TABLE 7.

1
Independent and interdependent self-construal styles: how do I see myself?

Independent self-construal Interdependent self-construal

• Individual is seen as an autonomous free
agent, relatively unaffected by social context
• Behaviour likely to remain consistent across
situations due to core personality traits
• Associated with ‘western’ notions of self,
common in US and Western Europe by
situational factors
• Self is perceived as interconnected with
physical and social context
• Person aims to preserve harmony with
physical and social world
• Behaviour seen as not necessarily consistent
across situations, but affected

Stereotypes
What is a stereotype?
A set of fixed, simplistic views about a social group, which makes a national stereotype an
over-generalised set of attitudes towards a national group.
Are there different types of national stereotypes?
Yes, there are hetero-stereotypes (stereotypes of out-groups) and autostereotypes (stereotypes
of in-groups).
Is there consensus about different national stereotypes?
Yes, apparently so. Peabody (1985), Stephan et al. (1996) and McAndrew et al. (2001) all
found a high level of agreement as to which traits are perceived as being ‘typical’ of a range
of national groups. Germans, for example, are reputedly ‘hard-working’.
Where do national stereotypes come from?
Simply perceiving the existence of an out-group with different values and beliefs can be
enough for stereotypical attitudes to develop (Smith et al., 2006). Linssen and Hagendoorn
(1994) argue that the nature of stereotypes can be derived from a nation’s characteristics,
such as wealth (people from rich nations being seen as ‘efficient’) or its global influence
(Americans may therefore be seen as ‘dominant’).
Does everyone hold stereotypes?
Certainly not to the same degree; their strength might depend on how much you feel
threatened by another group or nation (Van Oudenhoven et al., 2002). Small, politically
unassuming nations are less likely to provoke negative stereotypes. Your likelihood of
holding stereotypes may also depend on your perceptions of certain historical events (Smith
et al., 2006). For example, a negative view of Britain’s colonial past might lead a British
person not to identify with their own nation, rendering them less likely to develop negative
hetero-stereotypes of other nations.
Are stereotypes accurate?
Just because a lot of people concur about what typical Italians are like, this doesn’t make
these views accurate. Lee and Ottati (1995) suggest a method for gauging the accuracy of
national stereotypes, based on asking three questions about them:
1 Is there hetero-stereotype consensus? (Does everyone tend to agree that Germans are hard-
working?)
2 Is there hetero-auto-stereotype consensus? (Do German people agree with non-Germans
about their typical traits?)
3 Are there objective indicators to support stereotypes? (If Germans are hard-working, is this
reflected in their performance?)
While research supports the first of these criteria on many national stereotypes, it is more
equivocal in relation to national stereotyping on the basis of the other two criteria.
Interestingly though, in one study Chinese and American participants concurred about certain
Chinese stereotypical characteristics, yet the Chinese saw them as more positive traits than
did the Americans (Lee & Ottati, 1995). Clearly, we are a long way from establishing agreed,
reliable national stereotypes.

TABLE 7.2
Social psychological theories on the origins of prejudice
Minimal groups theory (Tajfel, 1981)
Derived from Tajfel’s (1981) social identity theory (see key study opposite), this theory
argues that we are likely to compare in-groupers’ attributes favourably with those of out-
groupers simply because we perceive that the latter belong to a different social group.
Prejudice against out-groups arises out of a perception of inter-group difference, however
trivial the criteria are for those differences. For example: Because your group supports a
different football team I am prejudiced against you.
Contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954)
Lack of contact between social groups is associated with the development of negative inter-
group attitudes. Animosity will decrease as contact increases because of the resulting erosion
in mutual ignorance. To be meaningful, though, contact must be equal status (where no group
holds power over the other), noncompetitive, with the existence of superordinate goals
(shared by both sides) and legitimised by authority.
For example: Because I am ignorant of your group’s lifestyle and values, I am prejudiced
against you.
Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999)
Prejudice is related to differing status between social groups. High-status groups often adopt
a social dominance orientation (SDO) to legitimise their dominance. SDO promotes in-group
identification and prejudice against out-groups. Interestingly, SDO can be adopted by low-
status groups, resulting in-group derogation.
For example: Because I want to protect our elevated status, I am prejudiced against your
group.
Realistic conflict theory (Sherif, 1966)
Knowing that someone belongs to a different group from us may be a basis for prejudice, but
only where there is competition for scarce resources between those groups. Where group
goals can be achieved only at the expense of another group’s aspirations, conflict of interests
will give rise to prejudice.
For example: Because there is only a limited amount of cake to be distributed between my
group and yours, I am prejudiced against you.
Historical representation theory (Liu et al., 2003)
From the perspective of cultural psychology (see Chapter 5), Liu et al. see intergroup
prejudice arising from conflicting interpretive representations of history. Past disputes over
land claims or human rights abuses thus inform the development of present-day attitudes,
perhaps precluding harmonious intergroup relations.
For example: Because of our ancient quarrels over land, I am prejudiced against your group.