, it would appear that one of the key aspects inherentin the communication of stereotypes is the extent to which they can be usedto establish, verify, or demonstrate a shared understanding of outgroups amongingroup members.In addition to dyad and group discussion paradigms, other researchers haveinvestigated the process of stereotype communication through the study of theways in which narratives about group members are reproduced between participants.

Numerous studies have found that as these narratives are communicatedbetween participants they tend to be stripped of stereotype inconsistent information(SI), with stereotype consistent (SC) information being retained (e.g., Kashima,2000; Lyons & Kashima, 2001; Lyons & Kashima, 2003; McIntyre, Lyons, Clark,& Kashima, 2004). Moreover, this stereotype consistency bias has been shown to beattributable to communication processes (i.e., communication goals) rather thanbeing the result of general memory biases (Lyons & Kashima, 2006).

Further studieshave also attempted to explain the underpinnings of an SC bias in relation toits potentially greater communicability (Schaller, Conway, & Tanchuk, 2002), andits potential for fostering greater social connectivity with a conversational partner(Clark & Kashima, 2007; Ruscher, Cralley, & O’Farrell, 2005) .One dimension that has tended to be relatively under-theorized in studies of theinterpersonal or communicative aspects of stereotypes has been that of variationsin intergroup context.

That is, the relationship between the group membershipsof the communicator, the audience, and target (i.e., the individual being communicatedabout). The importance of intergroup context in relation to the cognitiveprocess of stereotyping has long been highlighted by a number of researchers,especially those adopting a Self Categorization Theory (SCT) perspective (e.g.,Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). Studies conducted within the SCT tradition havedemonstrated that stereotypical cognitive representations of social groups can be influencedby the comparative contexts in which they are measured (for examples,see Haslam, Oakes, Turner, & McGarty, 1995; Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty,& Hayes, 1992; Hopkins & Murdoch, 1999; Hopkins, Regan, & Abell, 1997).

Thisresearch provides evidence for the ability of an intergroup context to influenceindividuals’ cognitive representations of both outgroups and ingroups. In light ofthis, it would seem logical to also investigate the influence of intergroup contextupon the communication of stereotypes about social groups through narratives.INTERGROUP INFLUENCES ON STEREOTYPE COMMUNICATION 895An account of stereotype communication derived from an SCT perspective (e.g.,Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994) suggests that an intergroup (as opposed to intragroup)context would be likely to result in an interpretation and communication ofinformation in more stereotypical, group-level, terms.

In line with this, Wigboldus,Spears, and Semin (2005) invoked the concept of the social communicative context todraw a theoretical distinction between “intragroup” and “intergroup” communicativecontexts. The former refers to a situation in which the communicator, target,and audience are all members of the same social group (e.g., male communicator,male target, male audience), while the latter refers to a situation where the communicativecontext is not homogenous in relation to group membership.

Specifically,Wigboldus et al. (2005) assessed the influence of an intergroup context onparticipants’ tendencies to show a bias toward the description of SC informationat a higher level of linguistic abstractness (Semin & Fiedler, 1988) than SI information,that is, a Linguistic Expectancy Bias (LEB) in communication (Maass, 1999;Wigboldus et al., 2000). Wigboldus et al. (2005) found this linguistic expectancy biasonly occurred when the communicative context was intergroup, with no LEB effectoccurring in an intragroup context.

Wigboldus et al.’s (2005) proposed model for explaining these findings centersaround the notion that an intergroup context leads to the activation of relevantstereotypes, “which reveals itself in an LEB effect” (p. 226), with the intragroupcontext less likely to lead to such activation, and thus no LEB effects. What is implicitin this model is a fairly direct correspondence between cognitive activation ofstereotypical information and its communication.However, as suggested by Higgins (1981; McCann & Higgins, 1992), as wellas many researchers working from within a discursive social psychological perspective(e.g., Edwards & Potter, 1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1987), communicationshould not necessarily be thought of as simply a direct transmission of informationbetween minds, but, rather, as a purposeful social interaction that occurs withina particular social context.

From Higgins’s perspective, communication achievesmultiple goals that are determined by numerous features of any given interaction.Two such features include (a) the characteristics of the audience and (b) the typeof relationship participants wish to establish or maintain between themselves. Wewould therefore expect the specific nature of an intergroup communicative contextto have an important effect on the extent to which stereotypes are communicated.For example, the intergroup context defined by Wigboldus et al. (2005) as an ingroupmember (e.g., male) communicating about an outgroup member (e.g., female)to an ingroup member (e.g., male) is likely to follow very different communicationrules to an alternative intergroup context where an ingroup member (male)communicates about an outgroup member (female) to a member of that same outgroup(female).

In other words, communicating stereotypes, especially negativestereotypes, about an outgroup member to an ingroup member may serve to fostercamaraderie and social connectivity, whereas communicating stereotypes of anoutgroup to a member of that outgroup, or of a fellow ingroup member, may havean opposite effect.We posit that one explanation for Wigboldus et al.’s failure to find such differentialand nuanced effects between different types of intergroup contexts may stemfrom the particular paradigm and dependent measures adopted, namely the levelof linguistic abstraction.

While recent research has demonstrated that communicatorsmay, under certain circumstances, be able to consciously inhibit the LEB effect896 KURZ AND LY ONS(Douglas, Sutton, & Wilkin, 2008), it would seem unlikely that audiences wouldbe consciously aware of the communication of SC and SI information at differentlevels of abstraction, thus potentially removing the need for the communicator tomonitor his or her LEB as a function of the group membership of the audience.However, one might predict different results using measures of the amount of SCand SI information reproduced, which is more likely to be noticed by an audiencethan would be the case for abstractness levels, and therefore would be more likelyto be manipulated by communicators according to specific features of the intergroupcontext.

The Current ResearchThe aim of the present research was to extend past work in the stereotype communicationliterature by examining whether the social communicative context influencesthe tendency toward a stereotype consistency bias in the reproduction ofnarratives about a target. More specifically, we investigate whether, following Higgins’s(1981; McCann & Higgins, 1992) multiple goals account of communication,participants vary the level of stereotypicality of their communication dependingon different types of intergroup contexts.

We hypothesized, following Clark andKashima (2007), Ruscher, Cralley, and O’Farrell (2005), and also Higgins (1981),that the intergroup context that creates the greatest social connectivity (ingroupmembers communicating with ingroup members about outgroup members) islikely to produce the greatest SC bias. The intragroup context, on the other hand,would be predicted to produce an SI bias because of a desire to avoid ingroupstereotypes. The intergroup contexts involving ingroup communicators and outgroupaudiences were predicted to produce either no SC bias or an SI bias becauseof politeness goals, that is, not wanting to offend the outgroup or portray one’sown group in a better light.

Our research used stereotypes about social class in the United Kingdom and experimentallymanipulated social communicative context on the basis of this socialcategory. We did not, in the present study, adopt the serial reproduction paradigmcommonly used in past research, in which the narratives are passed through multiplereiterations (retellings) along a “chain,” opting instead for a single-reiterationparadigm. With the exception of one study (Kashima, 2000), 1 past studies usingserial reproduction chains have found a significant SC bias (or at least tendencytoward it) at the first point in the chain (Clark & Kashima, 2007; Lyons & Kashima,2001, 2003, 2006).

Given our focus on the social communicative context, wetherefore chose not to investigate whether the observed effects would be amplifiedacross multiple positions in a serial reproduction chain.1. The Kashima (2000) study found an SI bias at the first link in the chain, which later became anSC bias further down the chain. The difference, however, between this study and subsequent studies(that showed SC biases from start to finish) was the likelihood that Kashima (2000) was pickingup basic memory biases.

Kashima found no difference between “memory” and “communication”instruction conditions, potentially on account of the weakness of the operationalization of thecommunication instructions. Subsequent studies, however, more strongly emphasized interpersonalcommunication in their instructions to participants.INTERGROUP INFLUENCES ON STEREOTYPE COMMUNICATION 897MethodParti cipant sThe study involved 80 male (non-psychology) undergraduate students who participatedvoluntarily and were paid £5 (U.S. $9) for their time.

Participants rangedin age from 17 to 46 years, with a mean age of 19.77 (SD = 3.34) years. Each participantwas randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (createdby the 2-level manipulation of the target and audience of the communication). Allparticipants self-identified as “middle class.”Experimenta l DesignThe study employed a 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial design with Target (Working Classvs. Middle Class) and Audience (Working Class vs. Middle Class) as between-subjectfactors, and Stereotypicality (SC vs. SI) as a within-subject factor.

Participantswere evenly divided between all conditions.Materia lsThree main stimulus materials were used in this study. The first was a story abouta fictitious character (target) called “Steve.” The second item was a backgrounddescription of “Steve,” which portrayed him as either working or middle class.Third, an audience description of a fictitious participant (“Michael”) was used,which portrayed him as either working or middle class.The Story. The story stimulus contained 685 words.

To create a story that participantswould believe had been written by another participant, an attempt wasmade to ensure that the sentence structure was relatively naturalistic and complex(see appendix for the full story used). The story contained 16 stereotype-relevantitems. Half (8) of these items were stereotype consistent with regards to the workingclass (WC-SC) and, at the same time, stereotype inconsistent with regards tothe middle class (MC-SI). The other half (8) of the items were stereotype consistentwith regards to the middle class (MC-SC), and, at the same time, stereotype inconsistentwith regards to the working class (WC-SI).

As such, half of the items werealways SC and half were always SI, whether the target (“Steve”) was describedas being working class or middle class. The consistent/inconsistent status of theitems, however, was obviously reversed when switching from a working class to amiddle class target and vice versa. Within each of the two sets of 8 SI and SC items,half of these items (4) were controlled to be positive in valence and half were negativein valence.The story was pilot tested with a sample of 15 undergraduate students whorated each of the 16 items in terms of how stereotypical they felt that the actions,thoughts, or emotions of the target depicted in the item were of both the workingclass and the middle class.

Items were rated on a scale from 1 (not stereotypical atall) to 7 (extremely stereotypical) for both working and middle class. The mean ratingsfor each item were found to fall on the appropriate ends of the scale (i.e., 1.0 to898 KURZ AND LY ONS3.5 for SI items and 4.5 to 7.0 for SC items) with regards to both working class andmiddle class stereotypicality. Pilot participants also rated the extent to which theybelieved that the actions, thoughts or emotions displayed by the target in eachitem would be generally thought of as being positive or negative.

Mean ratings foreach item were again found to fall on the appropriate ends of the scale.Manipulation of Demographic Variables for the Target. At the top of the page abovethe story, participants were provided with “some background information aboutSteve” that was said to have been written using information provided by “Steve”himself. This description was manipulated to depict Steve as either working ormiddle class by varying information such as which schools he had attended, hiscurrent occupation, and place of residence.

In the pilot testing, all 15 respondentscorrectly identified “Steve the doctor” as middle class and “Steve the forklift driver”as working class when asked to categorize the descriptions.Manipulation of Demographic Variables for Audience. In the space above the blanklines upon which participants wrote their retelling of the story was a brief descriptionof the person who would ostensibly be reading it. This description wasmanipulated in a similar way to the target description, such that the audience(“Michael”) was depicted as either working or middle class.

All 15 respondentscorrectly identified “Michael the cleaner” as working class and “Michael the architect”as middle class when asked to categorize the descriptions in pilot testing.ProcedureBefore reading the story, participants read instructions informing them that theywere about to read an account of a weekend in the life of a particular individual(Steve), which ostensibly came from a diary entry made by someone who participatedin some previous research looking at how people write diaries.

Participantswere told they were about to read a retelling of the original diary entry, which hadbeen written by an earlier participant in the current study.Participants were then handed the story to read. At the top of this page was aheading, “Background,” under which was placed the target description (either theworking class version or the middle class version). Below this was a second headingwhich read “Summary of diary entries made over one weekend,” after whichcame the story itself.

Once the participant had read the story and handed it back to the experimenterthey were asked to perform a filler task for ten minutes. They were then asked torewrite the story in their own words on a blank sheet of paper that was headedwith instructions that informed them that their account would be read by “Michael,”another participant in the study, for whom a brief description was alsoprovided (either the working class or middle class version). Participants were toldthat in a later version of the study the researchers hoped to use face-to-face interaction,but that since this was not possible in the current study, participants were atleast being provided with some information about the person who would be readingtheir retelling of the story, so that they could visualize their audience.

No time limit was given for reproducing the story. Afterward, participants werethoroughly debriefed, thanked for their participation, and reimbursed for theirtime.INTERGROUP INFLUENCES ON STEREOTYPE COMMUNICATION 899ResultsCoding the ReproductionsEach reproduction was coded by two expert coders in relation to whether or notthe 16 stereotype relevant items (8 WC-SC/MC-SI and 8 WC-SI/MC-SC) werepresent. An item was judged to be present if the stereotype meaning of the originalitem was retained. It was not necessary for the item to be reproduced verbatim.

Ahigh level of inter-rater reliability was obtained, Kappa = .93.Primary Ana lysesThe reproduction coding data was analyzed using a 2 x 2 x 2 (Stereotypicality xTarget x Audience) mixed model ANOVA, with Stereotypicality as a within-subjectsvariable and Target and Audience as between-subjects variables.No significant main effect was obtained for Stereotypicality, F(1, 76) = 2.32, p =.13) with only a very slight SC bias being observed (M = 59.69 vs. M = 55.93). In addition,no significant two-way interaction was obtained between Stereotypicalityand Audience, F(1, 76) = 0.40, p = .53.

However, the reason for the absence of theseeffects becomes apparent when one examines the way in which both effects weremoderated by significant interactions with Target.The Moderating Effect of Target. First, a significant Stereotypicality x Target interactionoccurred, F(1, 76) = 38.61, p < .001. When the middle class participantscommunicated a story about a working class person they reproduced more SC (M= 63.43) than SI (M = 44.38) information, t(39) = 5.20, p < .001, however when theywere communicating about a fellow middle class person, they reproduced moreSI (M = 76.5) than SC (M = 55.94) information, t(39) = 3.06, p = .004.

This effectwas subsumed, however, under a significant 3-way Stereotypicality x Audience xTarget interaction, F(1, 76) = 12.61, p = .001. As Figure 1 shows, when the Audiencewas a fellow middle class person and the Target was working class, communicatorsreproduced more SC (M = 69.38) than SI (M = 40.00) information, t(19) = 6.20,p < .001 but more SI (M = 66.88) than SC (48.12) information when the Target wasmiddle class, t(19) = 3.52, p = .002. However, when the Audience of the communicationwas a working class person, no statistically significant biases were foundfor either the middle class Target, t(19) = 0.88, p = .39 or the working class Target,t(19) = 1.88, p = .07.

DiscussionOur results demonstrate the importance of considering the specific nature of thesocial communicative context when studying interpersonal communication of stereotypes.In the current study, the SC bias commonly observed in the reproductionof narratives (e.g., Kashima, 2000; Lyons & Kashima, 2001; Lyons & Kashima, 2003;McIntyre, Lyons, Clark, & Kashima, 2004) was found to be dependent upon thespecific intergroup or intragroup communicative context. When communicatingto another ingroup member about an outgroup member, participants displayeda clear SC bias.

However, when communicating to an ingroup member about an900KURZ AND LY ONSother member of the ingroup, participants showed the reverse effect, an SI bias.Interestingly, both the outgroup SC bias and the ingroup SI bias failed to occur (toa level of significance) when the audience of the communication was an outgroupmember.These results offer an interesting comparison to those in Wigboldus et al.’s (2005)study in which an LEB effect occurred in their intergroup contexts and a reversedLEB or no LEB effect in an intragroup context.

As we predicted, we also found areverse SC (i.e., SI) bias in an intragroup context but a more complex pattern of resultswas obtained for intergroup contexts using our reproduction paradigm. Ourresults show an SC bias in the intergroup context in which an ingroup membercommunicated about an outgroup member to another ingroup member. However,we did not find significant stereotype-related communication biases in the intergroupcondition in which ingroup members were communicating to outgroupmembers, regardless of the group membership of the target involved.

Following Higgins (1981), this suggests that when it comes to reproducing narratives,communicators tailor their communication to specific features of an intergroupcontext rather than simply emphasizing the stereotypical in any intergroupcontext, as might be expected from an SCT perspective (e.g., Oakes, Haslam, &Turner, 1994). In other words, the presence of an outgroup audience inhibited acommunicator’s usual tendency to favor the transmission of SC information.Moreover, our results suggest that measures based on the amount of reproducedSC and SI information may be more sensitive to specific features of intergroupcontexts than LEB effects, given that Wigboldus et al. (2005) were unable to detectthese differences.

In line with Clark and Kashima (2007) and Ruscher, Cralley, and O’Farrell (2005),we suggest that the socially connective functions of stereotype communicationbest explains our results. For example, Ruscher, Cralley, and O’Farrell demonstratedthat newly acquainted dyads that were manipulated to perceive a greater levelof “closeness” between themselves and their ingroup partner were more likely toengage in stereotypically biased communication about an outgroup member thanFIGURE 1. The mean percentage of SC and SI items communicated according to Target for eachAudience condition.

Audience = Middle Class48.1266.88 69.384001020304050607080Middle Class Working ClassSocial Class of TargetMean % of items communicatedSCSIAudience = Working Class63.7557.568.1248.7501020304050607080Middle Class Working ClassSocial Class of TargetMean % of items communicatedSCSIINTERGROUP INFLUENCES ON STEREOTYPE COMMUNICATION 901dyads who did not receive the closeness manipulation. Also, as mentioned earlier,Clark and Kashima (2007) demonstrated that participants perceive SC informationas more useful than SI information when it comes to the formation or maintenanceof social relationships.

That is, stereotypes are potentially used to create closeness,or social connectivity, rather than merely being a product of closeness or social connectivity.So in relation to the present findings, communicating stereotypes aboutan outgroup member to an ingroup member may help foster greater social connectivity.Moreover, because communicating stereotypes of the ingroup to otheringroup members or of the outgroup to members of that outgroup is likely toseem offensive and therefore result in reduced connectivity, communicators avoidfavoring SC information and communicate more SI information in these contexts.

One limitation of the present study that should be considered relates to our useof social class as the social category in question. While social class was specificallychosen due to its real-world significance (especially in a British context; cf, Argyle,1994), it is worth considering how “hot” or socially contentious this social categoryreally is when considered in the wider spectrum of categories such as race.As Ruscher et al. (2005) suggest, the socially connective functions of a particularstereotype are likely to be highly influenced by social norms regarding the socialacceptability of communicating stereotypes of that particular social group.

A considerationof this possibility would, to our mind, suggest two important avenuesfor future research. First, at a theoretical level, it would appear pertinent for futurestudies to examine the communication of stereotypes relating to highly contentioussocial categories such as racial, religious, or ethnic stereotypes. Second, future researchshould also take into account the beliefs communicators have about thesocial appropriateness of communicating particular stereotypes in particular communicativecontexts.

While we have examined here the specific effect of groupmembership, future work should consider other variables that may influence acommunicator’s perceptions of how receptive an audience is likely to be to thecommunication of particular stereotypes.In conclusion, the current research provides strong support for considering thesocial communicative context when examining processes surrounding stereotypecommunication in the reproduction of narratives. On the basis of our findings, thestereotype consistency bias that has been commonly observed in past research (e.g.,Brauer, Judd, & Jacquelin, 2001; Harasty, 1997; Kashima, 2000; Lyons & Kashima,2001; Lyons & Kashima, 2003; McIntyre, Lyons, Clark, & Kashima, 2004; Ruscher,1998; Ruscher & Hammer, 2006) becomes far more complex, nuanced, and multifacetedwhen one considers the social context in which the communication of stereotypestakes place.

Specifically, we have demonstrated, using a narrative reproductionparadigm, that the tendency to reproduce stereotypical information abouta target individual can be greatly influenced by the relative group membershipsof the communicator, the target, and the audience of that communication. Furthermore,our results point to a need to theorize the influence of intergroup context onthe communication of stereotypes in a potentially more nuanced way than is currentlyoffered by accounts of the cognitive activation of stereotypes.

902 KURZ AND LY ONSAppendix: The sto ry stimulusSteve had been catching the train to work each day for years, but rarely bothered to buy aticket (since he had never had his ticket checked) (WC-SC/MC-SI, negative). On this Friday,he had been running late for work when he got caught without a ticket on the Metro byone of the ticket inspectors. Not only did he receive a fine, but the inspector kept lecturinghim for what seemed like forever about how irresponsible it was to not buy a ticket, makinghim even later for work.

Although he was furious, he tried to stay calm and just repeatedly said he was sorry andthat he wouldn’t do it again, knowing that getting angry would only make things worse(WC-SI, MC-SC, positive). Before leaving work that afternoon he had to ring the localcouncil to find out why they seemed to have been under-charging him on his council tax forthe previous few months (WC-SI, MC-SC, positive). His wife had asked him to buy somecleaning products on his way home from work. Tesco was more on his way home but Stevedecided to catch the train into the city and go to Morrisons, because he knew that he wouldsave a bit of money there.

(WC-SC, MC-SI, positive). He liked shopping at Morrisons betteranyway as it was less pretentious than some of the more expensive supermarkets likeSainsburys (WC-SC, MC-SI, positive). He liked to always shop at the same supermarket aswell because he tended to see the same staff at the checkout. He felt like he had some thingsin common with them and enjoyed a good chat when they weren’t too busy (WC-SC, MCSI,positive). Steve and his wife were having Steve’s friend Bill and his wife Alison aroundfor dinner on Saturday night.

Steve had worked with Bill for the past 2 years. Although hefound Bill pretty boring and annoying, Steve had to admit that he kind of enjoyed spendingtime with him because Bill was a bit of a loser really and it made him feel better abouthimself because he earned more money than Bill and was clearly more interesting (WC-SI,MC-SC, negative). On Saturday he went into town during the day and bought some expensivewine glasses so that he could impress Bill (WC-SI, MC-SC, negative). Steve thought itwould be a good idea not to get too drunk in front of his friends, so he just had a couple ofglasses of wine with dinner (WC-SI, MC-SC, positive).

Bill had been making a big deal ofhow good the wine he had brought was supposed to be, but Steve started to get frustratedover this because he couldn’t make out a single thing on the label, as it all seemed to bewritten in French (WC-SC, MC-SI, negative). On Sunday night Steve went to a pub-quizat a local pub near his house. He really didn’t like the pub they went to because people hedidn’t know kept coming up and trying to talk to him (WC-SI, MC-SC, negative). He alsodidn’t like the fact that people at that pub were always really shabbily dressed and generallylacked style (WC-SI, MC-SC, negative).

To make matters worse, it was a mission to getto the tiny bar in between each round of the quiz to get a drink. Whilst Steve was lining upat the bar to get served some bloke pushed in front of him. He was so furious that he shovedthe guy out of the way and yelled at him. The two of them got into a bit of a shoving matchbefore the other guys friends pulled him away telling him to leave it alone (WC-SC, MCSI,negative). The quiz itself was quite fun though as there were lots of questions on topicsthat Steve knew a lot about such as history and science (WC-SI, MC- SC, positive).

Becausehe did so well, his team won. The prize was a Newcastle United Football scarf. Steve wasoverjoyed and started cheering like he does at the football. Steve loves football and is a hugefan of Newcastle United (WC-SC, MC-SI, positive).After the quiz ended Steve and his friends moved on to another bar. He ended up gettingso drunk that the night ended with him getting thrown out of the bar for being too intoxicated(WC-SC, MC-SI, negative).INTERGROUP INFLUENCES ON STEREOTYPE COMMUNICATION 903ReferencesArgyle, M. (1994). The psychology of social class.

New York: Routledge.Brauer, M., Judd, C., & Jacquelin, V. (2001). Thecommunication of social stereptypes:The effects of group discussion and informationdistribution on stereotypicalappraisals. Journal of Personality & SocialPsychology, 81, 463-475.Clark, A. E., & Kashima, Y. (2007). Stereotypeshelp people connect with others in thecommunity: A situated functional analysisof the stereotype consistency biasin communication. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 93(6), 1028-1039.Douglas, K.

, Sutton, R., & Wilkin, K. (2008).Could you mind your language? Aninvestigation of communicators’ abilityto inhibit linguistic biases. Journal of Languageand Social Psychology, 27, 123-139.Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology.London: Sage.Fiske, S. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, anddiscrimination. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, &G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of socialpsychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 357-407).Boston: McGraw-Hill.Hamilton, D. L., Stroessner, S. J., & Driscoll,D. M. (1994).

Social cognition and thestudy of stereotyping. In P. G. Devine,D. L. Hamilton, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.),Social cognition: Contributions to classicissues in social psychology (pp. 291-321).New York: Springer.Harasty, A. S. (1997). The interpersonal natureof social stereotypes: Differential discussionpatterns between in-groups andout-groups. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 23, 270-284.Haslam, S., Oakes, P., Turner, J., & McGarty, C.(1995). Social categorisations and grouphomogeneity: Changes in the perceivedapplicability of stereotype content as afunction of comparative context andtrait favourableness.

British Journal ofSocial Psychology, 34, 139-160.Haslam, S., Turner, J., Oakes, P., McGarty, C.,& Hayes, B. (1992). Context-dependentvariation in social stereotyping 1: Theeffects of intergroup relations as mediatedby change and frame references.European Journal of Social Psychology, 22,3-20.Higgins, E. T. (1981). The “communicationgame”: Implications for social cognitionand persuasion. In E. Higgins, C. Herman,& M. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition:The Ontario symposium (pp. 343-392).Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hilton, J. L.

, & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes.Annual Review of Psychology, 47,231-271.Hopkins, N., & Murdoch, N. (1999). The roleof the “other” in national identity: Exploringthe context-dependence of thenational ingroup stereotype. Journal ofCommunity & Applied Social Psychology,9, 321-338.Hopkins, N., Regan, M., & Abell, J. (1997). Onthe context-dependence of national stereotypes:Some British data. British Journalof Social Psychology, 36, 553-563.Kashima, Y. (2000). Maintaining cultural stereotypesin the serial reproduction ofnarratives.

Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 26, 594-604.Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2001). The reproductionof culture: Communication processestend to maintain cultural stereotypes.Social Cognition, 19, 372-394.Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2003). How are stereotypesmaintained through communication?The influence of stereotypesharedness. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 85, 989-1005.Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Maintainingstereotypes in communication: Investigatingmemory biases and coherenceseekingin storytelling.

Asian Journal ofSocial Psychology, 9, 59-71.Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias:Stereotype perpetuation through language.In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp.79-121). San Diego: Academic Press.McCann, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1992). Personaland contextual factors in communication:A review of the “communicationgame.” In G. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.),Language, interaction and social cognition(pp. 144-172). London: Sage.McIntyre, A. M., Lyons, A.

, Clark, A. E., &Kashima, Y. (2004). The microgenesis ofculture: Serial reproduction as an experimentalsimulation of cultural dynamics.In M. Schaller & C. Crandall (Eds.), The904 KURZ AND LY ONSpsychological foundations of culture (pp.227-258). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Oakes, P., Haslam, S., & Turner, J. (1994). Stereotypingand social reality. Oxford, UK:Blackwell.Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse andsocial psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour.London: Sage.Ruscher, J., & Hammer, E. (2006). The developmentof shared stereotypic impressionsin conversation: An emerging model,methods, and extensions to cross-groupsettings.

Journal of Language and SocialPsychology, 25, 221-243.Ruscher, J., Cralley, E., & O’Farrell, K. (2005).How newly acquainted dyads developshared stereotypic impressions throughconversation. Group Processes & IntergroupRelations, 8, 259-270.Ruscher, J. (1998). Prejudice and stereotypingin everyday communication. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 30, pp. 241-307). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.Schaller, M., Conway, L. G., & Tanchuk, T. L.(2002). Selective pressures on the onceand future contents of ethnic stereotypes:Effects of the communicabilityof traits.

Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 82(6), 861-877.Semin, G., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitivefunctions of linguistic categories in describingpersons: Social cognition andlanguage. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 54, 558-568.von Hippel, W., Sekaquaptewa, D., & Vargas,P. (1995). On the role of encoding processesin stereotype maintenance. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocial psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 177-254).San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Wigboldus, D., Semin, G.

, & Spears, R. (2000).How do we communicate stereotypes?Linguistic bases and inferential consequences.Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 78, 5-18.Wigboldus, D., Spears, R., & Semin, G. (2005).When do we communicate stereotypes?:Influence of the social context on the linguisticexpectancy bias. Group Processes& Intergroup Relations, 8, 215-230.Copyright of Social Cognition is the property of Guilford Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied oremailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.Bias and Stereotyping in Communication ● potential usefulness1. Create awareness of stereotyping in communications2. More effective communication among all teams or members of an organization3. Greater productivity when all team members feel included 4. Further research may enhance diversity training in organizations● limitations1. Research uses social class as the measure of stereotype, could use other measures2. If groups have more influence on stereotyping in communication, group example in student survey would be more relevant● assumptions1.

In-groups and out-groups within organizations are typically clearly delineated2. Stereotyping in communication is always well received among in-group members3. Group members do not feel ambivalent about different stereotypes within communications in different groupsBibliographyEndres, D. & Gould, M. (2009). “I am also in a position to use my whiteness to help them out”: the Communication of whiteness in service learning. Western Journal of Communication, 73(4), 418-436.The authors discuss the attitudes and theory of whiteness through an analysis of student service learning projects.

A major challenge in service learning is the elimination of whiteness as a factor that influences the message projected by service workers to members of the communityreceiving services. Though students were exposed to whiteness theory prior to their service learning experiences, they still tended to project their ideals onto those receiving services. The authors point out that this behavior tends to widen the gap between the privileged and those with fewer means, rather than serving to bridge the gap.

This analysis has important implications forbias in communications. It shows that bias tends to naturally exist through various influences, such as socio-economic status, family experiences and life experiences. Bias in communication then, tends to exist naturally. Awareness alone cannot eliminate bias in communication. It mustalso be practiced and the attitudes that create bias must be addressed.Hanke, S. (2009). Communication styles: What is your impact on others? Professional Safety (May 2009), 22-25.

The author discusses the importance of learning how to communicate with various personality types, in order to get the message across. By learning about the audience, through observation and body language, the speaker or communicator can adjust or tailor communications that willreach, rather than offend, multiple members of an audience. This discussion also has implications for communications among individuals. It cannot be assumed that the listener communicates in the same manner as the speaker.

The author highlights the need for greater awareness and adaptability in communications, thus eliminating the bias of assuming that theperson receiving the message will interpret the communication exactly as intended.Kurtz, T. (2009). Intergroup influences on the stereotype consistency bias in communication: Does it Matter who we are communicating about and who we are communicating to? Social Cognition, 7(6), 893-904.The author describes research into the communication that occurs within different social groups,specifically in terms of language and stereotyping in communication that occurs within those groups.

Stereotyping is described as a means within communication, for the individual to gain favor within the group and survey participants are able to identify various forms of stereotyping in a given scenario. The limitations of the research include a scenario describing the behavior of one individual, rather than of multiple group members. The research clearly indicates that stereotyping does occur in communications, within various social contexts. The research also indicates the need for awareness of stereotyping, in communication with a larger audience that may consist of members of very different groups.

Polachek, D. & Frantz, A. (2009). Interactivity Accountability: How are We EducatingUndergraduate Students in Communication Studies? The International Journal of Learning, 16(9).The author discusses the importance of addressing all members of an audience, class or group, so that no specific individual or group feels alienated, during discussions. It is important for allmembers of the group or audience to be respected and this is done through inclusion. The authors suggest that, particularly in a class setting, the faculty can set parameters for class communications from the start.

It is further suggested that communications within and for a larger group should also consider avoiding language that stereotypes a specific group or groups.Warner, F. (2008). Improving communication: It’s Everybody’s business. Change (Nov-Dec), 29-35.The author stresses the importance of considering the audience in communications. Through the example of the writing assignment given by City University of New York professor Terrance Martell, Warner shows how lack of consideration for the audience can lead to communication that is ineffective and fails to serve its specific purpose.

Nearly all of Dr. Martell’s class missed the purpose of the assignment and failed to communicate what was asked. This case presents an argument for teaching methods of communication for a larger audience, in written form. Further investigation of the problem showed that students were not versed in persuasion and argument, within written communication. The implication is that individuals must be taught to consider the audience, in any form of communication.