Communication and StereotypicalImpressionsPatrick C. Hug.docx

Communication and Stereotypical
Impressions
Patrick C. Hughes
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
John R. Baldwin
Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, USA
This study examined the relationship s 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
literature
representin g ‘‘Black’’ and ‘‘White’’ communication. Black (N
= 105)
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 negativ e race-type impressions,
suggesting that macrolevel interpretation s between interracial
speak-
ers may be problematic. Results also suggest that the exact
order

of stereotypes=perceptions might change from place to 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 thecase, 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 long
history of bigotry and prejudice’’and that `̀ Whites control
power and wealth in America’’
The authors 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: [email protected]
The HowardJournal of Communications, 13:1137128, 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 existence 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 natural part of
the communication process,
as categoriz ation is needed to make sense of our world
(Stephan, 1985). The existence and
propagation of these stereotypes themselves are inherently
communicative, as it is com-
munication that creates, perpetuates, or contests stereotypes.
For example, Delia (1972)
finds that dialects influence perceptions of strangers. In a study
of New England, South-
ern, and General American dialects, Delia suggests `̀an initial
orientation is made at least
in part, on the perception of dialect similarity’’ (p. 265).
Therefore, it is especially useful to
know which communication behaviors invoke stereotypical
impressions.
Social psychologist s suggest that categorizatio n 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 stereotyp e 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 investigate s the
relationship between communica-
tion impressions and specific communication behaviors during
Black7White interaction.
Review of Literature
Communication Stereotypes
Stereotypes are generally considered to be overgeneralization s
of group characteris-
tics or behaviors, which are applied to individuals of those
groups (based on Allport,1979).
Stereotypes can be positive, such as the 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,`̀ The 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 both 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
second, their negative
impact is found largely because they form a cognitively
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 upon their indi-
viduality. Stereotypes may lead others to have prejudicial
attitudes toward groups
114 P. C. Hughes and J. R. Baldwin
(Devine, 1989; Devine&Elliot, 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 also 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 Black7White stereotypes.
Gordon (1986) concludes
that the content of stereotypes is dynamic. A comparison of
studies using the Katz and
Braly (1933) list of stereotypes evidences their dynamic nature.
Many Whites continue to
perceive racial differences in athletic and abstract thinking
ability (Plous&Williams,
1995). However, many of the stereotypes of Blacks found by
Katz and Braly (1933), such
as Blacks seen as superstitious, happy-go-lucky, ignorant,
stupid, and physically dirty, have
been replaced by stereotypes such as unreliable, materialistic,
sportsmanlike, and plea-
sure loving (Gordon, 1986). Ogawa (1971) found that White
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 stereotypes,
Leonard and Locke (1993) designed their study in terms of `̀
communicative stereotypes,’’
suggesting that one change in the structure of stereotype s 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 (though not

necessarily interracial
affect) and may have given stereotypes a communication twist.
Despite the `̀ threatening’’
nature of stereotypes respondents listed 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 participants, which may or may not
result in positive outcomes
such as the improvement of the quality of racial attitudes.
Communication and Culture
Many have proposed that Whites and Blacks make up different
speech communities
(Collier, 1997), with different types 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 transmitte d system of symbols, meanings, premises,
routines, procedures, and rules’’
(Philipsen,1987, p. 260).
Researchers have looke d at communication 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 and Whites.
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 than White women in same-
race interactions. However,
when interacting interracially, Black women decreased their
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, distinguished, 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. Members of
Black dyads tended to use
lower levels of eye contact than Whites (Smith, 1983). White
communicators used more
direct eye contact during interracial interactions, with White
females looking at their
interaction partners in interracial interactions 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 behavior as a listening 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. Since
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 one of the 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 another
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
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) found
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 could 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-White scores have changed significantly from a
comparative study (Steckler, 1957).
Perhaps ethnocentrism and stereotypes 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 `̀ black’’
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 also ties stereotypes of Blacks to media
representations, suggesting that
Black males in literature and media are frequently portraye d 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 influential
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 increase of middle-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 underlying 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 favorabilit y toward Whites.
Possible explanations of these
shifts could be increased consciousness raising of Blacks or an
actual increase in the
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 trends in the nature of racism as it is expressed in
America. For example,
McConahay and Hough (1976) suggest that the form of racism
is changing. Furthermore,
McConahay (1986) and Bynes and Kiger (1988) suggest 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 narrative s 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 stereotypes 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 activate d ne-
gative stereotype congruent information and consciously
replaced it with thoughts that
expressed the nonprejudiced values’’ (p. 14). Hepburn and

Locksley (1983) counter that
people cannot really distinguish when their stereotypes are
activated, and that, even if
people could suppress stereotypes, they would come out in the
long run. Other studies,
however, do support the idea that people 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 (Biernat&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
nonverbal communica-
tion may also come into play. For example, the perceived social
class of Black targets was
more influential in predicting Whites’ favorability ratings than
race, while Blacks relied
primarily on race to determine favorability of targets (Smedley
& Bayton, 1978). Dialect
and personal appearance, together with race, were found to
better predict 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 above, cultural communication styles

reinforce those stereotypes. Both
may be true. One possibility is that the clothing of the
businessman (Devine & Baker,
1991), for example, the 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
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 and White
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 the 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 that 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 the 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 Blacks as confrontive and
argumentative. This leads to the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
H2: White respondents’ perception 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 trivial topics
will be associated with an impression of ignorant.
H4: Black respondents’ perception that 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 within a
group to build solidarity and
community (cf. Gumperz,1982). Communication accommodatio
n theory (Gallois, Giles,
Jones, Cargile, & Ota, 1995) states that groups may use these
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,
may be uncomfortable when
Blacks speak other variations of English around them, while
Blacks may feel Whites’
so-called correct speech styles are an exercise 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 stereotypes of `̀ comic’’ Blacks (Hall, 1981) and be
connected with a certain witti-
ness. This leads to the following hypotheses:
is speaking loudly will be
associated with the impressions of aggressive, noisy, and
argumentative.
H6: Black respondents’ perception that a White communicator
is speaking with distinct
pronunciation will be associated with the impressions of
organized and arrogant.
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 full-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) and included 77
male and 82 female 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 were collected in two ways. First, the authors distributed
the questionnaires dur-
ing the participants’ regularly scheduled sections of the 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 question-
naires, have 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 returned 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
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 communication
behaviors and impressions
(based on the communication 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 between
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 part 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 items were measure on a five-point
Likert-typ e 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 stereotype s
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 White respondents follow: loud,
ostentatiou s (showy),
aggressive, active, boastful, talkative, friendly, noisy,
straightforward, emotional, argu-
mentative, and witty (a = .79). The 12 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 second part of the questionnaire
participants responded to the
statement,`̀ My impression of the person was . . .’’ followed by
a list of the stereotype s 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
characteristic s 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.
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 stereotypes 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) for White and Black communicators. The
results appear inTable 1.
The standard deviations for the first six items are greater for
Black respondents than
forWhite respondents, especially for the stereotype `̀
demanding,’’ while the White respon-
dents’means are higher than those of the Black respondents
(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 full 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 associate d with the perception of rude,
but not correlate d with
demanding, aggressive, and noisy. Hypothesis 2 predicted
Blacks speaking with self-
confidence would 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 associate d with the
impressions aggressive and argumentative. As predicted, Blacks
speaking with self-confi-
dence were perceived as friendly. 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)
Black Perceptions of
White Communicators
White Perceptions of
Black 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

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 Blacks would perceive a White 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 perceive 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 stereotype s in this sample, in part to compare with
Leonard and Locke

(1993) using a sample in a new region of the country, but also
because we operationalized
the responses differently than Leonard and Locke, using Likert-
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, the
highest ranked item for
describing Whites 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 methodolog y in this study provides
means for the perceptions,
with the highest means (4.02) for White perceptions of Black
communicators and (3.19) for
Black perceptions of White communicators. Just as in Leonard
and Locke’s, study the
White respondents seem to hold stronger attitudes (or appear
less ambivalent, based on
the lower standard deviations for 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 and
Stereotypes
Hypotheses 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 predict ed by hypo
theses. *p < .05;
**p < .01; ***p < .001.
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
thatWhite communicators were

`̀ organized,’’ while White respondents tended to see Black
communicators as `̀ friendly,’’
`̀ talkative,’’ `̀ active,’’ `̀ straightforward,’’and `̀ witty.’’ There
may be a social desirability bias.
Or, it could be that the participants saw communication partners
more on individual
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 suggest 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 research should verify this possibility and include
more positive items from
the original Katz and Braly list.
Correlations between Behaviors and Stereotypes
In our hypotheses we investigate d relationships between
perceptions of specific com-
munication behaviors and stereotypical impressions. Several of
the hypotheses were con-
firmed regarding Black respondents’ perceptions of White
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 not judged to be
manipulative or deceptive;
rather, results confirmed the contrary (H4). Additionally, 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 investigate these
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 possible notion that Whites will resist Black self-confidence
as it challenges inherent
power structures. At the same time, self-chosen interactions
might influence this, if the
White communicators had interactions with Black
communicator s in White-dominated
contexts. Topic choice, such as a Black communicator being
confident about social injus-
tices rather than in a small-group class project, might produce
different results. There
were negative impressions if White respondents perceived Black

communicators
as speaking loudly (H5) or using slang (H3). This could be an
ethnocentric bias based in
White cultural norms (if, indeed, 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 communicator s feel challenge the `̀ dominant’’ White
cultural code(s). There is a
possible limitation in that participants might draw different
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, the
questionnaire relied on self-report
of a past interaction, rather than relying on experimental data
and single-choice items.
Montgomer y 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 the self-report measure 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 and 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 applied to specific communication
partners in line with Tajfel’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 intercultural communication as they figure prominently
in interracial interac-
tion. On dealing with these 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 and White communica-
tors with more information on how particular communication
behaviors can be perceived.
For instance, communicator s 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
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’’
(Kim,1995, p. 259). We feel this
study has done much to broaden our notion of communication
perceptions, and we hope
that this helps us on the road to recognizing and managing,
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, 16,77793.
Baldwin, J. R., & Hughes, P. C. (1997, November).
Stereotypesö Are they all alike?: Factors of black-white commu-
nication behaviors and 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. 3377347).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (1983). Categorization and
stereotyping: Effects of group context on memory
and social judgment. Journal of Experimental and Social
Psychology, 29(2),1667202.

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Jordan, F. (1989). Communication
adaptatio n among racially homogenous and
heterogenous groups.The SouthernJournal of Communication,
54, 2537272.
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.
New York: Harper & Row.
Bynes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1988). Contemporary measures of
attitudes towards blacks. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 48, 1077113.
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
college students.TheJournal of Social Psychology,
100, 89798.
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. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 125, 7537760.
Collier, M. J. (1988). A comparison of intracultural and
intercultural communication among and between
domestic culture groups: How intra- and intercultural

competencies vary. Communication Quarterly, 36,1227144.
Collier, M. J. (1996). Communication competence problematics
in ethnic friendships. Communication Mono-
graphs, 63, 3147336.
Collier, M. J. (1997). Cultural identity and intercultural
communication. In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter
(Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 3377347).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An
interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B.
Gudykunst (Eds.),Theories in intercultural communication (pp.
997120). 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,
2857297.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their
automatic and controlled components. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5718.
Devine, P. G., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Measurement of racial
automatic and controlled components. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5718.

Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes
really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11),113971150.
Entman, R. (1992). Blacks in the news: Television, modern
racism, and cultural change. Journalism Quarterly,
89, 3417361.
Erickson, F. (1979). Talking down: Some cultural courses of
miscommunication in interracial interviews. In
A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Applications and
cultural implications (pp. 997126). NewYork: Academic Press.
Essed, F. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An
interdisciplinary theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Foley, L. A., & Kranz, P. L. (1981). Black stereotypes of other
ethnic groups.TheJournal of Mind and Behavior,
2, 4357441.
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. 2747285). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A. C., & Ota, H.
(1995). Accomodating intercultural encounters:
Elaboration s and extensions. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.),
Intercultural communication theory (pp. 1157147). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garner, T. (1983). Cooperativ e communication strategies:
Observations within a black community. Journal
of Black Studies, 14, 233^250.
Gordon, L. (1986). College student stereotypes of Blacks and
Jews on two campuses: Four studies spanning
50 years. Sociology and Social Research, 70, 2007201.
Gray, H. (1989).Television, black Americans, and the American
dream. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,
6, 3767386.
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). Race, socioeconomic status, and
nonverba l behavior. In A. W. Siegman & S.
Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integration of nonverbal
behavior (pp. 2277266). 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. 28752).
London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hall, S. (1992). New ethnicities. In J. Donald & A. Rattansi
(Eds.), `̀Race,’’culture & difference (pp. 2527259).
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 communication
effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 19, 2197236.
Hecht, M. L., & Ribeau, S. (1984). Ethnic communication: A
comparative analysis of satisfying communi-
cation. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations,
8,1357151.
Hecht, M. L., Ribeau, S., & Alberts, J. K. (1989). An Afro-
American perspective on interethnic communi-
cation. Communication Monographs, 56, 3857410.
Hepburn, C., & Locksley, A. (1983). Subjective awareness of
stereotyping: Do we know when our judgments
are prejudiced? Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(4), 3317318.
Houston, M. (1993) . When black women talk with white
women: Why dialogues are difficult. In V. 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 correlates of 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 stereotypes. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Illinois State University, 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, 3097316.
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, 3367546.
Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred
college students. Journal of Abnormal Psycho-
logy, 28, 2807290.
Kim,Y.Y. (1995). Cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative
theory. In R.Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural commu-
nication theory (pp. 1707193). 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 possible?Jour-
nal of Black Studies, 23(3), 3327343.
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, 3977407.
Manusov, V., Winchatz, M. R., & Manning, L. M. (1997).
Acting out our minds: Incorporating behavior
into models of stereotype-based expectancies for cross-cultural

interactions. Communication Monographs, 64,
1197139.
McAndrew, F. T. (1990). Auto- and heterostereotyping in
Pakastani, French, and American college
students.TheJournal of Social Psychology, 17, 3277336.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the
modern racism scale. In J. S. Dovidio &
S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp.
917125). 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, 4347447.
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, 48,1217132.
Moore, R. B. (1995). Racist stereotyping in the English
language. In K. Verderber (Ed.), Voices: A selection of
multicultural readings (pp. 9718). NewYork: Wadsworth.
Norton, R. (1978). Foundation s of a communicator style
instrument. Human Communication Research, 4,

2577282.
Oakes, P. J. (1994). The effects of fit versus novelty on the
salience of social categories: A response to Biernat
and Vescio. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 30,
3907398.
Ogawa, D. M. (1971). Small-group communication stereotypes
of Black Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 1,
2737282.
Orbe, M. (1994).`̀ Remember, it’s always whites’ ball’’:
Description of Black male communication. Communi-
cation Quarterly, 42, 2877300.
Orbe, M. (1995). Black research: Toward a deeper
understanding of interethnic communication. Western
Journal of Communication, 59, 61778.
Philipsen, G. (1987). An ethnographic approach to
communication studies. In B. Dervin et al. (Eds.), Re-
thinking communication (pp. 2587268). 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, 7957817.
Rattansi, A. (1992). Changing the subject? Racism, culture, and
education. In J. Donald & A. Rattansi
(Eds.), `̀Race,’’culture, and difference (pp. 11748). London:
Sage.
Shade, B. J. (1982). Afro-American cognitive style: A variable
in school success. Review of Educational Research,
52, 2197244.

Shuter, R. (1982). Initial interaction of American Blacks
andWhites in interracial and intraracial dyads.The
Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 45752.
Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis
revisited: Black-White interaction and positive
racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71, 7817795.
Smedley, J. W., & Bayton, J. A. (1978). Evaluative race-class
stereotypes by race and perceived and positive
racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71, 7817795.
Smith, A. (1983). Nonverbal communication among black
female dyads: An assessment of intimacy, gender,
and race. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 55767.
Stanback, M. H., & Pearce, W. B. (1981). Talking to `̀ the
man’’: Some communication strategies used by
members of `̀ subordinate’’ social groups. QuarterlyJournal of
Speech, 67, 21730.
Steckler, G. (1957). Authoritaria n ideology in Negro college
students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
54, 3967399.
Stephan, W. G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology
(3rd ed., vol. 2, pp. 5997658). 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 intergroup
relations (pp. 27760). London: Academic Press.
Tajima, R. E. (1989). Lotus blossums don’t bleed: Images of
Asian women. In Asian Women United of Cali-

fornia (Ed.), Making waves: An anthology of writings by and
about Asian American women (pp. 3087317). 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,
62,1723.
van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam:
Bejamines.
Waters, H., Jr. (1992). Race, culture, and interpersonal conflict.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
16, 4377454.
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.
3377347). 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, 857101.

Communication and StereotypicalImpressionsPatrick C. Hug.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Communication and StereotypicalImpressionsPatrick C. Hug.docx

Similar to Communication and StereotypicalImpressionsPatrick C. Hug.docx (20)

More from clarebernice

More from clarebernice (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Communication and StereotypicalImpressionsPatrick C. Hug.docx