Characteristics of stereotypes

»The stingy Scotsman«, »the happy-go-lucky Latin American«, »the humourless German«: we all carry about
inside us particular notions of other peoples, cultures, nations. Think of a people and pictures come to mind
which you associate with it: with »Russia« many think of »Moscow«, »the Kremlin«, »cold winters«, »vodka«,
of »Russian soul« or »Russian gloominess«. Such ideas are often expressed in jokes:

»Heaven on earth: the Frenchman /s a cook, the Englishman is a policeman, the German is a mechanic, the
ltalian is a lover and the whole thing is managed by a Swiss. Hell an earth: the Englishman is a cook, the Ger-
man is a policeman, the Frenchman is a mechanic, the lover is Swiss and the whole thing is managed by an
ltalian.«

Cliché-type generalisations of this sort that express notions about other peoples are common everywhere. We
call them stereotypes.

One can define stereotypes as overgeneralised and oversimplified yet relatively constant beliefs we use to
categorise groups of people. They are usually not based an direct experience and are not the result of fresh
impressions, but rather »finished products« relating to the past and to what has been passed on. Stereotypes
do not only exist in relation to nations, they apply to any social group of people. For any of them we have our
»boxes« ready: »the lazy student«, »the dumb blondes«, »the wise-guy teachers«, »the noisy teenagers«, »the
rich lawyers« etc.

Of course stereotypes can reproduce reality, too. However, the danger is great that they very often represent
inaccurate distortions of perception.

The character of the various generalisations does indicate a qualitative difference. Some seem to be more
neutral (»the sauna-loving Finn«) or positive (»the musical Italian«), while others convey clearly negative
assessments (»the greedy Jew«). The term »prejudice« has for this reason been terminologically separated
from the term »stereotype« which refers to neutral or less valueladen characteristics. Prejudices, too, are
simplistic and rigid generalisations, but with a constant tendency to the negative and strong emotional thrust
toward other groups and their members.

A point to bear in mind: the borders between both terms are not fixed. Those stereotypes which to all intents
and purposes are »neutral« or »positive« often conceal negative value judgements too. In order to detect
these we can interpret reverse images: if we attribute a »happy about-life« approach to Latin Americans, then
this may indirectly mean that while we think of ourselves as not quite so happy, we are also not
»irresponsible«, »lacking a sense of duty«, »lazy« etc.

Stereotypes are an integral part of every culture. They are largely shared by the group members and are
subject to relatively little change over longer periods of time. Within the context of cultural learning they are
passed on from generation to generation. The ways in which these readymade beliefs are handed on are
manifold:

a) Social role-models
Parents, teachers, neighbours, members of peer-groups convey views of others from very early on to those
growing up, in a direct way when a mother warns her child against having contact with the foreign neighbours'
children, or in an indirect way when contact with some particularly rejected group is simply avoided.

b) Language use
All languages have numerous proverbial sayings containing negative expressions and metaphors about certain
groups. Using those indiscriminately equals to passing on stereotypes. Examples are» to take a French leave«,
»this seems Spanish to me« or »Hollywood smile«.

c) Media
Visual media and the Internet play a decisive role in conveying stereotypical images. Television and films
convey on a daily basis recurring images of others; advertisements are often built around national or ethnic
stereotypes. German TV channels repeatedly show Africans or Turkish women wearing headscarves each time
the topics revolve around migration or integration. Equally powerful are printed materials such as books, newspapers, and magazines. Africa, say, is scarcely ever depicted in a modern context but just in connection with topics like development aid, malnutrition, aids and the like.

Functions of stereotypes

Stereotypes and prejudices are very constant. We cannot simply put them aside, for they fulfil a number of
functions for a human being:

a) Cognitive function
It has already been shown that human processing of information cannot function without perception
structures based on categorisations. The mass of inflowing stimuli have to be selected and arranged into
categories. This also applies to the perception of our social environment. Putting people in generalising
categories is one way for us to organise our thinking as efficiently as possible. Real or imagined characteristics
which we attribute to the respective groups in the course of the stereotyping process help us organise,
remember and call upon social information. Without stereotypes we would lack orientation in our everyday
life. If for example you needed a cooking recipe and were standing in front of a group of men and women, you
would turn directly to one of the women, because you have »learned« that women cook more frequently than
men. The economy of our thinking requires us to fall back on existing pictures and to adopt the stereotypes of
others. If this were not possible we would have to find out the characteristics of each one of our counterparts,
which would require far more effort.

b) Affective function
Stereotypes and prejudices support the human mind in believing in its own (positive) value and thus serve as a
powerful protective mechanism for the ego. We tend not to want to acknowledge the existence of our own
more unpleasant personality traits, like e.g. feelings of inferiority or aggressive feelings. To protect our sense of
self-esteem we unconsciously project our less acceptable qualities onto the others. So we distract from
ourselves and try to persuade ourselves that all of the »evil«, that is, all the bad attributes are not in us but in
the others – a process that in psychology is called aggression displacement. In so doing we reduce the burden
for ourselves, satisfy aggressions which are in fact present and maintain or even raise our sense of self-esteem.
Typically we displace our aggressive feelings onto the allegedly or genuinely weaker groups which seem to be
the ideal scapegoats. Some individuals are more strongly inclined to develop negative attitudes toward others:
those who in the course of their biography have not adequately dealt with specific conflicts or have developed
a more unstable personality are more susceptible to strongly prejudiced views.

c) Social function
People strive to create a »social identity«, i.e., they want to feel as part of a social group. For human
communities to be able to develop a group identity at all (and thus a social identity for the individual) they
require their members to draw a clear dividing line between their own and the others' group. To put it another
way, stereotypes and prejudices serve to draw dividing lines between groups. They help us define more exactly
the – real or alleged – characteristics of the strangers' group, but then also those of our own group. If German
teachers, for instance, speak of »Turkish fundamentalists« or of »lazy students«, then they not only make
statements about Turkish migrants or about students, but at the same time demonstrate their own social
identities as» democratic« or» hardworking«.

Stereotypes in intercultural encounters

Because stereotypes are based on our belief and attitude systems, they affect the way we communicate in
intercultural encounters. They function as perceptional filters which are not only capable of influencing our
assessment of the communication partner in a problematic way but also our behaviour toward him.

Stereotypes may vary along several dimensions. One of them is direction: they are directed toward strangers –
these are termed hetero-stereotypes, or toward one's own group – these are termed auto-stereotypes (»We
French are ...«, »We social workers are...«). As a rule the hetero-stereotypes and the value judgements
connected with them turn out to be more negative than the auto-stereotypes. In using them we express our
ethnocentric view of the world, on the foreground of which the own is classified as »normal« and »positive«,
while the unfamiliar is viewed as »abnormal« and »deviant«. Thus in cultures where qualities as aggressiveness
or disorderliness are negatively connoted, there is a belief that »we are all nonaggressive and orderly people«,
and respectively migrants from Southern Europe are assumed to be aggressive and chaotic.

The tendency to externalise the negative and assess outer phenomena and individuals in a derogatory way
explains why stereotypes and prejudices are especially problematic in the context of intercultural interaction.
They can influence our actions and be the cause of discrimination, i.e., lead to unfair treatment of people
whom we associate with membership in a particular group.

In the practice of intercultural encounters manifest discrimination often presents less of a problem. lt is more
common that persons meet one another who cooperate in a specific activity (e.g. to participate in business
negotiations, to work on an international project, carry out an EU-project or simply to chat informally) and who
do not desire or plan to be » hostile« to one another.

Stereotypes can influence our actions herein a more subtle way: they make it difficult for us to perceive the
other in his individual diversity and prompt us to attach too much importance to his membership in a group
alien to us. There is a great danger that the counterpart will feel wrongly perceived and evaluated – and then
hurt. This is all the more so because those concerned have developed great sensitivity for the images with
which they are confronted – and this is usually not apparent to outsiders.

An example: a Norwegian biologist expresses sympathy to his Ethiopian colleague who lives in Norway
»because the situation in your homeland is so bad and the people there suffer poverty and hunger.« She reacts
angrily: the Norwegians always associate her country with »poverty« and »hunger«. Yet she herself did not
grow up in poverty at all and anyway there are rich people in Ethiopia, too.

»Where do you come from?« – the young man who was born in Germany by Indian parents and who now
attends classes at Munich University is asked by his German fellow student. »Cologne« he answers. »Yes, right,
but where were you born?« his fellow student goes on. »Cologne«, he says again. »Yes, right, but...«, she
stutters. »India, my parents come from India, but 1 was born here,« he says loudly and sighs. He thinks
»Sometimes 1 do regret looking so different. Nobody sees a German in me.«

The two examples serve to illustrate the wish of the people concerned to be perceived as complex personalities
and not as a sort of »cultural cardboard cut-out«. In order to come closer to fulfilling this wish the following
practical recommendations can be noted:

Coming to terms with stereotypes

In everyday practice of intercultural communication there is a widespread conviction that if we make
favourable experiences in the direct contact with strangers, our attitudes toward their groups will become
more positive and stereotypes and prejudices will diminish »by themselves«. lt is for instance believed that
through intensive student and school pupils' exchange mutual sympathy can develop and thus inaccurate and
negative images can be broken down. This assumption is known as »contact hypothesis« and is still a widely
popular belief with educators when it comes to promoting and conducting school or university exchange
programmes.

This, however, is not necessarily the case. Contact can promote better relations between groups or increase
hostility between groups. If for example a student from a German school has heard that »Israelis quarrel often«
and then in the course of a German-Israeli exchange programme he gets involved in a conflict with two Israeli
students, a »self-fulfilling prophecy« can come about: his expectation (» prophecy«) is confirmed and cements
a picture which has become fixed (»Israelis are always quarrelling«).

This effect can be strengthened by the fact that the experience of a deviation from existing stereotypes in
practice is less clearly perceived than the confirmation of the same. For the German school pupil the
»quarrelling Israeli« remains as the main perception, while the experiences from the more harmonious
moments and contacts with the other Israeli students get suppressed or ignored. The question that needs to be
answered is when does contact lead to better relations between people? There is a Jong list of characteristics
of contact situations that lead to positive attitude change toward a social group as a result of contact. lt is
obvious, that the basic assumption of the contact hypothesis is not completely wrong. However, there exists a
list of conditions under which softer attitudes can be achieved through intercultural contact: here are some of
them.

a) There should not be too great a difference in economic and social status between the groups.
b) The groups should follow common goals in the context of their encounter.
c) Existing attitudes of the group members should not be very extreme to begin with and not of negative
character.
d) Contacts between the groups and their members should be dose and relate to important areas of action.
e) An integrative role model or authority should steer the process of group Integration and create a positive
social climate.

Source: https://www.edumedia.de/shop/thema.html?gruppe=4&thema=39