Ethnocentrism
Where did you start reading on this page? The top left corner. Why not the bottom right corner, or the top right one? In English we read left to right, from the top of the page to the bottom. But not everyone reads the same. If you read and write Arabic or Hebrew, you will proceed from right to left. Neither is right or wrong, simply different. Americans tend to say that people from England drive on the “wrong” side of the road, rather than on the “other” side. You may find it hard to drive on the other side of the road while visiting England, but for people in the United Kingdom, it is normal and natural. Often, people in the United States express disgust at other cultures’ cuisine and think that it’s gross to eat meat from a dog or guinea pig, for example, while they don’t question their own habit of eating cows or pigs. Such attitudes are an example of ethnocentrism, placing one’s own culture and the corresponding beliefs, values, and behaviors in the center; in a position where it is seen as normal and right, and evaluating all other cultural systems against it. A good example of ethnocentrism is referring to parts of Asia as the "Far East." One might question, "Far east of where?" Ethnocentrism shows up in large and small ways: the WWII Nazi’s elevation of the Aryan race and the corresponding killing of Jews, Gypsies, gays and lesbians, and other non Aryan groups is one of the most horrific ethnocentric acts in history. However, ethnocentrism shows up in small and seemingly unconscious ways as well. In American culture, if you decided to serve dog meat as appetizers at your cocktail party you would probably disgust your guests and the police might even arrest you because the consumption of dog meat is not culturally acceptable. However, in China “it is neither rare nor unusual” to consume dog meat (Wingfield-Hayes).
Figure 8.1.1: Cooked dog on a hanger. (By Maria Ly - Flickr: dog on a stick: (CCBY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/inde...curid=32815072)
In the Czech Republic, the traditional Christmas dinner is carp and potato salad. Imagine how your family might react if you told them you were serving carp and potato salad for Christmas. In the Czech Republic, it is a beautiful tradition, but in America, it might not receive a warm welcome. Our cultural background influences every aspect of our lives from the food we consume to the classroom. Ethnocentrism is likely to show up in Literature classes as well. Cultural bias dictates which “great works” students are going to read and study in the classroom. More often than not, these works represent the given culture (i.e., reading French authors in France and Korean authors in Korea). In this case, ethnocentrism can be difficult to identify, as it just seems "normal." This is also the case with how the world is introduced to us via maps. The map below is similar to the map of the world introduced to me in school. I never questioned why Asia was cut in half and my country was in the middle of the map.
Figure 8.1.2: World map with USA in the middle (public domain - Wikimedia Commons)
The Greenland Problem
In the field of geography there has been an ongoing debate about the use of a Mercator map versus a Peter’s Projection map. The arguments reveal cultural biases toward the Northern, industrialized nations. This is also known as the “Greenland Problem,” which refers to the widespread misconceptions caused by the Mercator projection, a map design introduced in 1569 for navigational purposes. While useful for plotting straight-line courses, the Mercator map distorts the relative size of land masses, especially those close to the North and South Poles. Consequently, countries like Greenland look disproportionately large - often seen as about the same size as Africa. In reality, Africa is about 14 times larger than Greenland (ScienceABC, 2023). These distortions reinforce Eurocentric biases, making northern countries appear more dominant and the Global South less imposing (Bullock, Calendar, & Alvarez, 2023).
Figure 8.1.3: The Mercator projection. Wikimedia Commons
Table 8.1.1: Map Misconceptions vs. Map Realities
Figure 8.1.4: The Gall-Peters projection. Wikimedia Commons
A high level of appreciation for one’s own culture can be healthy; a shared sense of community pride, for example, connects people in a society. But ethnocentrism can lead to disdain or dislike for other cultures and could cause misunderstanding and conflict. People with the best intentions sometimes travel to a society to “help” its people, because they see them as uneducated or backward —essentially inferior. In reality, these travelers are guilty of cultural imperialism, the ethnocentric imposition of one’s own cultural values on another culture. Europe’s colonial expansion, begun in the sixteenth century, was often accompanied by severe cultural imperialism. European colonizers often viewed the people in the lands they colonized as uncultured savages who were in need of European governance, dress, religion, and other cultural practices. A more modern example of cultural imperialism may include the work of international aid agencies who introduce agricultural methods and plant species from developed countries while overlooking indigenous varieties and agricultural approaches that are better suited to the particular region. To dismantle ethnocentrism, we must recognize that our views of the world, what we consider right and wrong, normal or weird, are largely influenced by our cultural standpoint, and that our cultural standpoint is not everyone's cultural standpoint. This ethnocentric bias has received some challenge recently in United States’ schools as teachers make efforts to create a multicultural classroom by incorporating books, short stories, and traditions from non-dominant groups.
Cultural Close-up: Remapping the World - Boston's Bold Move Toward Geographic Equity
In 2017, Boston Public Schools became the first major U.S. school district to officially adopt the Gall-Peters projection in social studies classrooms, replacing the widely used Mercator Map (Crew, 2017; Doran, 2017). The shift was part of a broader effort to “decolonize” the curriculum and offer students a more equitable view of global geography. Unlike the Mercator projection - which exaggerates the size of Europe and North America - the Gall-Peters map presents landmasses in proportion to their actual area, giving greater visual prominence to regions like Africa and South America (Crew, 217).
Teachers in grades 2, 7, and 11 reported that students reacted with surprise and curiosity, often questioning prior assumptions about the world’s layout (Crew, 2017). The initiative aligns with global movements advocating for less Eurocentric representations in education, including support from the United Nations and various aid organizations (Crew, 2017).
Despite its advantages in size accuracy, the Gall-Peters projection has faced criticism for distorting the shapes of continents. Cartographers argue that no single map can perfectly represent a spherical Earth on a flat surface, and suggest that students benefit most from exposure to multiple projections (Doran, 2017).
Discussion Questions:
- Why does map distortion matter? How can maps influence our worldview?
- How might the Mercator map reinforce colonial perspectives? What messages does it send about global power and importance?
- What are some of the pros and cons of using the Gall-Peters projection in classrooms? Should students be exposed to multiple map types? Why or why not?
References:
Crew, B. (2017, March 20). It’s official: Boston’s public schools have ditched this distorted and misleading world map. ScienceAlert. https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-of...ding-world-map(opens in new window)
Doran, L. (2017, June 14). Boston Public Schools adopt new world map. InsideSources. https://insidesources.com/boston-pub...new-world-map/(opens in new window)
Stereotypes
Just as ethnocentrism is rooted in our perception of the world around us, so too are stereotypes. In fact, stereotypes are activated out of the perception process. Perception is the process of selecting stimuli from our environment, categorizing that stimuli, and then interpreting it. Stereotypes are rigid categorizations of people based on their group affiliation. We stereotype people because it streamlines the perception process. Once we’ve categorized a person as a member of a particular group, we can form a quick impression of them (Macrae et al., 1999). When we stereotype others, we replace human complexities of personality with broad assumptions about character and worth based on social group affiliation. We stereotype people in the perception process to help us make sense out of our world, which might be efficient for communication, but frequently leads us to form flawed impressions.
As stated above, stereotypes are oversimplified ideas about groups of people. Stereotypes can be based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation — almost any characteristic. They may be positive, but when combined with an ethnocentric perspective, are often negative (usually toward other groups, such as when members of a dominant racial group suggest that a subordinate racial group is stupid or lazy). In either case, the stereotype is a generalization that doesn’t take individual differences into account.
Although in some cases the stereotypes that are used to make judgments might actually be true of the individual being judged, in many other cases they are not. Stereotypes are overgeneralized and applied to all members of a group. Stereotyping is problematic when the stereotypes we hold about a social group are inaccurate overall, and particularly when they do not apply to the individual who is being judged (Stangor, 1995). For example, someone holding prejudiced attitudes toward older adults, may believe that older adults are slow and incompetent (Cuddy, Norton, & Fiske, 2005; Nelson, 2004). We cannot possibly know each individual person of advanced age to know that all older adults are slow and incompetent. Therefore, this negative belief is overgeneralized to all members of the group, even though many of the individual group members may in fact be spry and intelligent. Another example of a well-known stereotype involves beliefs about racial differences among athletes. As Hodge, Burden, Robinson, and Bennett (2008) point out, Black male athletes are often believed to be more athletic, yet less intelligent, than their White male counterparts. These beliefs persist despite a number of high profile examples to the contrary. Sadly, such beliefs often influence how these athletes are treated by others and how they view themselves and their own capabilities.
Where do stereotypes come from? New stereotypes are rarely created; rather, they are recycled from subordinate groups that have assimilated into society and are reused to describe newly subordinate groups. For example, many stereotypes that are currently used to characterize black people were used earlier in American history to characterize Irish and eastern European immigrants. Once they become established, stereotypes (like any other cognitive representation) tend to persevere. We begin to respond to members of stereotyped categories as if we already knew what they were like.
These persistent and overgeneralized beliefs do more than shape our initial impressions - they also influence intercultural interactions in profound ways. When we rely on rigid group-based assumptions, we risk misinterpreting others’ behaviors, values, and intentions, especially across cultural boundaries. Stereotypes can act as filters that distort communication, leading to misunderstandings, reduced empathy, and missed opportunities for genuine connection. In intercultural contexts, these assumptions often reinforce power imbalances and inhibit curiosity about others’ lived experiences. To better understand how stereotypes affect communication, we examine key concepts such as confirmation bias, self-fulfilling prophecy, and the stereotype effect - each of which reveals how our expectations and perceptions can shape, and sometimes limit, our intercultural encounters.
Confirmation Bias
Stereotypes are maintained because information that confirms our stereotypes is better remembered than information that disconfirms them. In this process, known as confirmation bias, we seek out information that supports our stereotypes and ignore information that is inconsistent with our stereotypes (Fyock & Stangor, 1994). If we believe that women are bad drivers and we see a woman driving poorly, then we tend to remember it, but when we see a woman who drives particularly well, we tend to forget it. When we confirm our biases, we tend to perceive the world in ways that make it fit our existing beliefs, rather than changing our beliefs to fit the reality around us. Because they are so highly cognitively accessible, and because they seem so “right,” our stereotypes easily influence our judgments of and responses to those we have categorized. This tendency to favor stereotype-confirming information creates a powerful barrier to intercultural communication, as it limits our ability to engage openly, interpret others accurately, and revise our assumptions in light of new cultural experiences.
Stereotypes and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
When we hold a stereotype about a person, we have expectations that he or she will fulfill that stereotype. A self-fulfilling prophecy is an expectation held by a person that alters his or her behavior in a way that tends to make it true. When we hold stereotypes about a person, we tend to treat the person according to our expectations. This treatment can influence the person to act according to our stereotypic expectations, thus confirming our stereotypic beliefs. Once we believe that men make better leaders than women, we tend to behave toward men in ways that make it easier for them to lead. And we behave toward women in ways that make it more difficult for them to lead. The result? Men find it easier to excel in leadership positions, whereas women have to work hard to overcome the false beliefs about their lack of leadership abilities (Phelan & Rudman, 2010). Self-fulfilling prophecies are ubiquitous—even teachers’ expectations about their students’ academic abilities can influence the students’ school performance (Jussim, Robustelli, & Cain, 2009). Research by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) found that disadvantaged students whose teachers expected them to perform well had higher grades than disadvantaged students whose teachers expected them to do poorly.
Consider this example of cause and effect in a self-fulfilling prophecy: If an employer expects an openly gay male job applicant to be incompetent, the potential employer might treat the applicant negatively during the interview by engaging in less conversation, making little eye contact, and generally behaving coldly toward the applicant (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002). In turn, the job applicant will perceive that the potential employer dislikes him, and he will respond by giving shorter responses to interview questions, making less eye contact, and generally disengaging from the interview. After the interview, the employer will reflect on the applicant’s behavior, which seemed cold and distant, and the employer will conclude, based on the applicant’s poor performance during the interview, that the applicant was in fact incompetent. Thus, the employer’s stereotype—gay men are incompetent and do not make good employees—is reinforced. Do you think this job applicant is likely to be hired?
Cultural Close-up: Seeing is Believing - And Becoming
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Confirmation Bias in Jane Elliott's Classroom
In 1968, educator Jane Elliott conducted a groundbreaking classroom experiment to teach her third-grade students about discrimination. She divided the class by eye color - declaring that blue-eyed children were superior to brown-eyed children. Within hours, students internalized these labels: blue-eyed children became more confident and assertive, while brown-eyed children grew withdrawn and hesitant (Peters, 1987).
This experiment vividly illustrates the power of the self-fulfilling prophecy - the idea that expectations about a person or group can influence behavior in ways that make those expectations come true (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). When students were told they were inferior, they performed worse academically and socially, not because of ability, but because they believed the label.
It also demonstrates confirmation bias - the tendency to notice and remember information that supports existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence (Fyock & Stangor, 1994). Elliott’s students quickly began to interpret behaviors through the lens of superiority or inferiority, reinforcing the arbitrary division.
In intercultural communication, these biases can shape how we perceive others across cultural lines. If we expect someone from a different background to be less competent or less friendly, we may unconsciously treat them in ways that elicit those very behaviors - reinforcing our original assumptions.
Elliott’s experiment remains a powerful reminder that when we label others, we don’t just describe them, we shape their reality.
Figure 8.2.1: Jane Elliott and her 3rd graders (Click on image for full video)
Discussion Questions:
- How did Jane Elliott’s experiment demonstrate the power of social labeling in shaping behavior and self-perception? How might similar dynamics play out in intercultural classrooms, workplaces, or media representations?
- What role does confirmation bias play in reinforcing stereotypes, even when evidence contradicts them? How can we challenge these biases in everyday interactions?
- How might self-fulfilling prophecies affect marginalized groups’ access to opportunity, voice, and belonging? What strategies can educators and leaders use to disrupt these cycles and foster more inclusive environments?
References:
Fyock, J., & Stangor, C. (1994). The role of memory biases in stereotype maintenance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(3), 331–343. view source(opens in new window)
Peters, W. (Writer & Director). (1987). A class divided [Documentary]. Yale University Films. view source(opens in new window)
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
The Stereotype Effect
Our stereotypes influence not only our judgments of others but also our beliefs about ourselves, and even our own performance on important tasks. In some cases, these beliefs may be positive, and they have the effect of making us feel more confident and thus better able to perform tasks. This effect is called stereotype lift. Because Asian students are aware of the stereotype that “Asians are good at math,” reminding them of this fact before they take a difficult math test can improve their performance on the test (Walton & Cohen, 2003). On the other hand, sometimes these beliefs are negative, and they create negative self-fulfilling prophecies such that we perform more poorly just because of our knowledge about the stereotypes. This latter effect is called stereotype threat.
Research has found that the experience of stereotype threat can help explain a wide variety of performance decrements among those who are targeted by negative stereotypes. For instance, Black students perform more poorly on standardized tests, receive lower grades, and are less likely to remain in school in comparison with White students, even when other factors such as family income, parents’ education, and other relevant variables are controlled. Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson (1995) tested the hypothesis that these differences might be due to the activation of negative stereotypes, prompting stereotype threat. Because Black students are aware of the (inaccurate) stereotype that “Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites,” this stereotype might create a negative expectation, which might interfere with their performance on intellectual tests through fear of confirming that stereotype.
In support of this hypothesis, Steele and Aronson’s research revealed that Black college students performed worse (in comparison with their prior test scores) on math questions taken from the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) when the test was described to them as being “diagnostic of their mathematical ability” (and thus when the stereotype was relevant) but that their performance was not influenced when the same questions were framed as “an exercise in problem solving.” And in another study, Steele and Aronson found that when Black students were asked to indicate their race before they took a math test (again activating the stereotype), they performed more poorly than they had on prior exams, whereas the scores of White students were not affected by first indicating their race.
Steele and Aronson argued that thinking about negative stereotypes that are relevant to a task that one is performing creates stereotype threat. That is, they argued that the negative impact of race on standardized tests may be caused, at least in part, by knowledge of relevant cultural stereotypes. Because the threat is “in the air,” Black students may be negatively influenced by it. Even groups who typically enjoy advantaged social status can be made to experience stereotype threat. White men performed more poorly on a math test when they were told that their performance would be compared with that of Asian men (Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keough, & Steele, 1999), and Whites performed more poorly than Blacks on a sport-related task when it was described to them as measuring their natural athletic ability (Stone, 2002).
Stereotype threat is created in situations that pose a significant threat to self-concern, such that our perceptions of ourselves as important, valuable, and capable individuals are threatened. In these situations, there is a discrepancy between our positive concept of our skills and abilities and the negative stereotypes suggesting poor performance. When our stereotypes lead us to believe that we are likely to perform poorly on a task, we experience a feeling of unease and status threat. Research has found that stereotype threat is caused by both cognitive and affective factors. On the cognitive side, individuals who are experiencing stereotype threat show an impairment in cognitive processing that is caused by increased vigilance toward the environment and attempts to suppress their stereotypical thoughts. On the affective side, stereotype threat creates stress as well as a variety of affective responses including anxiety (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008).
Stereotype threat is not, however, absolute—we can get past it if we try. What is important is to reduce the self-concern that is engaged when we consider the relevant negative stereotypes. Manipulations that affirm positive characteristics about oneself or one’s group are successful at reducing stereotype threat (Alter, Aronson, Darley, Rodriguez, & Ruble, 2010; Greenberg et al., 2003; McIntyre, Paulson, & Lord, 2003). In fact, just knowing that stereotype threat exists and may influence performance can help alleviate its negative impact (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005).
In the end, stereotypes are difficult to change and stereotyping is almost impossible to avoid. They are frequently expressed on TV, in movies, in chat rooms and blogs, and in conversations with friends and family. Further, research has found that stereotypes are often used out of our awareness, which makes it very difficult for us to correct them. Even when we think we are being completely fair, we may nevertheless be using our stereotypes to condone discrimination (Chen & Bargh, 1999). And when we are distracted or under time pressure, these tendencies become even more powerful (Stangor & Duan, 1991). Still, it’s crucial to keep in mind that just because someone belongs to a certain group, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all of the defining characteristics of that group apply to that person. Treating individuals according to rigid stereotypic beliefs is detrimental to all aspects of the communication process and can lead to prejudice and discrimination.
