Content uploaded by John R Baldwin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John R Baldwin on Oct 19, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Communication and Stereotypical
Impressions
Pa trick C. Hughe s
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
John R. B aldwin
Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, USA
This study examined the relationships between specific communica-
tion behaviors and overall perceptions of Black and White commu-
nicators and sought to replicate the findings of Leonard and Locke.
Eighteen communication behaviors were identified in the literatu re
representing ‘‘Black’’ and ‘‘White’’ communication. Black
(
N =
1 05)
and White
(
N =
159)
respondents recalled a past interaction with a
racial ‘‘other’’ and completed a two-part questionnaire regarding
these behaviors and overall impressions of the other. Pearson
correlations were used to answer seven hypotheses regarding these
behaviors and impressions. Individual communication behaviors
were associated with several negative ra ce-type i mpressi ons,
suggesting that macrolevel interpretations between interracial speak-
ers may be problematic. R esults also suggest that the exact order
of stereotypes
=
perceptions might change fr om place t o place,
depending on how the instrument is used, and may be influenced
by interpersonal interaction.
KEYWORDS interracial communication, stereotypes, communica-
tion style
``
I
s interracial communication possible?’’ Leonard and Locke (1993) suggest commu-
nication stereotypes are a key piece of the interracial relations puzzle. If this is the
case, the outlook for interracial communication in the twenty-first century is dis-
couraging. For example, a survey found that 76% of African Americans felt that Whites
are insensitive to people,76% felt that Whites do not want to share with non-Whites, and
79% believed that Whites see themselves as superior and able to boss others around
(Minorities,1994). Many felt that ``Whites are insensitive to other people and have a lon g
history of bigotry and prejudice’’and that ``Whites control power and wealth in America’’
The aut hors are grateful to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments.
Address correspondence to Patrick C. Hughes, Department of Communication
Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA. E-mail: pahughes@ttu.edu
The HowardJournal of Communication s,13:113
7
128, 2002
Copyright # 2002 Taylor & Francis
1064-6175/02 $12.00 + .00
DOI:10.1080=10646170290089 917 113
(Minorities, 1994, p. A14). While many may either confirm or challenge the exi stence of
such perceptions, we cannot deny that stereotypes among racial and ethnic groups con-
tinue to be prevalent in the United States.
Stereotyping is an impediment to effective interracial communication (Barna, 1994;
Boyd,1993;Waters,1992) and yet seems to be a natura l part of the communication process,
as categorization is needed to make sense of our world (Stephan, 1985). The existence and
propagation of these stereotypes themselves are i nherently communicative, as it is com-
munication that creates, perpetuates, or contests stereotypes. For example, Delia (1972)
finds that dialects in fluence perceptions of strangers. In a study of New England, South-
ern, and General American dialects, Delia suggests ``an in itial orientation is made at least
in part, on the perception of dialect simi larity’’ (p.265). Therefore, it is especially useful to
know which communication behaviors invoke ste reotypical impressions.
Social psychologists suggest that categorization is a necessary part of making sense of
our world (Allport,1979; Stephan,1985). Devine (1989) finds that even those who are toler-
ant have an ``automatic component’’ to their stereotypes : Stereotypes guide our thoughts
in times of mindlessness unless we purposefully control them or individuate our impres-
sions of the other. Research suggests that behavioral cues can lead people to stereotype the
same person in different ways (Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Milne, 1995). However, past
research has not fully examined the role of communication behaviors in the invocation
of stereotypical impressions. A logical extension of this research would be to consider the
relationship between specific cultural communication behaviors and the invocation of
stereotypical impressions. While many impressions might be important, it seems that
those that would be most problematic in interracial communication would be associated
with intergroup stereotypes.This study investigates the relationship between communica-
tion impressions and specific communication behaviors during Black7White interaction .
Review of Literature
Communication Stereotypes
Stereotypes are generally considered to be overgeneralizations of group characteris-
tics or behaviors, which are applied to individuals of those groups (based on Allport, 1979).
Stereotypes can be positive, such as th e American stereotyp e of Asian Americans as a
``model minority’’ (Tajima, 1989). However, even these stereotypes can be contradictory.
Rattansi (1992) reviews some studies of English stereotypes to conclude,``Th e circulation
of contradictory stereotypes is partly responsible for the complexity and ambivalence of
discourses surrounding `race’’’ (p. 26). He suggests that Blacks in Britain are seen b oth as
industrious and lazy at the same time. We hold that all stereotypesöeven those that
appear positiveöare negative for two reasons. First, holders of these stereotypes nega-
tively bias individual thought processes (Stephan, 1985). And sec ond, their n egative
impact is found largely because they form a cogn itively simplistic impression of the per-
son stereotyped (Delia,1972). Furthermore, they act as a heuristic device, placing others in
rigid and frequently negative categories. The differences among individuals in the stereo-
typed groups become obscured,``essentializing ’’ groups, in the words of Rattansi (1992).
Unrealistic expectations of individuals may thus be created, infringing up on their indi-
viduality. Ster eotypes may lead others to have prejudicial attitudes tow ard groups
114 P. C. Hughes and J. R. Baldwin
(Devine, 1989; Devine&El liot, 1995; Hepburn&Locksley, 1983), make unfair attributions
(Stephan, 1985), and act toward groups in particular ways (Allport,1979; Foley&Kranz,
1981; Gordon, 1986; Manusov, Winchatz, & Manning,1997). They may als o affect indivi-
duals’ self-esteem (Clark, 1985) and impede effective communication (Biernat&Vescio,
1983 ).
While there are stereotypes among many social groupings in the United States, much
research has focused specifically on Black7Whit e stereotypes. Gordon (1986) concludes
that the conten t of stereotypes is dynamic. A comparison of studies using the Katz and
Braly (1933) li st of stereotypes evidences their dynamic nature. ManyWhites continue to
perceive racial differences in athletic and abstract thinking ability (Plous&Williams,
1995). However, many of the stereotypes of Blacks found by Katz an d Bral y (1933), such
as Blacks seen as superstitious, happy-go-lucky, ignorant, stupid, and physicall y dirty, have
been replaced by stereotypes such as unreliable, materialistic, sportsmanlike, and plea-
sure loving (Gordon,1986). Ogawa (1971) found thatWhite respondents stereotyped Black
communication as argumentative, emotional, aggressive, straightforward, critical, sensi-
tive, ostentatious, defiant, hostile, open, responsive, and intelligent. Leonard and Locke
(1993) found that little has changed over the past 20 years in these stereotypes, and they
also discovered that many Blacks stereotype Whites as demanding, manipulative, orga-
nized, rude, critical, aggressive, arrogant, boastful, hostile, ignorant, deceptive, and noisy.
While the Katz and Braly (1933) list was developed to measure a variety of stereot ypes,
Leonard and Locke (1993) designed their study in terms of ``communicative stereotypes,’’
suggesting that one change in the structure of stereotypes is that several of the stereotypes
are communicative in nature. Increased face-to-face interaction between the races overall
may have led to changes in interracial perception (thou gh not necessarily interracial
affect) and may have given stereotypes a communication twist. Despite the ``threatening’’
nature of ste reotypes respondents l isted most frequently in the Leonard and Locke (1993)
study, some research suggests that contact between races, in fact, has some positive effects
(Sigelman&Welch,1993). However, this research does not indicate the context and type of
relationships recalled by p articipants, wh ich may or may not result in positive outcomes
such as the improvement of th e quality of racial attitudes.
Communication and Culture
Many have proposed that Whites and Blacks make up different speech communities
(Coll ier, 1997), with different ty pes of speech (Kochman, 1981), rules for interaction
(Collier,1988,1996), core cultural values (Hecht, Larkey, & Johnson,1992; Hecht, Ribeau,
& Alberts,1989), and different worldviews (Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau,1993). Shade (1982)
suggests that Blacks and Whites process and interpret messages differently. To the extent
that Black and White Americans share different meanings of words or actions and have
different rules for effective or appropriate behavior, they may be said to be different ``cul-
tures’’ (Collier,1997; Collier&Thomas,1988), especially if one defines culture as a ``histori-
cally transmitted system of symbols, meanings, premises, routines, procedures, and rules’’
(Philipsen,1987, p. 260).
Researchers have looked at communi cation rules in Black culture (Garner, 1983;
Gumperz, 1982; Hecht&Ribeau, 1984; Weber, 1994) and in comparative ethnic cultures
(Collier, 1988,1996; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau,1993). Some have looked specifically at the
strategies and rules active in intergroup communication (Hecht, Larkey, & Johnson,1992;
Communication and Stereotypical Impressions 115
Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989; Orbe, 1994, 1995; Stanback&Pearce, 1981). And others
looked at perceptions Black and White Americans have when communicating with one
another (Houston,1993; Orbe,1994). This research suggests that nonverbal and verbal dif-
ferences exist between Blacks andWhites.
Blacks andWhites were found to use different questioning patterns in initial conversa-
tions, depending on the conversational partner (Shuter, 1982). Black women were more
expressive and interrupted more thanWhite women in same-race interactions. However,
when i nteracting interracially, Black women decreased the ir smiling behaviors while
White women increased theirs (Booth-Butterfield&Jordan, 1989). Houston (1993) found
that White and Black women in conversation listen for very different things and attend
to different features of speech. Furthermore, Black women often perceived White women
to be superficial (``air-headish,’’ ``dealing with trivial topics,’’ ``talking proper about noth-
ing’’), while White women perceived Black women as confident, d istinguished, to-the-
point, and speaking with self-esteem. Hecht and Ribeau (1984) make the same conclusion,
finding different aspects of conversation satisfying to Latino, Black, andWhite Americans.
Asante and Davis (1985) found that Blacks display infrequent or intermittent eye con-
tact with persons perceived to have higher status. Memb ers of Black dyads tended to use
lower levels of eye contact than Whites (Smith, 1983). White communicators used more
direct eye contact during inter racial interactions, with White females looking at their
interaction partners in interracial inte ractions more than Black females. Asante and Davis
(1985) also found that the perpendicular nodding of Blacks may not be intended to com-
municate understanding or agreement, but is often simply used as a conversation starter
or an indication of turn-taking.The nods of White interactants more likely convey a direct
message of understanding or agreement. In Erickson’s (1979) study Blacks tended to use
verbal b ehavior as a l istening device. Erickson also found that the verbal response was
used for the function of listening more than twice as frequently as the nonverbal nod. For
manyWhites, Erickson (1979) noted, direct eye contact is used more to demonstrate listen-
ing. Although Halberstadt (1985) argues that social class differences would account for
most Black7White nonverbal differences, the above research suggests differences in cul-
tural preferences or norms.
Communication and Stereotypical Impressions
While there is a great diversity within groups (Hall,1992), to the extent that such dif-
ferences are perceived to exist, researchers suggest that the differences may have a nega-
tive impact on communication. Specifically, we are concerned with what global
perceptions might be related to communication behaviors. Si nce prior literature has
focused mostly on negative stereotypes, in this study we specifically investigate the global
impressions that would be consonant with the most frequently chosen stereotypes in the
Leonard and Locke (1993) study, as it is on e of th e most recent studies delineating stereo-
types between Blacks and Whites.
Salience of stereotypes.
One question arises surrounding Leonard and Locke’s (1993)
``communication stereotypes’’ research and the cultural rules listed above. Stereotype stu-
dies have been conducted by asking groups to describe anothe r group, our everyday inter-
action, while informed by the ``collective memory’’ of stereotypes, is usually with discrete
individuals. In addition to these methodological concerns in the research accounting for
116 P. C. Hughes and J. R. Baldwin
changes in stereotypes, many societal aspects may explain differences in the importance
and relevance of certain stereotypical impressions. For example, the opportunities for
communication (i.e.,``interaction potential,’’ Kim, 1995) between Blacks and Whites are
increasing. Increased interactions between groups may influence communicators’ stereo-
typic impressions. For example, McAndrew (1990) foun d differences in stereotypes among
college students of different nations based on the amount of contact, suggesting, ``One
strong trend was for increased intergroup contact to lead to a greater willingness to ex-
press stereotypes confidently, especially negative stereotypes ’’ (p. 350). This joined with
the notion that both groups maintain distinctive cultural norms for communication beha-
vior would suggest that a shift in stereotypes could be due to differences in cultural com-
munication repertoires.
What changes there have been in stereotypes coul d also be based in a change in the
causes that lead to stereotypes. For example, Allport (1979) ties stereotypes to other inter-
nal psychological traits, such as authoritarianism or need for structure. Related to this,
some might suggest that stereotypes are an outgrowth or are related to ethnocentrism.
For example, Chang and Ritter (1976) find a strong correlation between Blacks’pro-Black
and anti-White sentiments. Specifically, this research suggests that both pro-Black and the
anti-W hite scores have changed significantly from a comparative study (Steckler, 1957).
Perhaps ethnocentrism and ste reotypes are related, for similar changes occur in both.
Moore (1995) brings ethnocentrism to a juncture with language by noting White eth-
nocentrism in the use of the English language. He notes that the whole notion of ``blac k’’
and ``white’’ in the English language (color symbolism) places white (pure, good, fair,
innocent) over black (gloomy, swarthy, dark, evil). Other terms (e.g., ``culturally
deprived,’’ ``underdeveloped’’) and usages (e.g., discussing Black accomplishments with
passive voice) also construct in the language a preference for Whites. Perhaps this every-
day language use, along with other factors, builds in stereotypes of Blacks.
Research al so ties stereotypes of Blacks to media representations, suggesting that
Black males in literature and media are frequently portrayed as fools, criminals, servants,
and entertainers (Campbell,1995; Hall,1981) and Black women as mammies, matriarchs,
promiscuous women, and welfare mothers (Collins,1990; Harris,1982). Dates and Barlow
(1993) suggest that,``Black media stereotypes are not the natural, much less harmless prod-
ucts of an idealized popular culture; rather, they are more commonly socially constructed
images that are selective, partial, one-dimensional, and distorted in their portrayal of
African Americans’’ (p.5). Media portrayals are inf luential because``the mass accessibility
of television has multiplied the negative images of African Americans’’ (Caputo, Hazel, &
McMahon,1994, p. 338). Many suggest that media images of Blacks are improving, with
an incr ease of midd le-class Blacks in the media (Gray, 1989). However, this may not
address the problem. For example, Dates and Barlow (1993), in what they call the ``split
image’’ of Blacks in today’s media, suggest that both the positive and continued negative
images of Blacks do not work to empower Blacks. Furthermore, Hall (1981) suggests that
while actual images improve, the underly ing racist assumptions remain, which would also
relate to an ongoing negative feeling of Whites toward Blacks.
However, linking ethnocentrism and media representation to stereotypes does not
explain Blacks’views towardWhites.This could be explained in terms of the social context
of oppression of Whites toward Blacks; but this would not explain an increase of negative
stereotypes and a decrease in favorability toward Whites. Possibl e explanations of these
shifts could be increased consciousness raising of Blacks or an actual increase in the
Communication and Stereotypical Impressions 117
targets of stereotypes themselves (e.g., Whites are actually becoming more manipula-
tive). Finally, the changes (and consistencies) in stereotypes might be seen as consistent
with general tren ds in the nature of racism as it is expressed in America. For example,
McConahay and Hough (1976) suggest that the form of racism is changin g. Furthermore,
McConahay (1986) and Bynes and Kiger (1988) su ggest that racism is difficult to measure
because overt or ``traditional’’ racism has been replaced by ``symbolic’’ and more subtle
forms of racism. Others (Essed,1991; van Dijk,1984) document through individuals’ per-
sonal narratives a decrease in the experience of overt racist acts and an increase in subtle
or everyday racism. Entman (1992) and Hall (1981) see a similar trend, as the media, while
still including some explicit racist messages and images, also produce inferentially racist
displays. Thus, perhaps traditional stere otypes are in fact declining, or social desirability
or symbolic racism is moving stereotypes, as well, from the more psychological realm to
the symbolic, communicative realm.This research asked respondents to recall a past inter-
action with a specific, racially other, individual. This is likely to change the perceptions of
the respondents. So we ask the following research questions:
RQ1: Will respondents’ perceptions of racially other individuals, in terms of stereotypes
found in the past literature, differ in order and intensity from the stereotypes listed in that
literature?
The invocation of stereotypes.
Devine (1989) found that a key difference between tole-
rant and prejudiced people is that tolerant people choose to control stereotypes. ``Low-
prejudiced respondents apparently censored and inhibited the automatically activated ne-
gative stereotype congruent information and consciously replaced it with thoughts that
expressed the nonprejudiced values’’ (p. 14). Hepburn and Locksley (1983) c ounter t hat
people cannot really distinguish when their stereotypes are activated, and that, even if
people could suppress stereotypes, they would c ome out in the long run. Other studies,
however, do support the ideathat p eople can deactivate their stereotypes either by looking
for discriminating information (Zebrowitz, Montepare, & Lee, 1993), by unexpected
(nonstereotypical) attitudes or behaviors on the part of the racial other (Bi ernat&Vescio,
1983; Oakes,1994), or when made aware of the positive information about the racial other
(Jackson, Hymes, & Sullivan,1987).
In addition to deliberate attempts and informational intervention that might mitigate
stereotypic impressions, aspects of a person’s paralinguistic and nonverb al communica-
tion may also come into play. For example, the p erceived social class of Black targets was
more influential i n predicting Whites’ favorability ratings than race, while Blacks relied
primarily on race to determine favorability of targets (Smedley & Bayton, 1978). Dialect
and persona l appearance, together with race, were fou nd to better pre dict stereotypes
than race alone (Jussim, Coleman, & Lerch,1987). Research on Americans communicat-
ing with international students (Manusov et al., 1997) found that stereotypical expectan-
cies prior to a conversation were associated with certain behaviors within conversation. It
is difficult to determine if we communicate with racial others in terms of our stereotypes
or, if, as suggested ab ove, cultura l communication styles reinforce those stereotypes. Both
may be true. One possibility is that the clothing of the businessman (Devine & Baker,
1991), for example, th e speech characteristics of the spoken Black English vernacular
(McKirnan, Smith, & Hamayan, 1983), or nonverbal and topic cues trigger existing
stereotypes. For example, in one study, American participants viewing an image of an
118 P. C. Hughes and J. R. Baldwin
Asian-descended woman drew upon different stereotypes, depending on whether she was
brushing her hair or eating with chopsticks (Macrae et al.,1995).The authors conclude,``It
may be the conjunction of social categories that is crucial in these cases, rather than a
differential emphasis on age, gender, or ethnicity used singularly’’ (p. 404).
The literature suggests several hypotheses. For example, Burgoon, Buller, and
Woodall (1989), reviewing studies on eye-contact differences, suggest that Black andWhite
communicators may have different perceptions of one another, based on these eye-contact
differences (e.g., Asante&Davis, 1985). Further, Blacks frequently see many Whites as
manipulative or demanding (Leonard&Locke, 1993; Orbe, 1994). We propose th e follow-
ing hypothesis:
H1: Black respondents’perception that aWhite communicator is using steady or direct eye
contact will be associated with the following impressions: demanding, rude, aggressive,
and noisy.
Hecht and colleagues (1993), Kochman (1981), and others have suggested t hat core
values of Black culture are directness and genuineness.Whites may tend to speak directly,
but seem to have a ``politeness’’ norm (Booth-Butterfield&Jordan, 1989; Friday, 1994), as
well as a fear of dealing with racial issues (Tatum, 1992). Because of this, many Whites
may smile for politeness or in interracial uncertainty or discomfort but be perceived as
manipulative and phony. While Whites may speak readily, they may not speak about
issues that concern many Blacks, or even deeper social issues in general (Houston, 1993),
leading some Blacks to perceive them as trivial or ignorant. Blacks, on th e other hand, may
be more likely to speak their mind about any issues, including those of social importance.
The directness of this style leads some Whites to feel ``puzzled’’ (Cheek, 1976). They may
perceive straightforward B lacks as confrontive and argumentative. This leads to the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
H2: White respondents’ percepti on that a Black communicator is speaking with self-
confidence will be associated with the impressions of aggressiveness and argumentative-
ness; however, since self-confidence is also a White value, the Black communicator will be
perceived as friendly. Likewise, the perception that a Black communicator is speaking
his
=
her mind or getting to the point will be associated with the impressions of aggressive
and argumentative.
H3: Black respondents’perception that aWhite communicator is speaking on tr ivial topics
will be associated with an impression of ignorant.
H4: Black respondents’ perception t hat a White communicator is speaking in a phony
manner will be associated with an impression of manipulative. Likewise, the perception
that a White communicator is speaking in a friendly manner will be associated with an
impression of manipulative.
The communication theory of ethnic identity (Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993) sug-
gests that Blacks use certain communication styles w ithin a group to build solidarit y and
community (cf. Gumperz,1982). Communication accommodation the ory (Gallois, Giles,
Jones, Cargile, & Ota, 1995) states that groups may use t hese in-group communication
styles with members of the outgroup to maintain or reinforce boundaries.Whites, used to
the cultural hegemony of people speaking dominant English, maybe uncomfortable when
Blacks speak other variations of English around them, while Blacks may feel Whites’
Communication and Stereotypical Impressions 119
so-called correct speech styles are an exercis e in arrogance. The use of so-called Black
slang may call attention to the behavior, causing it to be seen as more ``loud.’’ It may also
trigger stereot ypes of ``comic’’ Blacks (Hall, 1981) and be connected with a certain witti-
ness. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H5: White respondents’ perception that a Black communicator is speaking loudly will be
associated with the impressions of aggressive, noisy, and argumentative.
H6: Black respondents’ perception that a White communicator is speakin g with distinct
pronunciation will be associated wit h the impressions of organized and arrogant.
H7: White respondents’ perception that a Black communicator is using slang will be
associated with the impressions of loud, noisy, and witty.
Methodology
Participants
One hundred and fifty-nine White undergraduates and one hundred and five Black
undergraduates (
N =
264) from a large Midwestern university participated in this study.
All respondents were f ull-time undergraduate students. The sample was recruited in two
ways. First, the authors recruited participants from various introduction to communica-
tion, advanced communication, sociology, and history courses. Second, the authors con-
tacted the Black Student Union (BSU) representative s to recruit Black students. The BSU
arranged for the first author to distribute and collect surveys during a scheduled meeting.
While not representative, this sampling was chosen due to the low number of Blacks in any
one class or section.The racial mixture of the university was 8.6% Black and 86.6% White.
The White sample ranged in age from 18 to 62 years (
M =
21.59) an d included 77
male and 82 fe male participants. The Black sample ranged in age from 18 to 37 years
(
M =
20.28) and included 50 male and 55 female participants.
Data Collection
Data we re collected in two ways. First, the authors distributed the questionnaires dur-
ing the participants’regularly scheduled sections of th e courses mentioned above. Second,
those students who were recruited through the BSU were asked to attend a meeting sched-
uled by the first author during which these participants would complete the que stion-
naires, h ave an opportunity to make inquiries about the research, and enjoy refresh-
ments. Participants who completed the questionnaires during their regularly scheduled
class times were also invited to attend this meeting.Those who attended the meeting com-
pleted and returne d the questionnaires then.
Procedure
While actual communication behaviors would likely have an effect on a communica-
tor’s perceptions in interracial communication, it is also worthwhile to look at perceptions
of communicators’ behaviors. When we respond to a communicator, at least at the con-
scious level, we respond not to what the person actually does, but to what we perceive that
person is doing. For this study, therefore, we asked Black and White respondents to recall a
120 P. C. Hughes and J. R. Baldwin
recent conversation with a member of another racial group (consistent with the method
proposed by Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts,1989).The first author constructed a questionnaire
(Hughes, 1996) to assess Black and White commu nication behaviors and impressions
(based on the communicat ion and stereotype literature, e.g., Leonard & Locke, 1993).
Respondents used the items to describe the communication behaviors and their overall
impressions.We then analyzed the relationships b etween perceived communication beha-
viors and stereotypical impressions.
Measurement
Communication behaviors.
The questionnaire contained two parts: communication be-
haviors and communication stereotypes. We identified 17 communication behaviors from
the literature. Eight behaviors listed in the literature as White behaviors follow: steady
and direct eye contact, distinct pronunciation, appropriate terminology, variety of speech
patterns, friendly speech, acting like a know-it-all, discussion of trivial topics, and speak-
ing in a phony manner (a
=
.89). The nine behaviors used to operationalize Black commu-
nication behaviors follow: speaking more loudly than expected, using erratic and
irregular head nods at the beginning of the interaction, listening through speaking or ver-
bal behaviors, speaking one’s mind, infrequent and indirect eye contact, speaking with a
lot of self-confidence, getting to the point, using cultural slang, and speaking from cultural
experience (a
=
.85). In the first par t of the questionnaire, participants responded to the
statement,``The person . . .’’ followed by the list of communication behaviors found in the
literature. The participants then circled the degree to which they perceived the
racial other had communicated in a particular manner (e.g., ``The person appeared to
speak his=her mind’’). All item s were measure on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Communication stereotypes.
While many global impressions are possible, we were most
concerned with those found to occur frequently as stereotypes in past literature, as these
seemed to be the most problematic.Thus, we used the 12 stereotypes listed most frequently
by Black and White respondents in Leonard and Locke’s (1993) study. The 12 Black com-
munication stereotypes held by W hite respondents follow: loud, ostentatious (showy),
aggressive, active, boastful, talkative, friendly, noisy, straightforward, emotional, argu-
mentative, and witty (a
=
.79).The12 White communication stereotypes held by Black re-
spondents included the following: demanding, manipulative, organized, rude, critical,
arrogant, hostile, ignorant, deceptive, aggressive, boastful, and noisy (a
=
.82). Since
noisy, boastful, and aggressive appear on both lists, the total number of communication
stereotypes was 21. On the sec ond part of the questionnaire participants responded to the
statement,``My impression of the person was . . .’’followed by a list of the stereotypes or im-
pressions highlighted in Leonard and Locke (1993). The 17 communication behaviors
served as the predictor variables.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were computed to generate general characteristics of the sample
and measures of central tendency for the stereotypes and communication behaviors.
Two-tailed Pearson product moment correlations were used to answer hypotheses one
through seven.
Communication and Stereotypical Impressions 121
Results
In our first research question, we asked,Will respondents’perceptions of racially other
individuals, in terms of stereotypes found in the past literature, differ in order and inten-
sity from the stere otypes listed in that literature? In response to this question, we calcu-
lated means and standard deviations for each of the top 12 stereotypes listed by Leonard
and Locke (1993) forW hite and Black communicators. The results appear inTable 1.
The standard deviations for th e first six items are greater for Black respondents than
forWhite respondents, especially for the stereotype ``demanding,’’while theWhite respon-
dents’means are higher than those of the Black respondent s (i.e., the highest ranked item,
``friendly’’ has a mean score of 4.02 on a five-point scale, while the highest item rated by
Black respondents for Caucasian communicators was ``organized,’’ with a mean score
of 3.19).
Several of the hypotheses received ful l or partial support. These results appear in
Table 2. Hypothesis 1 predicted White communicators’ use of steady or direct eye contact
would be perceived as demanding, rude, aggressive, and noisy by Blacks. As predicted,
direct eye contact was associated with the perception of rude, but not correlated with
demanding, aggress ive, and noisy. Hypothesis 2 predicted Blacks speaking with self-
confidence woul d be associated with the impressions aggressive and argumentative; how-
ever, since self-confidence is also aWhite value, the Blacks would be perceived as friendly.
Likewise, Blacks speaking their mind or getting to the point would be associated with the
impressions aggressive and argu mentative. As predicted, Blacks speaking with self-confi-
dence were perceived as fri endly. However, Blacks speaking with self-confidence and
appearing to get to the point were not perceived as aggressive or argumentative. Hypo-
thesis 3 predicted that Blacks would perceive a White communicator speaking on trivial
topics as ignorant. As predicted, White communicators speaking on topics considered
unimportant to Black respondents were perceived as ignorant. Hypothesis 4 predicted
that Blacks would perceive White communicators speaking in a phony manner and in a
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Black and White Commu-
nicators’ Perceptions (Stereotypes)
Bl ack Perceptions of
W hite Communicators
Whi te Perceptions of
Bl ack Communicators
Stereotypes M SD Stereotypes M SD
Organized 3.19 1.02 Friendly 4.02 .84
Demanding 2.83 3.15 Talkative 3.77 1.02
Boastful 2.57 1.13 Active 3.72 .89
Critical 1.57 1.06 Straightforward 3.71 .96
Aggressive 2.48 1.08 Witty 3.18 1.02
Manipulative 2.44 1.16 Argumentative 2.80 1.18
Arrogant 2.43 1.08 Emotional 2.77 .99
Noisy 2.41 1.07 Boastful 2.67 1.20
Deceptive 2.32 1.11 Aggressive 2.65 1.24
Ignorant 2.24 1.12 Noisy 2.51 1.29
Rude 2.16 1.08 Loud 2.51 1.29
Hostile 2.16 .91 Ostentatious 2.48 1.29
122 P. C. Hughes and J. R. Baldwin
friendly manner as manipulative. As predicted,Whites speaking in a phony manner were
perceived as manipulative by Black respondents. Unexpectedly, Black respondents also
perceived Whites’use of phony speech as deceptive. However, Blacks did perceive Whites’
friendly speech as manipulative. Hypothesis 5 predicted that Whites would perceive
Blacks speaking loudly as aggressive, noisy, and argumentative. Whites perceived Blacks
speaking loudly as aggressive and argumentative, but not noisy or loud. Hypothesis 6 pre-
dicted that Black s would perceive aWhite communicator speaking with distinct pronun-
ciation as organized and arrogant. Blacks perceived White communicators’ use of distinct
pronunciation as organized but not arrogant. Finally, hypothesis 7 predicted that Whites
would per ceive a Black communicator speaking with slang as loud, noisy, and witty.
Whites perceived Blacks using slang as noisy, but not loud or witty.
Discussion
Stereotypes—Compared with Leonard and Locke (1993)
In regard to the first research question, we thought it is worthwhile to measure the
incidence of stereotypes in this sample, in part to compare with Leona rd and Lock e
(1993) using a sample in a new region of the country, but also because we operationalized
the responses differently than Leonard and Locke, using Li kert-type responses of indivi-
dual perceptions instead of having participants circle stereotypes of a group on a list. Leo-
nard and Locke found that 62% of Whites surveyed circled ``loud’’ as an adjective
describing Blacks, with 29% listing argumentative and witty and the other stereotypes
from Table 1 falling in the middle. For Black respondents, t h e highest ranked item for
describingWh ites was``manipulative’’ (43%) and the lowest,``deceptive’’and``noisy’’ (both
23%). However, the circling of adjectives does not tell us the strength with which the
stereotypes are held. The methodology in this study provides means for the perceptions,
with the highest means (4.02) forWhite perceptions of Black communicators and (3.19) for
Black perceptions of White communicators. Just as in Le onard and Locke’s, study the
White respondents seem to hold stronger attitudes (or appear less ambivalent, based on
the lower standard deviations fo r the first six items) than the Black respondents. Second,
the relative ranking of the perceptions is different than that found by Leonard and Locke.
Table 2 Correlations between Communication Behaviors an d Stereotypes
Hypot heses Behavior(s) Stereotype(s) r
H1 Direct eye contact Rude
–
.21*
H2 Self-confidence Friendly .30**
H3 Speaking on trivial topics Ignorant .40***
H4 Speaking in a phony manner Manipulative .31***
Deceptive .38***
H5 Speaking loudly Argumentative .34***
Aggressive .29*
H6 Distinct pronunciation Organized .40***
H7 Using slang Noisy .21*
Note. Table reports supported correlations predicted by hypotheses. *p < .05;
**p < .01; ***p < .001.
Communication and Stereotypical Impressions 123
While some perceptions, like Blacks respondents’ views that White communication part-
ners were ``organized’’ or ``demanding,’’ remain at the top of both lists,``manipulative’’
moved from second place in Leonard and Locke’s study to sixth place in the current ana-
lysis.``Ostentatious,’’as aWhite respondent view of Black communicators moved from sec-
ond place in Leonard and Locke’s study to twelfth place in this analysis.This suggests that
the exact order of stereotypes=perceptions might change from place to place and depend-
ing on how the questions are asked.
Furthermore, our respondents seemed to view their interaction partners more posi-
tively.The top perception listed by Black respondents was thatWh ite communicators were
``organized,’’ while White respondents tended to see Black communicators as ``friendly,’’
``talkative,’’ ``active,’’ ``straightforward,’’and ``w itty.’’ There may be a social desirability bias.
Or, it could be that the participants saw communication partners more on ind ividual
terms (Gudykunst & Kim,1997), especially since people may choose to interact with and
remember people they like. Perhaps the participants even consciously suppress stereotypic
impressions (Devine,1989). This would sugges t that, while we might have stereotypes that
come to mind when we list global perceptions of a group (Leonard and Locke ’s design),
these same perceptions might not come to play in actual one-to-one interactions. Since we
asked participants to remember a recent conversation, and not one that was either positive
or negative, it is possible that such individuation may occur in many of our daily interac-
tions. More researc h should verify this possibility and include more positive items from
the original Katz and Braly list.
Correlations between Behaviors and Stereotypes
In our hyp otheses we investigated relationships between perceptions of specific c om-
munication behaviors and stereotypical impressions. Several of the hypotheses were con-
firmed regarding Bl ack respondents’ perceptions of Wh ite communicators, especially
regarding negative perceptions correlated with speaking in a phony manner (H4) or with
distinct pronunciation (H6). Contrary to our hypothesis,White communicators perceived
to be speaking in a friendly manner were n ot judged to be manipulative or deceptive;
rather, results confirmed the contrary (H4). Additional ly, White communicators per-
ceived to be speaking on trivial topics were considered ignorant (H3). And direct eye con-
tact was not perceived as rude, demanding, aggressive, or noisy. To the contrary, indirect
eye contact was perceived as rude (H1). Eye contact differences between Black and White
communicators alone may not account for intergroup perceptions.There may be different
types of eye gaze, some that may have conveyed friendliness and others that may have
conveyed dislike. Future research should investi gate thes e possible relationships.
White respondents did not perceive Black communicators’ self-confidence to be
aggressive or argumentative, but rather, friendly (H2). Hypotheses regarding getting to
the point=speaking one’s mind (H2) were not confirmed in this study. This contradicts
Cheek’s (1976) notion that Black assertiveness will be perceived negatively by Whites, or
the p ossible notion that Whites will resist Black self-confidence as it challenges inherent
power structures. At th e same time, self-chosen interactions might influence t his, if the
White communicators had interactions with Black communicators in White-dominated
contexts. Topi c choice, such a s a Black commun icator being confident about social injus-
tices rather than in a small-group class project, might produce dif ferent results. There
were negative impressions if White respondents perceived Black communicators
124 P. C. Hughes and J. R. Baldwin
as speaking loudly (H5) or using slang (H3). This could be an ethnocentric bias based in
White cultural norms (if, in deed, there are real differences in these variables, which we
did not measure for this study). There could also be resistance to those elements that
White communicators feel challenge the ``dominant’’ White cultural code(s). There is a
possible limitation in that participants might draw diffe rent understandings of wordings,
such as ``phony,’’ ``erratic head nod,’’ or ``used distinct pronunciation.’’ Further research
should investigate respondents’ perceptions of these terms and the behaviors that lead to
them.
Some limitations of the study have been noted above. For example, we do not know
exactly how the items were interpreted. In addition, t he questionnaire relied on self-report
of a past interaction, rather than relyin g on exp erimenta l data and single-choice items.
Montgomery and Norton (1981) reinforced the importance of self-perceptions as ``vital to
the explanation of communication process as is the behavior itself ’’ (p.122). Norton (1978)
also suggested that th e self-report measur e procedure can be used adequately to predict
communication behaviors. Future research may account for this limitation by using multi-
variate analyses (i.e., factor analysis, multiple regression), which may return a more holis-
tic an d integrated view to the ``decontextualized’’communication behaviors in our survey
(Baldwin & Hughes,1997; Hughes & Baldwin,1997). We were also unable to determine if
certain communication behaviors lead to, cause, or trigger certain stereotypes. However,
we do know that either (a) lists of stereotypes should not be taken as universalöthat rank
ordering of stereotypes may change from place to place, or (b) that stereotypes of whole
groups may change when app lied to specific communication partners in line withTajfel’s
(1978) continuum from interindividual to intergroup communication. And we know that
communication behaviors, as everyday actors perceive them and stereotypical impression
can be related, with certain behaviors appearing to be especially problematic in interra-
cial interactions.
This study is also important in day-to-day intercultural communication. Preconcep-
tions and stereotypes and communication differences are two stumbling blocks to compe-
tent intercultural communication (Barna,1994). Being aware of these stumbling blocks is
the first action people can take in avoiding them. This study researched these problem
areas of i ntercultural communication as they figure prominently in interracial interac-
tion. On dealing with thes e stumbling blocks, Barna (1994) wrote,``For most people, it takes
insight, training and sometimes an alteration of long-standing habits or thinking patterns
before progress can be made’’ (p. 345). This study provides Black an d White communica-
tors with more inf ormation on how particular communication behaviors canbe p erceived.
For instance, communicators can become aware of which behaviors are associated with
problematic perceptions for those of other races or ethnicities. This does not mean that
the communicators should choose not to use these behaviors. Rather, they may tailor their
communication to hopefully minimize certain perceptions in order to meet particular
goals (persuasion, respect, relational development , etc.). For example, in some contexts,
Black communicators may choose to avoid the use of slang or loud talk. White communi-
cators may choose to be friendly, but be careful of superficial talk or condescension.
Future research needs to unravel whether our stereotypical or global perceptions filter
our view of the communication of others or whether certain behaviors trigger the percep-
tions (Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Milne,1995). In the meantime, a better understanding of
perceptions and behaviors may help us become better communicators. Whether we
educate ourselves on the diverse speaking styles of other cultures or become aware of our
Communication and Stereotypical Impressions 125
own speaking styles, the goal is to achieve intercultural communication competence,
which is``the overall internal capacity of an individual to manage key challenging features
of intercultural communication: namely, cultural differences and unfamiliarity, inter-
group posture and the accompanying experience of stress’’ (K im,1995, p. 259).We feel this
study has done much to broaden ou r notion of communication perceptions, and we hope
that this helps us on the road to recognizing and managi ng, where appropriate to do so,
intercultural and intergroup communication differences.
References
Allport, G.W. (1979).The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Asante, M., & Davis, A. (1985). Black and white communication: Analyzing work place encounters. Journal
of Black Studies, 16,77
7
93.
Baldwin, J. R., & Hughes, P. C. (1997, November). Stereotypesö Are they all alike?: Factors of black-white commu-
nication behaviorsand stereotypes. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Associa-
tion, Chicago, IL.
Barna, L. M. (1994). Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter
(Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 337
7
347). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (1983). Categorization and stereotyping: Effects of group context on memory
and social judgment. Jou rnal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 29(2),166
7
202.
Booth-Butterfield, M., & Jordan, F. (1989). Communication adaptation among racially homogenous and
heterogenous groups.The SouthernJournal of Communication, 54, 253
7
272.
Boyd,W. (1993). Can the races talk together? The Poynter Report, 4,7.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1987). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue.
NewYork: Harper & Row.
Bynes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1988). Contemporary measures of attitudes towards blacks. Edu cational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 48,107
7
113.
Campbell, C. P. (1995). Race, myth, and the news. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Caputo, J., Hazel, H., & McMahon, C. (1994). Interpersonal communication: Competency through critical thinking.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chang, E. C., & Ritter, E. H. (1976). Ethnocentrism in black colleg e students.TheJourn al of Social Psychology,
100, 89
7
98.
Cheek, D. K. (1976). Assertive black . . . puzzled white. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers.
Clark, M. L. (1985). Social stereotypes and self-concept in black and white college students.TheJournal of
Social Psychology, 125,753
7
760.
Collier, M. J. (1988). A compari son of intracultural and intercultural communication among and between
domestic culture groups: How intra- and intercultural competencies vary. Communication Quarterly, 36,122
7
144.
Collier, M. J. (1996). Communication competence problematics in ethnic friendships. Communication Mono-
graphs, 63,314
7
336.
Collier, M. J. (1997). Cultural identity and intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter
(Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 337
7
347). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. InY. Y. Kim & W. B.
Gudykunst (Eds.),Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99
7
120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, conscious, and the politics of empowerment. Boston, MA:
Harper-Collins.
Dates, J. L., & Barlow,W. B. (1993). Split image: African Americans in the mass media.Washington, D.C.: Howard
University Press.
Delia, J. G. (1972). Dialects and the effect of stereotypes on interpersonal attraction and cognitive processes
in information formation. QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 58, 285
7
297.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice:Their automatic and c ontrolled components. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5
7
18.
Devine, P. G., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Measurement of racial automatic and controlled components. Journalof
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5
7
18.
Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11),1139
7
1150.
Entman, R. (1992). Blacks in the news: Television, modern racism, and cultural change. Journalism Qua rterly,
89, 341
7
361.
126 P. C. Hughes and J. R. Baldwin
Erickson, F. (1979).Talking down: Some cultural courses of miscommunication in interracial interviews. In
A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Applications and cultural implications (pp. 99
7
126). NewYork: Academic Press.
Essed, F. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Ne wbury Park, CA: Sage.
Foley, L. A., & Kranz, P. L. (1981). Black stereotypes of other ethnic groups.TheJournal of Mind and Behavior,
2, 435
7
441.
Friday, R. A. (1994). Contrasts in discussion behaviors of German and American managers. In L. A. Samo-
var & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed., pp. 274
7
285). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A. C., & Ota, H. (1995). Accomodating intercultural e ncounters:
Elaborations and extensions. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 115
7
147). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garner,T. (1983). Cooperative communication strategies: Observations within a black community. Journal
of Black Studies, 14, 233^250.
Gordon, L. (1986). College student stereotypes of Blacks andJews on two campuses: Four studies spanning
50 years. Sociology and Social Research, 70, 200
7
201.
Gray, H. (1989).Television, black Americans, and theAmerican dream. Critical Studies in MassCommunication,
6, 376
7
386.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim,Y. Y. (1997). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Halberstadt, A. (1985). R ace, socioeconomic status, and nonverbal behavior. In A. W. Siegman & S.
Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integration of nonverbal behavior (pp. 227
7
266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hall, S. (1981). The whites of their eyes: Racist ideologies and the media. In G. Bridges & R. Brunt (Eds.),
Silver linings: Some strategies for the eighties (pp. 28
7
52). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hall, S. (1992). New ethnicities. InJ. Donald & A. Rattansi (Eds.), ``Race,’’ culture & difference (pp. 252
7
259).
London: Sage.
Harris, T. (1982). From mammies to militants: Domestics in Black American literature. Philadelphia:Temple Univer-
sity Press.
Hecht, M. L., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. (1993). African-American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural
interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hecht, M. L., Larkey, L. K., & Johnson, L. N. (1992). African-American and European-American percep-
tions of problematic issues in interethnic c ommunication effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 19, 219
7
236.
Hecht, M. L., & Ribeau, S. (1984). Ethnic communication: A comparative analysis of satisfying communi-
cation. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relation s, 8,135
7
151.
Hecht, M. L., Ribeau, S., & Alberts, J. K. (1989). An Afro-American perspective on interethnic communi-
cation. Communication Monographs, 56,385
7
410.
Hepburn, C., & Locksley, A. (1983). Subjective awareness of stereotyping: Do we know when our judgments
are prejudiced? Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(4), 331
7
318.
Houston, M. (1993) . When black women talk with white women: Why dialogues are difficult. InV. Chen,
M. Houston, & A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Our voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity, and communication. Los Angeles, CA: Rox-
bury.
Hughes, P. C., & Baldwin, J. R. (1997, February). Black and white communication stereotype correlatesof communica-
tion behavior. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Western States Communication Association,
Chicago, IL.
Hughes, P. C. (1996). Black and White communication behavior correlates of communication stereotype s. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Illinois State Unive rsity, Normal, IL.
Jackson, L. A., Hymes, R.W., & Sullivan, L. A. (1987). The effects of positive information on evaluations of
black and white targets by black and white subjects.TheJournal of Social Psychology, 127, 309
7
316.
Jussim, L., Coleman, L. M., & Lerch, L. (1987).The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of
three theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 336
7
546.
Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal Psycho-
logy, 28, 280
7
290.
Kim,Y.Y. (1995). Cross-cultural adaptation: An integrativ e theor y. In R.Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural commu-
nication theory (pp. 170
7
193). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kochman,T. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leonard, R., & Locke, D. (1993). Communication stereotypes: Is interracial communication p ossible?Jour-
nal of Black Studies, 23(3), 332
7
343.
Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G.V., & Milne, A. B. (1995).The dissection of selection in person perception:
Inhibitory processes in social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 397
7
407.
Manusov, V., Winchatz, M. R., & Manning, L. M. (1997). Acting out our minds: Incorporating behavior
into models of stereotype-based e xpectancies for cross-cultural interactions. Communication Monographs, 64,
119
7
139.
Communication and Stereotypical Impressions 127
McAndrew, F. T. (1990). Auto- and heterostereotyping in Pakastani, French, and American colle ge
students.TheJou rnal of Social Psychology, 17, 327
7
336.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. S. Dovidio &
S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, d iscrimination, and racism (pp. 91
7
125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 93^107.
McKirnan, D. J., Smith, C. E., & Hamayan, E.V. (1983). A sociolinguistic approach to the belief-similarity
model of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 434
7
447.
Minorities admit bias toward Anglos, each other. (1994, March 3). Arizona Republic, p. A 14.
Montgomery, B., & Norton, R. (1981). Sex differences and similarities in communicator style. Communication
Monographs, 48,121
7
132.
Moore, R. B. (1995). Racist stereotyping in the English language. In K. Verderber (Ed.),Voices: A selection of
multicultural readings (pp. 9
7
18). NewYork:Wadsworth.
Norton , R. (1978). Foundations of a communicator style instrument. Human Communication Research, 4,
257
7
282.
Oakes, P. J. (1994). The effects of fit versus novelty on the salience of social categories: A response to Biernat
and Vescio. Jou rnal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 30, 390
7
398.
Ogawa, D. M. (1971). Small-group communication stereotypes of Black Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 1,
273
7
282.
Orbe, M. (1994).``Remember, it’s always whites’ ball’’: Description of Black male communication. Communi-
cation Quarterly, 42, 287
7
300.
Orbe, M. (1995). Black research: Toward a deeper understanding of interethnic communication. Western
Journal of Communication, 5 9, 61
7
78.
Philipsen, G. (1987). An ethnographic approach to communication studies. In B. Dervin et al. (Eds.), Re-
thinking communication (pp. 258
7
268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Plous, S., & Williams, T. (1995). Racial stereotypes from the days of American Slavery: A continuing legacy.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25,795
7
817.
Rattansi, A. (1992). Changing the subject? Racism, culture, and education. In J. Donald & A. Rattansi
(Eds.),``Race,’’culture, and difference (pp. 11
7
48). London: Sage.
Shade, B. J. (1982). Afro-American cognitive style: Avariable in school success. Review of Educational Research,
52, 219
7
244.
Shuter, R. (1982). Initial interaction of American Blacks andWhites in interracial and intraracial dyads.The
Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 45
7
52.
Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-White interaction and positive
racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71, 781
7
795.
Smedley, J. W., & Bayton, J. A. (1978). Evaluative race-class stereotypes by race and perceived and positive
racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71, 781
7
795.
Smith, A. (1983). Nonverbal communication among black female dyads: An assessment of intimacy, gender,
and race. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 55
7
67.
Stanback, M. H., & Pearce, W. B. (1981). Talkin g to ``the man’’: Some communication strategies used by
members of ``subordinate’’social groups. QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 67, 21
7
30.
Steckler, G. (1957). Authoritarian ideology in Negro college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
54, 396
7
399.
Stephan,W. G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology
(3rd ed., vol. 2, pp. 599
7
658). NewYork: Random House.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behavior and intergroup behavior. In H.Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between
social groups: Studies in the social psychology of interg roup relations (pp. 27
7
60). London: Academic Press.
Tajima, R. E. (1989). Lotus blossums don’t bleed: Images of Asian women. In AsianWomen United of Cali-
fornia (Ed.), Making waves: An anthology of writings by and about Asian American women (pp. 308
7
317). Boston: Beacon.
Tatum, B. D. (1992).Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of Racial Identity Develop-
ment Theory in the classroom. Howard Educational Review, 62,1
7
23.
van Dijk,T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Bejamines.
Waters, H., Jr. (1992). Race, culture, and interpersonal conflict. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations,
16,437
7
454.
Weber, S. N. (1994). The need to be: Socio-cultural significance of black language. In L. A. Samovar and
R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 337
7
347). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Montepare, J. M., & Lee, H. K. (1993).They don’t all look alike: Individuated impressions
of other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85
7
101.
128 P. C. Hughes and J. R. Baldwin
