Ethnocentrism

Abstract: Experimental research on intergroup discrimination in favor of one's own group is reviewed in terms of the basis of differentiati on between in-group and outgroup and in terms of the response measure on which in-group bias is assessed. Results of the research reviewed suggest that (a) factors such as intergroup competition, similarity, and status differentials affect in-group bias indirectly by influencing the salience of distinctions between in-group and out-group, (b) the degree of intergroup differentiation on a particular response dimension is a joint function of the relevance of intergroup distinctions and the favorableness of the in-group's position on that dimension, and (c) the enhancement of in-group bias is more related to increased favoritism toward in-group members than to increased hostility toward out-group members. The implications of these results for positive applications of group identification are discussed. In 1906, sociologist William Sumner articulated a functionalist approach to the nature of intergroup attitudes in his exposition of the concept of ethnocentrism . The differentiation of peoples into distinct ethnic groups originates, according to Sumner, in context of the "conditions of the struggle for existence." At the individual level, the psychological consequences of this differentiation both reflect and sustain the basic state of conflict between the in-group (or "we-group") and out-groups (or "others-groups"):

Abstract: Culture influences both individual behavior and how businesses operate. Those working in both the business and policy arenas must understand other cultures and avoid ethnocentrism. Culture is defined as the "collective programming of the mind"; in the modern context it exists within national borders. Using data from surveys of employees in 40 countries at the HERMES Corporation in 1968 and 1972, four categories of cultural difference become clear and useful: power distance; uncertainty avoidance individualism; and masculinity. These categories are then correlated not only with one another, but with other available data. Sex differentiation is the final dimension of cultural difference in this analysis. These four dimensions of national culture describe the human condition. Some of them correlate with one another. Analyzing the correlations between the various indices allows the clustering of these 40 countries with similar statistics into 8 groups: More and Less Developed Latin and Asian, Near-Eastern, Germanic, Anglo and Nordic. Because the HERMES data was collected at two different points, 1968 and 1972, it can show change over time. While scientific discoveries can effect cultural change, not every culture will become increasingly similar. Different cultures will follow different trends, though some trends will be global. There was a worldwide decrease in desired power difference and in elevations of stress and both the Individualism Index (IDV) and Masculinity Index (MAS) grew during this period. Speculation on long term trends is provided, suggesting that the IDV will rise and the Power Distance Index norm will fall as long as national wealth increases; the Uncertainty Avoidance Index will fluctuate as people age, and MAS will remain constant as time passes. Organizations are bound by the cultures that created them, with consequences for cultural relativity for a number of areas: motivation; leadership; decision-making; planning and control; organization design; development; humanization of work; industrial democracy; company ownership and control; and the reaction of the local environment to the organization. Possible training strategies for multi-national and multi-cultural corporations are included and the Values Survey Module is introduced, shortening and improving upon the original HERMES survey in the hope that research on cultural difference will continue. (RAS)

Abstract: Most theories in social and political psychology stress self-interest, intergroup conflict, ethnocentrism, homophily, ingroup bias, outgroup antipathy, dominance, and resistance. System justification theory is influenced by these perspectives—including social identity and social dominance theories—but it departs from them in several respects. Advocates of system justification theory argue that (a) there is a general ideological motive to justify the existing social order, (b) this motive is at least partially responsible for the internalization of inferiority among members of disadvantaged groups, (c) it is observed most readily at an implicit, nonconscious level of awareness and (d) paradoxically, it is sometimes strongest among those who are most harmed by the status quo. This article reviews and integrates 10 years of research on 20 hypotheses derived from a system justification perspective, focusing on the phenomenon of implicit outgroup favoritism among members of disadvantaged groups (including African Americans, the elderly, and gays/lesbians) and its relation to political ideology (especially liberalism-conservatism).

Abstract: Gilroy demonstrates the enormous complexity of racial politics in England today. Exploring the relationships among race, class, and nation as they have evolved over the past twenty years, he highlights racist attitudes that transcend the left-right political divide. He challenges current sociological approaches to racism as well as the ethnocentric bias of British cultural studies. "Gilroy demonstrates effectively that cultural traditions are not static, but develop, grow and indeed mutate, as they influence and are influenced by the other changing traditions around them."--David Edgar, "Listener Review of Books." "A fascinating analysis of the discourses that have accompanied black settlement in Britain. . . . An important addition to the stock of critical works on race and culture."--David Okuefuna, "Chicago Tribune"