Annotated Bibliography and Reflection

Black, white, and shades of gray: Communication predictors of "stereotypic impressions"

Hughes, Patrick C ;  Baldwin, John R . The Southern Communication Journal ; Memphis  Vol. 68, Iss. 1,   (Fall 2002): 40-56.

This study examined communication behaviors and perceptions of Black and White communicators. Seventeen behaviors were identified in the literature as representing either "Black" or "White" communication. Black and White university students (N = 525) were asked to recall a past conversation with a Black or White communicator and to complete a questionnaire regarding their overall impressions of the racial other's communication behaviors. Factor analyses were conducted to create stereotype clusters for Black and White participants. The findings suggest three strong second-order stereotypic impressions for each sample. Multiple regression analysis revealed that certain behaviors are associated with each stereotypical impression. Results suggest that there is a diversity of communication styles among a single ethnic group and various stereotypic impressions are associated with particular communication behaviors.

Stereotyping is an obstacle to effective communication (Boyd, 1993; Waters, 1992) and yet seems inherently part of the communication process. This may be, in part, because stereotypes involve categorization, which social psychologists suggest is a necessary part of making sense of our world (Allport, 1954/1979; Stephan, 1985). Various psychological and social elements work together in a person's mind to trigger stereotypes. The existence and propagation of stereotypes is inherently communicative, as it is communication that creates, maintains, or challenges stereotypes. Much recent research has examined how mediated messages (e.g., television representation) influence stereotypes as well as the notion that different stereotypes can be triggered by different behaviors (Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Milne, 1995). Yet research is scarce that analyzes the link between face-to-face communication behaviors and stereotypes. Thus, the present study investigates the relationship between potentially stereotypical communication impressions and communication behaviors in Black-White interaction.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

It is generally accepted, both in academic and popular literature, that intergroup stereotypes inhibit communication and relationships between people of different "races"1 and likely work against the well-being of African Americans and other nonwhite groups in the United States. Research on stereotypes has been both extensive and enduring. However, little attention has been devoted to the role communication may play in triggering racial stereotypes. In this section, we review pertinent literature on stereotypes and racial/cultural communication styles.

Racial Stereotypes

Stereotypes are defined as overgeneralizations of group characteristics, which are used to describe and evaluate people of those groups (Allport, 1954/1979; Macrae, Stangor, & Hewstone, 1996). Some have suggested that stereotypes are part of the process of cognition, that we cannot exist without some sort of categorization process (Stephan, 1985), and that they are "automatic" and help "streamline" our thought processes (Devine, 1989). Although some stereotypes may be favorable, such as seeing Asian Americans as a "model minority," most stereotypes of outgroups are negative.

Stereotypes: Good, bad, and ugly. Stereotypes, like other cognitive categories, serve to help us organize and make sense of our world. In this way, some might consider stereotypes to be good. For example, as attitudes they can serve any of the functions that Katz (1960) suggests exist for all attitudes: they help us attain rewards (utilitarian function), defend our self-esteem (ego-defensive function), express important parts of how we think and see ourselves (value-expressive function), and organize the world around us (knowledge function). In addition, some might argue that certain stereotypes, such as the "noble savage" image of Native Americans, lead to favorable evaluation of groups and, thus, are positive.

Even if some stereotypes are positive in content, they are negative in outcome for a number of reasons. First, they bias individual thought processes by interfering with the perception of the qualities of others and the forming of complex impressions (Stephan, 1985). Second, stereotypes act as a heuristic device through which we place others in rigid categories. They lead us to "essentialize" groups or treat them as monolithic sets of undifferentiated, unchanging people (Rattansi, 1992). Third, they create unrealistic expectations of individuals, infringing upon their individuality. Finally, stereotypes lead people to have prejudicial attitudes toward groups (Devine, 1989) and to make unfair evaluations of the behaviors and performance of others (Stone, Perry, & Darley, 1997).

In their ugliest form, stereotypic evaluations lead to discrimination (Biernat & Dovidio, 2000; Salzer, 2000). They create stress for stereotyped individuals (Contrada et al., 2000) and reduce individuals' self-esteem (Averhart & Bigler, 1997). Further, stereotypes impede effective communication (Biernat & Vescio, 1993) and lead stereotyped individuals to behave in ways that contradict stereotypes (Golebiowska, 2000), even if that decreases their performance on some tasks (Leyens, Desert, Croizet, & Darci, 2000).

The (un)changing nature of Black/White stereotypes. We see then that although stereotypes have some positive functions, their outcomes are primarily negative. An example of these undesirable outcomes is the generally negative nature of interracial stereotypes in the United States. For example, Katz and Braly (1933) found that Whites most frequently stereotyped Blacks as superstitious, happy-go-lucky, ignorant, stupid, and physically dirty. Although many Whites continue to perceive racial differences in athletic and abstract thinking ability (Pious & Williams, 1995), the general nature of White and Black attitudes seems to be shifting. Additionally, Gordon (1986) argued that the content of stereotypes has changed over time.

In 1971, Ogawa found that White respondents stereotyped Black communication as argumentative, emotional, aggressive, straightforward, critical, sensitive, ostentatious, defiant, hostile, open, responsive, and intelligent. More recently, Whites labeled Blacks as unreliable, materialistic, sportsmanlike, and pleasure loving (Gordon, 1986). Contrary to Gordon (1986), Leonard and Locke (1993) concluded that little changed in these stereotypes between 1970 and 1990. They also found Blacks tended to stereotype Whites as demanding, manipulative, organized, rude, critical, aggressive, arrogant, boastful, hostile, ignorant, deceptive, and noisy. Thus, although stereotypes may have undergone subtle changes, the overall nature of intergroup stereotypes has remained mostly negative.

Communication as a cause of stereotypes. Considerable research on stereotypes has investigated the factors that lead to or support stereotypes. Much of this work comes from a social-psychological framework and looks at issues such as internal character traits, prior experience with nonstereotypical people from the stereotyped group, and the effect of information that challenges the stereotypes. One can see that, while psychological, much of the creation, propagation, and reduction of stereotypes has an inherent communicative component. Thus, it is no surprise that much recent communication research has focused on the causes of stereotypes.

Research on mediated communication has presented many variables that lead to the formation or invocation of stereotypes. For example, research suggests that Black men and women are frequently portrayed on television in stereotypic roles such as criminal, matriarch, or welfare mother (Collins, 1990; Hall, 1981). Some researchers hold an ambivalent view of media (Jhally & Lewis, 1992). On one hand, shows such as Sesame Street (Graves, 1999) and The Cosby Show (Evuleocha & Ugbah, 1989) serve to challenge stereotypes. Conversely, negative news reports about ethnic crime have been found to lead to a perception of ethnic minorities as threatening (Vergeer, Lubbers, & Scheepers, 2000). And a recent content analysis shows that television commercials tend to portray Black women as inconsequential, Black men as aggressive, White women as sex objects, and White men as powerful (Coltraine & Messineo, 2000).

Recent research has turned beyond mass media content to consider Black-White face-to-face interaction (Gaertner, Dovidio, & Bachman, 1996). This line of research proposes that contact, under certain conditions such as roughly equal status and shared goals, will lead to more positive interactions (e.g., Sigelman & Welch, 1993). However, Leonard and Locke (1993) suggested that increased interaction between the races changed only specific interracial perceptions, but not interracial affect. Furthermore, they argued that modern stereotypes the "races" hold towards each other (e.g., manipulative, boastful, and noisy) show a focus on communication. This argument suggests that the increased one-on-one interaction between the races may have shaped, rather than ameliorated, racial stereotypes.

Research on the priming of stereotypes supports such a contention. Devine (1989), for example, found that all people-tolerant and prejudiced alike-can list the same stereotypes for a group. But tolerant people choose to replace stereotypical thoughts with nonprejudiced ones. Just as people can subdue stereotypical thought, they can also choose between stereotype sets, and such choosing seems to be based in part on the communicative behavior of the person stereotyped. Pittinsky, Shih, and Ambady (2000), for example, found that White students stereotyped women of Asian descent differently depending on behavioral cues in photographs. If the woman was brushing her hair, the respondents called upon gender-based stereotypes; if using chopsticks, upon ethnicity-based stereotypes. Macrae et al. (1995) 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). Additionally, we suggest further that it is symbolic behavior that brings to mind the conjunction of social categories.

Similar stereotype differentiation can be seen in Black-White communication. In one study, Whites distinguished between different subgroups of Blacks, such as "streetwise" or "businessman" (Devine & Baker, 1991); these categories were stereotyped differently than a general classification of "Blacks." Although specific behaviors related to these categories were not described, it is most likely that manner of dress, speaking, and so on influenced evaluative categories. Smedley and Bayton (1978) found Whites evaluated Blacks more on perceived social class (using specific cues, such as apparel) than "race," although Blacks evaluated Whites based primarily on "race." However, race combined with a person's dialect and personal appearance predicts stereotypes better than impressions based only on race (Jussim, Coleman, & Lerch, 1987). In sum, these studies suggest that Whites and Blacks have baseline stereotypes of each other. But thestereotype is differentiated across different subcategories, more so for White attitudes of Blacks than for Black attitudes of Whites, and that differentiation seems to be based on communication behavior.

Black and White Communication Behavior

Research on Americans communicating with international students (Manusov, Winchatz, & Manning, 1997) found that stereotypical expectancies prior to a conversation were associated with certain behaviors. This same association may occur in interracial communication. Many researchers have noted that Whites and Blacks compose different speech communities (Collier, 1997) with different types of speech (Kochman, 1981), rules for interaction (Collier, 1988, 1996), core cultural values (Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989), and different worldviews (Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993). Shade (1982) has suggested 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 behaviors, they may be said to be different "cultures" (Collier, 1997; Collier & Thomas, 1988), especially if one defines culture as a "historically transmitted system of symbols, meanings, premises, routines, procedures, and rules" (Philipsen, 1987, p. 260).

Research suggests that these systems of symbols, premises, and rules are different for Blacks and Whites. Some writers have looked at communication rules in Black culture (Gumperz, 1982; Hecht & Ribeau, 1984; Weber, 1994) and in comparative ethnic cultures (Collier, 1988, 1996; Hecht et al., 1993). Other researchers have identified different features and functions for talk in intergroup communication (Hecht et al., 1989; Orbe, 1994; Stanback & Pearce, 1981). Others have examined the perceptions that Black and White Americans have when communicating with one another (Houston, 2000; Orbe, 1994).

In terms of verbal communication differences, research has suggested that Black communication is more direct or assertive than White communication (Kochman, 1981). For example, Ting-Toomey (1986) found that Black women were more likely than Black men or Whites to prefer a "dominating" conflict resolution style in relational conflict. However, in other ways, Blacks and Whites were similar. (Ting-Toomey, however, did not indicate for respondents whether they should think of interracial conflict or same-race conflict.) In a different study, Blacks and Whites used different information seeking strategies, depending on the race of the interaction partner (Shuter, 1982), with Whites more likely to ask questions of all groups and Black males more likely to make statements when addressing White males. Houston (2000) found that White and Black women attend to different features of speech when listening. Furthermore, Black women often perceived White women to be superficial, and White women perceived Black women to be confident, distinguished, to-the-point, and speaking with self-esteem. Hecht and Ribeau (1984) and Collier (1988) concluded that Latino, Black, and White Americans found different aspects of conversation satisfying.

In terms of nonverbal behavior, research suggests that Black women are more expressive and use more interruptions than White women in same-race interactions. However, when interacting together, Black women decrease their smiling behaviors and White women increase theirs (Booth-Butterfield & Jordan, 1989). Asante and Davis (1985) found that Blacks used indirect eye contact with individuals judged to have more status, and LaFrance and Mayo (1976) concluded that the ratio of eye contact between speaking and listening differs for Whites and Blacks. Specifically, Whites tend to look more while listening than they do while speaking; Blacks look more while speaking. Additionally, members of Black dyads tend to use lower levels of eye contact than Whites (Smith, 1983). Whites use 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) found differences in perceptions of head nods: Perpendicular nodding of Blacks may not be intended to communicate understanding or agreement, but is often simply used as a conversation starter or an indication of turn-taking. The nods of Whites more likely convey a direct message of understanding or agreement.

Some differences in the function of the behavior, rather than the behavior itself, also might be linked to stereotypes. For example, listening behavior (those behaviors that indicate one is attending to the other in a conversation) include both verbal and nonverbal cues. In Erickson's (1979) study, Blacks used verbal behavior to show listening and provide feedback. Erickson found that verbal feedback was used for the function of listening more than twice as frequently as the nonverbal nod. For many Whites, direct eye contact was used more to demonstrate listening. Waters (1992) contends that a key problem in interracial communication is hyperexplanation, a form of overly simplified or repetitive communication that Whites sometimes use with Blacks. Differences in eye-contact, backchanneling, nonverbal nods, and verbal response may be leading White communicators to think Blacks are not listening to them (Waters, 1992). In this case, Whites may be misreading Black cues and over accommodating to an assumed lack of understanding. Such an assumption might stem from communication behavior differences as well as stereotypes that Whites bring to the interactions.

These behaviors should not be understood in isolation, but as existing in vibrant, continually changing communities. Several theories have addressed Black and White communication styles. The communication theory of ethnic identity (CTEI) contends that interethnic communication must be understood in the context of a history of misunderstanding between races, including a history of oppression (Hecht et al., 1993), at the individual as well as the societal level (Baldwin & Hecht, 1995; Hecht & Baldwin, 1998). Ethnic groups enact their identity through different behaviors, including nonverbal behaviors or particular styles of English. CTEI suggests that communication will not be competent if communicators criticize or ignore the identity the other wishes to claim in an interaction (Collier & Thomas, 1988).

Communication accommodation theory (CAT) would predict that, depending on norms for the interaction and other factors, communicators will diverge (Gallois, Giles, Jones, Cargile, & Ota, 1995). Effective intergroup communication is marked by convergence in some basic behaviors but not in others. Whites might value emotionality in Black communicators in intergroup communication, but not the use of certain aspects of Ebonics. Whites might be expected to converge in terms of nonverbal feedback (listening through speaking) or directness of communication content, but not in use of accent or word choice.

Communication Behaviors and Stereotypes

Both the CTEI (Hecht et al., 1993) and CAT (Gallois et al., 1995) extend the notion of cultural differences between racial/ethnic groups in the United States to the area of intergroup communication, discussing what happens when people of different groups talk to one another. Waters (1992) proposed a model that includes both stereotypes and communication behaviors as predictive of interracial conflict. However, what has not been done to date is an empirical test to determine what connection, if any, exists between communication behaviors and the attitudes Leonard and Locke (1993) list as "stereotypes." Integration of the above literature suggests that stereotypes might be linked specifically to the pragmatic rules of interaction and to paralinguistic and other nonverbal cues.

Pragmatic rules: White politeness/Black directness. In terms of pragmatics, or social rules of communication, Hecht et al. (1993), Kochman (1981), and others argued that Blacks prefer direct and genuine communication. Directness for Whites is mitigated by politeness considerations (Booth-Butterfield & Jordan, 1989), even when discussing controversial matters such as racial issues (Tatum, 1992). Thus, Whites may smile for politeness or in interracial uncertainty or discomfort, but be perceived as manipulative and phony. If Whites speak readily, they may not speak about issues that concern many Blacks or address major social issues in general (Houston, 2000), resulting in Blacks seeing them as insincere or uniformed. Even if Whites are friendly, the baggage of historical racial relations may lead Blacks to perceive them as manipulative or deceitful. However, Blacks may perceive Whites' favorably if the friendliness is seen as genuine (Hecht et al., 1989).

Blacks, on the other hand, may be more likely to speak their mind about any issue, including those of social importance. This straightforward communication style may leave Whites "puzzled" (Cheek, 1976). Whites also may consider straightforward Blacks as confrontive, argumentative, and aggressive. At the same time, because self-confidence is valued in White American society, directness might be seen positively as friendly and outgoing.

Nonverbal behavior: Dialect and pronunciation. The CTEI (Hecht et al., 1993) suggests that Blacks use certain communication styles within group to build solidarity and community (e.g., Gumperz, 1982). CAT (Gallois et al., 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, and Blacks may feel Whites' so-called correct speech style is "organized," if not an exercise in arrogance. The use of Black slang may call attention to itself, causing it to be seen as loud or noisy. Further, it may trigger stereotypes of "comic" Blacks (Hall, 1981) and be connected with a certain wittiness. Interestingly, Leonard and Locke (1993) found that both groups felt the other was "loud." Loud communication on the part of either partner could be linked with perceptions of aggressiveness or argumentativeness. In addition, differences in eye contact or head nods might be associated with a variety of impressions, such as nonattentiveness.

It would be possible to identify a number of hypotheses based on this literature, such as the link between smiling and perception of manipulation, speaking loudly and perception of aggressiveness, "correct" White speech and the perception of organization, and so on. However, the number of hypotheses would be large, and alternative explanations would make many of these hypotheses nondirectional. For example, Whites being friendly might be seen either negatively (manipulative) or positively (authentic, outgoing). Thus, because of the number of possible hypotheses and questionable direction of many relationships, we opted for the following, simple research questions:

RQ1: Which perceived communication behaviors will best predict White participants' impressions of Black communicators?

RQ2: Which perceived communication behaviors will best predict Black participants' impressions of White communicators?

METHOD

Respondents

Three hundred and seventeen White undergraduates and two hundred and eight Black undergraduates (N = 525) from a large midwestern university participated in this study. All respondents were full-time students. Recruitment occurred in two ways. First, the authors recruited participants from a variety of history, sociology, and communication courses. Second, the authors contacted the university's Black Student Union (BSU) to help in recruiting Black students because of the relatively low number of Black students in most course sections (Blacks constituted 8.6% of the university's undergraduate population, Whites, 86.6%). The White sample (n = 317) ranged in age from 18 to 62 years (M = 21.59) with roughly equal numbers of males and females. The Black sample (n = 208) ranged in age from 18 to 37 years (M = 20.28) with roughly equal numbers of males and females.

Data Collection

Data were collected in two ways. First, the authors distributed questionnaires during participants' regularly scheduled course sections. Second, students recruited through the BSU attended a meeting, during which they completed questionnaires. Participants were instructed not to complete the questionnaire if they had seen it or taken it elsewhere. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Measurement

The questionnaire contained two parts. Part one assessed communication behaviors and part two assessed communication stereotypes.

Communication behaviors. Seventeen communication behaviors from the literature were identified (Asante & Davis, 1985; Houston, 2000; Smith, 1983). These behaviors included eight behaviors generally characteristic of White communication (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 speaking in a phony manner) and nine behaviors generally characteristic of Black communication (speaking more loudly than expected, using erratic and irregular head nods at the beginning of the interaction, listening through speaking or verbal behaviors, speaking one's mind, speaking with a lot of self-confidence, getting to the point, using cultural slang, and speaking from cultural experience).2

Although actual communication behaviors affect perceptions in interracial communication, it is worthwhile to look at perceptions of communication behaviors. Following Hecht et al. (1989), we asked White participants to recall a past conversation with a Black partner and Black participants to recall a past conversation with a White partner. On 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 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"), using a Likert-type five-point scale.

Communication stereotypes. The original Katz and Braly (1933) measure utilized 64 adjectives, with respondents circling the top five or so that they felt applied to a certain group. This method was used in many studies discussed above (e.g., Gordon, 1986; Ogawa, 1971), including the Leonard and Locke (1993) study that compared both White and Black attitudes on all 64 items. Although many global impressions are possible, we were most concerned with those found to occur frequently as stereotypes in past literature, as these seemed to be the most problematic. Thus, we created a questionnaire based on the 12 stereotypes listed most frequently by Blacks and Whites in Leonard and Locke's (1993) study. The 12 stereotypes of Blacks held by Whites were loud, ostentatious (showy), aggressive, active, boastful, talkative, friendly, noisy, straightforward, emotional, argumentative, and witty. The 12 stereotypes of Whites held by Blacks were demanding, manipulative, organized, rude, critical, arrogant, hostile, ignorant, deceptive, aggressive, boastful, and noisy. Because noisy, boastful, and aggressive appear on both lists, the total number of stereotypes was 21. On the second part of the questionnaire participants responded to the statement "The person was . . . ," followed by a list of the 21 stereotypes. The participants circled the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the stereotypical impressions on a five-point scale.

Data Analysis

In order to reduce the number of tests conducted, the stereotype items were factor analyzed for both samples to construct shorter stereotype measures. Factor analysis with oblimin rotation was conducted to generate the factor structures, because it was assumed that there might be some interrelationships among the factors. The criteria for retention called for minimum eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and primary factor loadings at or greater than .60 with secondary loadings no greater than .40. Although some do not insist on the .60 - .40 rule for factor loadings with oblimin rotation, it provided a conservative standard for accepting or rejecting factors. Further, Reinard (1996) suggests that the type of rotation one makes is a theoretical decision, but the interpretation of the structure remains the same. This method produced three second-order stereotype factors for each sample. Stepwise multiple regression analyses (two-tailed) were conducted to answer research questions one and two. The communication behaviors were regressed on each factor for each sample. Items for each factor were summed to create stereotype subscales. The White Stereotypic impressions of Blacks suggest the following factors (see Table 1): Negative Feeling (14 items, [alpha] = .95), Positive Feeling (2 items, [alpha] = .60), and Activity (2 items, [alpha] = .55). The Black Stereotypic impressions of Whites suggest the following factors (see Table 2): Negative Feeling (10 items, [alpha] = .91), Expressiveness (2 items, [alpha] = .56), and Directness (3 items, [alpha] = .50).

The factor structure is unusual and requires some explanation. First, in each sample, the items in some factors defied simple categorization, yet showed a high degree of consistency in terms of correlations with the factor. For example, the White evaluations of Black communicators in terms of the adjectives ostentatious, manipulative, and loud were all interrelated. Being loud or ostentatious in itself may not be negative, but the general feeling of the other items in the factor led us to classify these perceptions as more negative. The same held true for the first factor of Blacks' perceptions of Whites and the second factor of Whites' perceptions of Blacks. Second, the number of items loading on the first factor in each sample was so great, it left few items to load in other factors. For that reason, despite their low Cronbach alphas, we decided to interpret the other factors, leaving our final conclusions tentative. Thus, the subscales derived from the three factors for each sample were used for remaining analyses.

RESULTS

Communication Predictors of Stereotypes

Analysis of White participants' scores. Research question one asked which perceived communication behaviors would best predict Whites' overall impressions of Blacks. Regression analysis allowed us to find the items, in order, that predicted the most variation between scores on each item (the following wording reflects any negatively correlated items). Five items predicted 68% of the variation in the Negative Feeling factor of Whites' impressions of Black communication partners. In order of the variance they explained, these were speaking like a know-it-all, speaking loudly, using cultural slang, using direct eye contact, and discussing trivial topics. Four items predicted 30% of Whites' Positive Feeling perceptions of Blacks: the person not speaking like a know-it-all, using distinct pronunciation, avoiding direct eye contact, and using a limited number of speech patterns. Thirty percent of White perceptions of Blacks' Activity was predictedby the Black partner speaking his/her mind and using direct eye contact, not using cultural slang, and using a limited number of speech patterns (see Table 3).

Enlarge this image.

Table 1Factor Analysis of Whites' Impressions of Black Communicators (n = 317)

Analysis of Black participants' scores. Research question two asked which perceived communication behaviors would best predict Blacks' overall impressions of Whites. Four items explained 30% of Blacks' Negative Feeling perceptions of Whites. In order of variation accounted for, these were: speaking as if they knew it all, speaking loudly, nodding erratically, and not using "verbal behavior" while listening. Four items predicted 11% of the variation in Blacks' perception of Whites' Expressiveness: did not use a variety of speech patterns, got to the point, spoke loudly, and spoke in a friendly manner. Finally, three items predicted 20% of Blacks' views of Whites' Directness: speaking one's mind, using appropriate terminology, and speaking with confidence (see Table 4).

DISCUSSION

This study investigated the relationship between stereotypical impressions and specific communication behaviors in Black-White interaction. We found that specific communication behaviors predict certain stereotypic impressions. However, the communication behaviors that predicted participants' views of the racial other were not based solely on a certain racial "communication style" that prior literature supposes to be "Black" or "White." Rather, participants drew upon both the behaviors generally characteristic of White and Black communication to make their impressions. Furthermore, the factor analyses of the individual stereotypic impressions suggest that these impressions may be better understood as clusters than as single constructs.

Enlarge this image.

Table 2Factor Analysis of Blacks' Impressions of White Communicators (n = 208)

Factors of Perceptions: Second-Order Stereotypical Impressions

The analyses suggest factors of second-order stereotypical impressions. Three factors of impressions emerged for both the Black and the White samples. White perceptions of Blacks factor into three clusters: a Negative Feeling cluster with most of the perceptual items and two more limited clusters, each with only two items and marginal reliabilities, for Positive Feeling and Activity. The Black perceptions of Whites factored out similarly-three factors, with the Negative Feeling factor containing the bulk of the items. Two small factors emerged, dealing with Expressiveness and Directness. These factor structures are similar to, but also challenge, the categories of impressions that Mehrabian (1970) found for nonverbal behavior: evaluation, potency, and responsiveness. The factors for the Black sample resemble the structure most closely, with Directness relating to the potency factor, Expressiveness to the responsiveness factor, and Negative feeling to the evaluation factor. The White factors differ slightly in that there seems to be no potency factor. There is an Activity factor that relates to responsiveness, but the other two factors represent evaluation. This supports the Billig et al. (1988) suggestion that there is an ambivalence or a dilemma among Whites' attitudes for Blacks, a tension between the rational desire to see Blacks positively and gut-level feelings of prejudice or subconscious desire for dominance.

Again, however, for both samples we must be tentative about the conclusions we draw on the second and third factors. What we can conclude from these findings is that the stereotypic perceptions for both samples seem to be more supported by an underlying feeling of negativity than by specific beliefs or cognitions about each other (Allport, 1954/1979). This conclusion is evidenced by the large loadings on each Negative Feeling factor. If this finding is true, challenging or even changing the surface beliefs or specific stereotypes of Whites toward Blacks and Blacks toward Whites may not change the underlying negative feeling that pervades these perceptions.

Enlarge this image.

Table 3Stepwise Regression Analyses on Whites' Impressions of Black Communicators (n = 317)

Predictors of Black and White Stereotypic Impressions

From the multiple regression analysis, we can see first which perceived behaviors are associated with each "stereotypic impression." Notably, most stereotypic impressions were predicted by communication items from both lists (White and Black) of behaviors. First, Whites' Negative Feeling impression of Black communicators was predicted by the expected "spoke loudly," but also by "used cultural slang," acting like one "knows-it-all," "used direct eye contact," and "discussed trivial topics." Second, Blacks' Negative Feeling impression of White communicators was predicted by acting like one "knows-it-all," "spoke loudly" which in part also predicted Blacks' impression of White communicators as Expressive, "nodded erratically," and did not "listen using verbal behavior." Moreover, Whites' impression of Black communicators as Active and Blacks' impression of White communicators as Direct were both partially predicted by one "appearing to speak one's mind." This suggests that a specific behavior may not culturally "belong" to one group, but rather that clusters of behaviors constitute the style or styles of a cultural group. No single behavior, decontextualized from other speech patterns and contexts, should be considered as an ethnic or racial style of speaking nor used to predict a specific impression.

These results also suggest that there is diversity of communication styles among a single ethnic group (Hall, 1992; Orbe, 1995), which clearly merits further investigation. For example, there are regional, social class, and urban-rural speech differences among Black Americans, just as there are among White Americans. Unfortunately, the tendency across much research, including the present project, is to "lump" groups together in a way that obscures such differences. The extent to which we did find significant predictors suggests that there are some similarities among the participants in each sample (e.g., the Black participants more often came from large urban areas and White participants from both large and small communities). Future research might investigate the attitudes among different subsamples of each group.

Enlarge this image.

Table 4Stepwise Regression Analyses on Blacks' Impressions of White Communicators (n = 208)

This analysis also revealed the various stereotypic impressions that are associated with a particular behavior. For example, Whites perceived Black communicators who used "cultural slang" negatively and as less active. Whites who were perceived to use "verbal feedback" during the listening process were perceived with less Negative Feeling. Whites who "used a variety of speech patterns" with their Black communication partners were perceived as less Expressive. Interestingly, perceived direct eye contact from the Black partner predicted the Negative Feeling factor, and little eye contact predicted the Positive Feeling factor. However, perceived eye contact from Whites predicted none of the factors for the Black sample.

CAT (Gallois et al., 1995) might suggest that Whites are not comfortable with what many Whites would call "black slang" and would prefer Blacks to accommodate. However, when Whites perceived Blacks were communicating with behaviors illustrative of "White" communication, perceptions were ambivalent: Blacks were perceived as Positive when they were seen using distinct pronunciation, less Positive and more Active when using direct eye contact, and less Positive and less Active when using a variety of speech patterns. This finding suggests that even something as simple as direct eye contact might lead to conflicting perceptions among White communicators and a need for further study.

When a White person interacts with a Black person communicating with so-called slang, the White person may feel uncomfortable because of differing speech characteristics. This uncomfortableness may heighten the White person's self-awareness and otherness in a given context Unfamiliarity may lead the White person to feel threatened by a Black communicator (who may only be performing a particular cultural communication style) or to feel that the Black communicator is emphasizing difference or separateness. However, when a White person interacts with a Black person communicating in a characteristically White communication style, although this may represent the Black communicator's desire to align with or demonstrate understanding to the White communicator, the White communicator may view this with suspicion (Broome, 1990).

In terms of the CTEI (Hecht et al., 1993), some of the behaviors in this study (e.g., using slang, speaking as if one knows-it-all) might be seen to either put down or exclude the other. CTEI and Layered perspective of intolerance (Baldwin & Hecht, 1995) suggest that both identity and intolerance can be enacted at the dyadic level. In this study, we see a link between perceived communication behaviors and stereotypic impressions in dyadic communication.

This same analysis might apply to Blacks' perception of White communication. For example, Blacks seem to want Whites to use verbal behavior in the listening process (i.e., would prefer they accommodate), but not use a lot of head nods or speak loudly during interaction (i.e., prefer they not accommodate). Perhaps because some Black communication behaviors serve functions of unifying and establishing cultural boundaries (Hecht et al., 1993), when Whites use symbols of Black ethnicity (Collier, 1997), Blacks may feel defensive. Rather than Standard English articulation, Blacks may read this to be a crisp, almost staccato style of communicating that indicates disdain, such as Waters' (1992) concept of hyperexplanation.

Although all participants relied on behaviors from both the "White" and "Black" behavior lists, these behaviors explained more of the variation in scores for the Whites' negative perceptions of Blacks (68%) than for the Blacks' negative views of Whites (30%). Also, beyond the overall negative perceptions, remaining factors of attitudes do little to explain White and Black perceptions.

The difference in variance explained for the negative factor may suggest differing complexity in interracial opinions. For example, Whites' views of Blacks are less differentiated, based either on limited knowledge of the complexities of Black culture, on bifurcated media images of Blacks (Jhally & Lewis, 1992), or on White prejudice, than Blacks' views of Whites. Blacks seem to construct their ethnic identity more complexly than Whites (Hecht, Larkey, & Johnson, 1992) and, based on their position in a culture that is ambivalent toward them, develop a complex standpoint (Orbe, 1998; Orbe & Harris, 2001).

One limitation in these findings that might, relate to the low ability of the communication behaviors, especially for the Black sample, to predict attitudes of the racial other is that the participants may have seen communication partners more on individual terms (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997). We asked them not to describe Whites or Blacks in general, as much stereotype literature has done, but to recall a specific interaction. People choose to interact with and remember people they like. Perhaps the participants consciously suppressed stereotypic impressions (Devine, 1989). This would suggest that, although we might have stereotypes that come to mind when we list impressions of a group, these same perceptions may not always come into play in interactions. More research should examine this possibility and include more positive items from the original Katz and Braly (1933) list of racial stereotypes.

Other limitations of the study should be kept in mind when interpreting these results. First, we did not account for participants' age. Research suggests that younger and older adults have different expectations for intergenerational communication (Harwood, McKee, & Lin, 2000). In terms of communication accommodation theory and our list of characteristics intended to operationalize Black and White communication, behaviors such as "speaking loudly" and "speaking with distinct pronunciation" may be perceived by older participants as patronizing speech (simplified grammar and vocabulary and exaggerated intonation) and by younger adults as attempts to accommodate (Ryan, Giles, Bartolucci, & Henwood, 1986). Future research might investigate samples with greater age diversity.

Second, the means on the items3, although not the focus of the present study, suggest that the actual mean difference may not be too great. This may be because, although prior studies asked participants to describe a group, we asked about specific individuals. A participant may have specific information about the communication partner, which may deactivate stereotypes (Zebrowitz, Montepare, & Lee, 1993), especially if prior information on the partner is positive (Jackson, Hymes, & Sullivan, 1987)or the specific behavior of the partner discontinued stereotypes (Biernat & Vescio, 1993; Hewstone & Hamberger, 2000).

Finally, we are unable to tell if certain communication behaviors lead to, cause, or trigger stereotypes. However, we do know that racial stereotypes may change when applied to specific communication partners as stereotypic impressions in line with Tajfel's (1978) continuum from interindividual to intergroup communication. And we know that communication behaviors in interracial interactions can predict "stereotypic impressions" with certain behaviors appearing to be especially problematic in interracial communication. Clearly, considerable theoretical development and empirical investigation remain to be done to understand these complex relationships.

Despite these limitations, the findings have implications for day-to-day interethnic communication. Our findings suggest that behaviors considered "Black" or "White" in past research are not essentially Black or White. In other words, behavior differences between Blacks and Whites may be much more complex than simple labels convey. Though we can make some useful predictions about Black and White communicator perceptions, we must keep in mind the diversity within both Black and White experience and culture (Hall, 1992; Orbe, 1995).

Race-based communication stereotypes remain an obstacle to effective and appropriate racial communication (Barna, 1994). Understanding these stereotypes may be the first step people can take toward avoiding them. This study provides both Blacks and Whites with information on the relationship between stereotypical perceptions and preferred communication style. Thus, interactants may tailor communication to meet particular goals (persuasion, respect, relational development, etc.). For example, in some contexts, Black communicators may choose to avoid the use of Black English or loud talk. White communicators may choose to be friendly, but be careful of superficial talk, condescension, or adopting admonition or hyperexplanation (Waters, 1992). In sum, we hope this study helps communicators recognize and manage, where appropriate to do so, intercultural and intergroup communication differences.

Sidebar

SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL, Volume 68, Number 1, Fall, 2002, pp. 40-56

Footnote

NOTES

1Any discussion of "race" and culture is problematic, especially given that "race" is more of a social construction than a biological reality (Rattansi, 1992). Thus, in this article, we choose to put it in quotations to highlight its social-constructedness. Also, as Orbe (1995) and others have noted, cultural diversity within "races" makes statements of cultural norms of a "race" problematic. Still, Asante (1987) and others suggested that there are components of African American culture that may hold across many subgroups of African Americans.

2We realize the sensitive nature of these terms. Our intention here is not to debate whether Ebonics is slang or a language. Rather, we would side with a great number of recent authors who suggest that Black English is a vital and resistant form of English with its own grammar and functions. The phrases "slang," "appropriate terminology," "erratic head nods," "trivial topics," and so on reflected terms from literature in a way we thought the respondents would understand.

3For a list of the means and standard deviations for the individual items on each measure, please contact the first author.

References

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (Original work published 1954)

Asante, M. K (1987). The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Asante, M., & Davis, A. (1985). Black and White communication: Analyzing work place encounters. Journal of Black Studies, 16, 77-93.

Averhart, C. J., & Bigler, R. S. (1997). Shades of meaning: Skin tone, racial attitudes, and constructive memory in African American children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67, 363-388.

Baldwin, J. R., & Hecht, M. L. (1995). The layered perspective of cultural (in) tolerance(s): The roots of a multidisciplinary approach. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 59-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barna, L. M. (1994). Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (6th ed., pp. 337-347). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Biernat, M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Stigma and stereotypes. In T. F. Heatherton & R. E. Kleck (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 88-125). New York: Guilford.

Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. ( 1993). Categorization and stereotyping: Effects of group context on memory and social judgment. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 29, 166-202.

Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Jordan, F. (1989). Communication adaptation among racially homogenous and heterogenous groups. Southern Journal of Communication, 54, 253-272.

Boyd, W. (1993). Can the races talk together? The. Poynter Report, 4, 7.

Broome, B. J. (1990). Pavelom: Foundations of struggle and conflict in Greek interpersonal communication. Southern Communication Journal, 55, 260-275.

Cheek, D. K. (1976). Assertive Black, puzzled White. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact.

Collier, M. J. (1988). A comparison of intracultural and intercultural communication among and between domestic culture groups: How ultra- and intercultural competencies vary. Communication Quarterly, 36, 122-144.

Collier, M. J. (1996). Communication competence problematics in ethnic friendships. Communication Monographs, 63, 314-336.

Collier, M. J. (1997). Cultural identity and intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed., pp. 3645). 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. 99-120). Netbury Park, CA: Sage.

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Coltraine, S., & Messineo, M. (2000). The perpetuation of subtle prejudice: Race and gender imagery in 1990s television advertising. Sex Roles, 42, 363-389.

Contrada, R. J., Ashmore, R. D., Melvin, G. L., Coups, E., Egeth, J. D., Sewell, A., et al. (2000). Ethnicity-related sources of stress and their effects on well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 136-139.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

Devine, P. G., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Measurement of racial stereotype subtyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 44-50.

Erickson, F. (1979). Talking down: Some cultural causes of miscommunication in interracial interviews. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Applications and cultural implications (pp. 99-126). New York: Academic Press.

Evuleocha, S. U., & Ugbah, S. D. (1989) Stereotypes, counter-stereotypes, and Black television images in the 1990s. Western Journal of Black Studies, 13, 197-205.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271-290.

Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A. C., & Ota, H. (1995). Accommodating intercultural encounters: Elaborations and extensions. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 115-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Golebiowska, E. A. (2000). The etiology of individual-targeted intolerance: Group stereotypes and judgments of individual group members. Political Psychology, 21, 443-464.

Gordon, L. (1986). College student stereotypes of Blacks and Jews on two campuses: Four studies spanning 50 years. Sociology and Social Research, 70, 200-201.

Graves, S. B. (1999). Television and prejudice reduction: When does television as a vicarious experience make a difference? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 707-727.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1997). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, S. (1981). The whites of their eyes: Racist ideologies and the media. In G. Bridges & R. Brunt (Eds.), Silver linings: Some strategies for the eighties (pp. 28-52). London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Hall, S. (1992). New ethnicities. In J. Donald & A. Rattansi (Eds.), "Race.," culture & difference (pp. 252-259). London: Sage.

Harwood, J., McKee, J., & Lin, M. C. (2000). Younger and older adults' schematic representations of intergenerational communication. Communication Monographs, 67, 20-41.

Hecht, M. L., & Baldwin, J. R. (1998). Layers and holograms: A new look at prejudice. In M. L. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating prejudice (pp. 57-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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., & Johnson, J. N. (1992). African American and European American perceptions of problematic issues in interethnic communication effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 19, 209-236.

Hecht, M. L., & Ribeau, S. (1984). Ethnic communication: A comparative analysis of satisfying communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 135-151.

Hecht, M. L., Ribeau, S., & Alberts, J. K. (1989). An Afro-American perspective on interethnic communication. Communication Monographs, 56, 385-410.

Hewstone, M., & Hamberger, J. (2000). Perceived variability and stereotype change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 103-124.

Houston, M. (2000). When Black women talk with White women: Why dialogues are difficult. In A. Gonzalez, M. Houston, & V. Chen (Eds.), Our voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity, and communication (3rd ed., pp. 133-139). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

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. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 309-316.

Jhally, S., & Lewis, J. (1992). Enlightened racism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Jussim, L., Coleman, L. M., & Lerch, L. (1987). The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of three theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 336-346.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 164-204.

Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 28, 280-290.

Kochman, T. (1981). Black and White styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racial differences in gaze during conversations: Two systematic observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 547-522.

Leonard, R., & Locke, D. (1993). Communication stereotypes: Is interracial communication possible? Journal of Black Studies, 23, 332-343.

Leyens, J. P., Desert, M., Croizet, J. C., & Darci, C. (2000). Stereotype threat: Are lower status and history of stigmatisation preconditions of stereotype threat? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 1189-1199.

Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Milne, A. B. (1995). The dissection of selection in person perception: Inhibitory processes in social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 397-407.

Macrae, C. N., Stangor, C., & Hewstone, M. (1996). Stereotypes and stereotyping. New York: Guilford.

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, 119-139.

Mehrabian, A. (1970). A semantic space for nonverbal behavior. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 35, 248-257

Ogawa, D. M. (1971). Small-group communication stereotypes of Black Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 1, 273-282.

Orbe, M. P. (1994). "Remember, it's always Whites' ball": Description of African American male communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 287-300.

Orbe, M. P. (1995). African American research: Toward a deeper understanding of interethnic communication. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 61-78.

Orbe, M. P. (1998). From the standpoint(s) of traditionally muted groups: Explicating a co-cultural communication theoretical model. Communication Theory, 8, 1-26.

Orbe, M. P., & Harris, T. M. (2001). Interracial communication: Theory into practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Philipsen, G. (1987). An ethnographic approach to communication studies. In B. Dervin, B. O'Keefe, L. Grossberg, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication (pp. 258-268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pittinsky, T. L., Shih, M., & Ambady, N. (2000). Will a category cue affect you?: Category cues, positive stereotypes and reviewer recall for applicants. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 53-65.

Plous, S., & Williams, T. (1995). Racial stereotypes from the days of American slavery: A continuing legacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 795-817.

Rattansi, A. (1992). Changing the subject?: Racism, culture, and education. In J. Donald & A. Rattansi (Eds.), "Race," culture, and difference (pp. 11-48). London: Sage.

Reinard, J. C. (1996). An introduction to communication research. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., Bartolucci, G., & Henwood, K. (1986). Psycholinguistic and social psychological components of communication by and with the elderly. Language and Communication, 6, 1-24.

Salzer, M. (2000). Toward a narrative conceptualization of stereotypes: Contextualizing perceptions of public housing residents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 123-137.

Shade, B. J. (1982). Afro-American cognitive style: A variable in school success. Review of Educational Research, 52, 219-244.

Shuter, R. (1982). Initial interaction of American Blacks and Whites in interracial and intraracial dyads. The Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 45-52.

Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-White interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71, 781-795.

Smedley, J. W., & Bayton, J. A. (1978). Evaluative race-class stereotypes by race and perceived class of the subjects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 530-535.

Smith, A. (1983). Nonverbal communication among Black female dyads: An assessment of intimacy, gender, and race. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 55-67.

Stanback, M. H., & Pearce, W. B. (1981). Talking to "the man": Some communication strategies used by members of "subordinate" social groups. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67, 21-30.

Stephan, W. G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 599-658). New York: Random House.

Stone, J., Perry, Z. W., & Darley, J. M. (1997). "White men can't jump": Evidence for the perceptual confirmation of racial stereotypes following a basketball game. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 291-306.

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. 27-60). London: Academic Press.

Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Howard Educational Review, 62, 1-23.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1986). Conflict communication styles in Black and White subjective cultures. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), Interethnic communication: Current research (pp. 75-88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Vergeer, M., Lubbers, M., & Scheepers, P. (2000). Exposure to newspapers and attitudes toward ethnic minorities: A longitudinal analysis. Howard Journal of Communications, 11, 127-143.

Waters, H., Jr. (1992). Race, culture, and interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 437-454.

Weber, S. N. (1994). The need to be: Socio-cultural significance of Black language. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (6th ed., pp. 337-347). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Montepare, J. M., & Lee, H. K. (1993). They don't all look alike: Individuated impressions of other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85-101.

AuthorAffiliation

Patrick C. Hughes, Communication Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-3083, (806) 742-1174, [email protected]; John R. Baldwin, Communication, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-4480, (309) 452-1214, [email protected]. All correspondence should be sent to the first author. The authors are grateful to Ken Cissna, under whose Editorship this article was originally submitted, Joy Hart, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Copyright Southern States Communication Association Fall 2002