On the context dependence of national stereotypes: Some Scottish data

Abstract

This study explores the context dependence of national stereotypes. Scottish subjects stereotyped their own national group in three between‐subject conditions: after rating the English, after rating the Greeks, and in isolation (i.e. without explicit reference to any other category). Following the logic of self‐categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987; Turner, Oakes, Haslam & McGarty, 1994), we predicted that the Scottish self‐stereotype would depend on the frame of reference created by the experimental manipulations. Further we predicted that changes in the definition of this stereotype would be dimension specific. In other words, stereotype variation was predicted to be contingent upon the relevance of the dimension of judgment for capturing the differences between the Scottish and the category constituting the frame of reference. These predictions were confirmed. As these data were obtained in a context where quite specific predictions about the nature and form of stereotype variation were possible, these data confirm and extend Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty & Hayes' (1992) analysis of the context dependence of stereotypes.

National identification, type and specificity of comparison and their effects on descriptions of national character

“…There is also evidence that such temporal comparisons can even precipitate accentuation in descriptions of nationality (as shown by the absolute scales in the British sample); this phenomenon had only been observed in intergroup comparison before (e.g. Haslam et al, 1995;Hopkins et al, 1997;Rutland & Cinnirella, 2000). Like intergroup comparisons, temporal comparisons thus seem to have implications for the way individuals characterise their national group.…”

“…1971) and more recent investigations on stereotypic accentuation (e.g. Hopkins et al, 1997) have all been concerned with the effects of specific intergroup discontinuitiesusually among a relatively small number of groups-on judgements of, or behaviour towards, group members. As previously pointed out by Billig (1995), these findings may account at least in part for phenomena of 'hot' nationalism (including war, prejudice and political disputes), but do not say much about the more stable and diffuse sense of uniqueness that informs a more banal, quotidian sense of national identity.…”

“…The fact that meaningful impressions of national character could be elicited from participants in the 'control' conditions of experiments on stereotypic accentuation, where no comparison target was specified at all, shows that there must be a sense of national character that exists outside perpetual, context-dependent flux. For example, these data suggest that there is a general selfimage of the Scots as warm and fairly hard-working but not aloof (Hopkins et al, 1997;Rutland & Cinnirella, 2000). Although necessarily comparative in nature, such notions of uniqueness need not rely on comparison with specific others; it is possible to base the conviction that one's own national group is different from (or better than) others on a non-specific comparison with 'other nations' in general (see Mummendey, Klink, & Brown, 2001).…”

“…Trait items were drawn from a wide range of previous studies concerned with stereotypes of the English or British, the Germans, or the Americans (Bochenska, 1995;Bronfenbrenner, 1961;Cinnirella, 1998;Condor, 1996;Haslam, Oakes, Turner, & McGarty, 1995;Hewstone, 1986;Hopkins & Cable, 2001;Hopkins & Murdoch, 1999;Hopkins et al, 1997;Jonas & Hewstone, 1986;Koomen & Bähler, 1996;Linssen & Hagendoorn, 1994;Meyer, 1961;Peabody, 1985;Poppe & Linssen, 1999). Individual items were selected to create a relevant and balanced, but appropriately brief catalogue.…”

Unlocking variability: inherent variation and developmental traits of garlic plants originated from sexual reproduction

“…Here, changes in category relevance result in changes in the salient content of target group stereotypes (e.g. Doosje, Haslam, Spears, & Koomen, 1998;Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, & Hayes, 1992;Hopkins, Regan, & Abell, 1997). Extending this line of research, van Rijswijk and Ellemers (2002) conducted a study examining the stereotyping of a target group defined on two category dimensions.…”