by Trang Nguyen (10823565)
Master’s thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s program Communication Science
Supervisor: Margot van der Goot
26.06.2015
Table of Content
ABSTRACT ... 2
INTRODUCTION ... 3
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 5
Stereotypes ... 5
YouTube compared to traditional media ... 6
Social identity theory ... 8
Conclusion ... 12 METHODOLOGY ... 13 Sample ... 13 Procedure ... 14 Interview guide ... 14 Data analysis ... 15 RESULTS ... 16
The meaning of stereotypes from student’s perspectives ... 16
1. Evaluation of stereotypes ... 17
2. Experiences with stereotypes in YouTube videos ... 19
3. Reactions to stereotypes in daily life ... 20
4. Stereotypes enforce a certain presentation of social identity ... 21
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 23
Asians’ and Europeans’ reactions to Asian stereotypes and their social identity ... 23
YouTube compared to traditional media and students’ reactions ... 25
In-‐group and out-‐group favoritism ... 26
The interaction between collectivist and individualistic cultures ... 26
Limitations and future research ... 27
Conclusion ... 29
REFERENCES ... 29
APPENDIX A – PARTICIPANT DESCRIPTION ... 36
APPENDIX B – INTERVIEW GUIDE ... 39
APPENDIX C- CODE LIST ... 41
A
BSTRACT
Stereotyping will always exist because it helps people to make sense of their social environment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore and understand how Asians compared to Europeans respond to YouTube videos with Asian stereotypes. This was examined by looking at whether in-group and out-in-group favoritism played a role and how the interaction took place between Asians and Europeans. The results showed that negative stereotypes were unacceptable, whereas positive stereotypes were accepted. Students were sometimes entertained by such YouTube videos because the stereotypes were rather positive and presented with humor. Moreover, the students reacted to encounters with stereotypes in their everyday life by either reacting with irony, direct education or leaving the conversation. It was also made known through the discussions that students felt the pressure to present their social identity in a way, so other people would not have negative
stereotypes about them. In-group and out-group favoritism played only a role among Asians, and the favoritism depended on whether the Asian participants accepted the other person as Asian. Asians generally agreed more to each other by using their body language, whereas Europeans expressed stronger verbal opinions.
Key words: Asian stereotypes, in-group, out-group, social identity theory, stereotypes, YouTube
I
NTRODUCTION
“Stereotypes lose their power when the world is found to be more complex than the stereotype would suggest. When we learn that individuals do not fit the group stereotype, then it begins to fall apart.” (Koch, unknown)
Stereotypes can be found everywhere, from a poster on a billboard to the television at home (e.g. Inoue, 2005). A stereotype describes “a set of qualities that a group of people are perceived to share simply because they belong to a social category” (Ashmore & Del Boc, 1981; Redmond, 2010, p. 472). For instance, it is said that Chinese people are good at mathematics or Germans are always punctual. The previous example specifically refers to racial stereotypes, i.e. certain
behavioral assumptions are based upon biological, cultural and phenotypic traits of a person (Appiah 2010). Additionally, stereotypes allow us to represent ourselves and to make sense of our environment as indicated by Hall (1997). The way we view others is described by the social identity theory, which states that we favor people of our social group (in-group members), rather than people outside those groups (out-group members).
Racial stereotypes and in particular Asian stereotypes seem to be prevalent on YouTube (Guo & Harlow, 2014) and are important to consider (Crouton, 2006). YouTube is a widely known phenomenon as it is one of the largest platforms for sharing user-generated content (e.g. Godwin-Jones, 2007; Wu et al., 2014; Guo & Harlow, 2014). This platform is for everyone to connect, to represent opinions, stereotypes and their personal life in the form of videos (e.g. Duffy, 2003; Daniels, 2009; Guo & Harlow, 2014). It can be postulated that responses to stereotypes on YouTube would differ from traditional media, which is something to explore as O’Donnell et al. (2008) state. There are three distinct differences between YouTube and traditional media. Firstly, the source is different because YouTube relies on user-generated content, whereas traditional media rely on professional-generated content. Secondly, the interactivity is different because YouTube relies on a two-sided communication, rather than a one-sided communication as observed in
usually start to share content based on their personal interests and not for commercial reasons as traditional media.
The current study has three aims/research questions:
1. How do Asians compared to Europeans respond to YouTube videos with Asian stereotypes? 2. Does in-group and out-group favoritism play a role in the response to Asian stereotypes? 3. How do Asians and Europeans interact within their groups and how do they interact with
each other?
These aims are important from a scientific perspective. Firstly, because Asian stereotypes on YouTube in the context of Europe have not been much been examined. Literature mainly looked at Asian American stereotypes. Europe and America seem to be similar because they are both
individualistic cultures (Zick et al., 2008). Nevertheless, there are differences in history to be seen, as Europe draws back on a longer history about colonization than America (Zick et al., 2008). This difference can result in different opinions about Asian stereotypes, as stereotypes are intertwined with the cultural background (Appiah, 2010). Secondly, YouTube is a rather new phenomenon, but important to consider as it is after traditional media the most favored and used media (Burgess & Green, 2009). Thirdly, most studies have concentrated on the effect of stereotypes in media by conducting quantitative research while ignoring qualitative opinions and perceptions of viewers (Benevenuto et al., 2008; Adami, 2009). Therefore, this research will make use of focus groups to explore the various opinions on racial stereotypes on YouTube. This study can add to the overall understanding of how Asians and Europeans view Asian stereotypes on the emerging platform YouTube.
Lastly, stereotypes can support advertisers and influential YouTubers to be more effective and persuasive in their communication (e.g. Wu et al., 2014) by using the results of this study. The results can help to understand how to be less offensive and thereby more effective in gaining more viewers.
T
HEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework will outline and discuss the most important concepts regarding the three aims. Firstly, it is important to understand what stereotypes are, specifically Asian stereotypes, and why they are formed. Secondly, it is crucial to point out the three differences between YouTube and traditional media in light of reactions to stereotypes. Thirdly, it is important to explain how the social identification theory can be applied in the context of stereotypes, and, specifically, how Asians respond to stereotypes. It is important to note that the first and second part refers to the first aim and the last part refers to all three aims.
STEREOTYPES
A stereotype can be described as “a set of qualities that a group of people are perceived to share simply because they belong to a social category” (Ashmore & Del Boc, 1981; Redmond, 2010, p. 472). This means that a stereotype consists of a set of characteristics, for example a person assumes that an Asian looking person must be good at mathematics. The critical factor here is that a large group of people believes the stereotype to be true.
There are three reasons why stereotypes are formed. Firstly, stereotypes support individuals to gain an understanding of the social world that they are in (Murij, 2006). They help people to feel safer and to know how to behave in front of other people that they are unfamiliar with (Redmond, 2010). Secondly, people use stereotypes to obtain power over others (Murij, 2006). Thirdly, stereotypes are there for people to have shared beliefs of a group, so they feel belonging to a group (McGarty et al., 2002). This final reason provided by McGarty et al. (2002) is particularly
important, since it means that people can relate to beliefs and identify themselves with what they see.
This research will focus exclusively on racial stereotypes, which refers to the physical characteristics of someone - their biological traits, such as skin color. According to Chang and Kleiner (2003), racial stereotypes tend to be automatic, mainly negative, and people might not be
aware of its influence on their demeanor (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Kunda & Spencer, 2003).
Asian Stereotypes. One of the most common and important stereotypes about Asians is that they are ‘nerds’ (Chang & Kleiner, 2003; Cabrera, 2014), meaning that they are doing very well in school. This goes back in history where Asian parents encouraged their children to excel in their academic skills, as this would enable them to have a better life in future. Nowadays, this stereotype is relatively inaccurate since Asian parents also support their children’s own wishes and interests (Chang & Kleiner, 2003). The second important stereotype is that Asians practice martial arts, such as Kung Fu. This is due to the many movies about martial arts with for instance Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Brandon Lee, Jet Li, etc. (Chang & Kleiner, 2003).
YOUTUBE COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL MEDIA
YouTube is the largest video content sharing platform (Adami, 2009). In contrast, traditional media consist of i.e. television, newspaper and radio (Schweiger, 2000). In traditional media the same images about stereotypes are coming back repeatedly (Seiter, 1986). This causes disapproval about the content, because people are treated less valuable compared to other groups of people (Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994). On YouTube everyone is able to show and correct or confirm stereotypes according to their opinion. Consequently, there are three distinct differences (source, interactivity and motivation) between YouTube and traditional media, which are believed to be causing differing reactions to stereotypes.
Source. A source is a person or company, who provides information (e.g. Armstrong & Nelson, 2005). There are four differences when it comes to the source. Firstly, the source is
different since YouTube relies on user-generated content, whereas traditional media rely mainly on professional-generated content. Secondly, in traditional media a gatekeeper decides what
information is published (Croteau, 2006; Schultz & Sheffer, 2010, Hull & Schmittel, 2015). Thirdly, user-generated content is considered to be more credible compared to
these media. Fourthly, the producer of a television commercial is not represented in the commercial itself, whereas on YouTube the producer of the video is often also playing the main character in the storyline and therefore can appear closer to the audience (as seen on YouTube). Often commercials use celebrities, who seem more distant to us since they have a different life (style) than ‘regular people’ (Loftus &Harley, 2005).
Interactivity. Interactivity can be described as “the degree to which two or more
communicating parties can act on each other, on the communication medium, the messages, and the degree to which such influences are synchronized” (Liu & Shrum, 2002, p. 54). There are two main differences regarding the interactivity. Firstly, the interactivity between sender and receiver is much more important and direct on YouTube. Viewers on YouTube expect to see comments about the content (which is usually directly below the videos), whereas on traditional media this is not always the case. Therefore, on YouTube it is a two-sided communication, rather than a one-sided
communication as observed in traditional media. Secondly, although traditional media are able to use other sources, such as a website to create more interactivity (obtaining more feedback and creating a platform for people to exchange opinions), YouTube offers the unique advantage of having all this on one platform. As a result, people’s reactions can widely differ, since different types of users and types of viewers with each a different opinion are on one single platform, namely YouTube.
Motivation. The motivation refers to the reason why people create and share content. Traditional media represent more commercial messages (Hossein et al., 2015) than YouTubers’, whose main motivation is to share their personal ideas. YouTubers consider making videos as a hobby and they would like to get feedback for what they do (Guo & Lee, 2013). This takes the commercial aim behind the videos away. Despite the fact that some YouTubers do end up making a living out of making videos, viewers might not see this from the onset compared to the perception of traditional media. This should be explored in this research, because there is no evidence in
literature for this yet. Thereby, this background information will help to meet the first aim and understand how Asians and Europeans react to Asian stereotypes on YouTube.
SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY
According to Tajfel (1978), social identity refers to the “part of an individual’s self-concept, which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (p.63). If there are groups or categories made, people also try to identify themselves with a group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Scholars define this process as group membership (in-group membership versus out-group
membership) (McCauley & Stitt, 1978). Specifically, racial identity is defined by the individual’s perception of where s/he belongs to in a social group and how emotionally they are attached to it (e.g. Phinney, 1992; Appiah, 2001). This means, that if someone is Asian, s/he categorizes others as Asians versus Asians. Other Asians would be considered as in-group members and Non-Asians as out-group members. As a result of categorization people create a social identity.
Generally, it can be said that the way people view each other is dependent on whether they are from a collectivist or individualistic culture. The degree of individualism is dependent on how strong the tie is among individuals (Hofstede, 1980). In collectivist cultures people are heavily dependent on their families and are expected to also take care of their extended family (e.g. cousins, aunts etc.). In individualistic cultures individuals rely more on themselves, and are only expected to take care of their immediate family members (Hofstede, 1980). Studies about social identity theory showed that people from an individualistic culture did not favor in-group members over out-group members, unlike people from collectivist cultures (e.g. Hofstede, 1980; Ritter, 2013). Asians are considered to be from a collectivist culture, whereas Americans and Europeans are individualistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore, the second aim is to understand whether in-group and out-group favoritism plays a role on how Asians and Europeans respond to Asian stereotypes.
Social identity and racial stereotypes. The social identity theory was confirmed by Mastro (2010), who investigated how Whites would react to other Whites and to Latinos, when shown
stereotypical media images. Results revealed that when Whites were exposed to negative images of Whites, they tried to justify the criminal behavior that was shown. Whereas when an out-group member (Latino) engaging in a crime was displayed, Whites did not try to justify this behavior. Despite the fact that the social identity theory was verified this study has its own limitation. The author conducted two experiments, in which participants filled out a survey and participants did not have the chance to express their opinions in the form of open-ended questions. Such questions could have yielded results about what kind of stereotypes would increase ethnocentrism (preference to own ethnicity), since the main research question was about whether exposure to Latinos would increase ethnocentrism among Whites. Adding open-ended questions would give more insights about why exposure to out-group members would increase ethnocentrism and whether stereotypes would play a role.
There are also studies that could only partially confirm the social identity theory. Mlicki and Ellemers (1996) examined how strongly people identify with their nationality, when confronted with negative and positive stereotypical images of their own country and of a different country. The results illustrate that Polish people did not distinguish between negative and positive images about their country, whereas Dutch people did differentiate between negative and positive images about their country. Furthermore, Polish people rated their own national traits more negatively compared to Dutch national traits. This is in contrast to the social identity theory, where it is stated that people strive for positive group distinctiveness and not negative group distinctiveness. The deviant result is explained by the Polish history, where Poland has struggled to be distinct over the years (Mlicki & Ellemers, 1996). Thereby, the distinctiveness becomes more important than having a positive national image. This shows, that the social identity theory is limited to certain historical
occurrences. Additionally, Krämer and Trepte (2007) found, that national identity did not have any effects on the ratings of a television series. Apparently, it does not matter whether it was produced abroad or in the home country. What matters is what is shown (whether the person in the media is from your country or not), as seen in the study by Mastro (2010).
To summarize, empirical studies (e.g. Mlicki & Ellemers, 1996; Krämer & Trepte, 2007; Mastro, 2010) show that the social identity theory can be confirmed under certain conditions. People from a collectivist culture favor in-group members over out-group members. This is the opposite for people from an individualistic culture. Favoring does not occur when people are simply told that an in-group or out-group member produced the given image. Besides, none of these studies conducted a focus group to see how in-group and out-group favoritism would be affected by
stereotypes. The interaction between in-group members and out-group members is important to consider, since it is about comparing two groups. Thereby, the current study and the third aim are to understand the interaction between Asians and Europeans by conducting focus groups, and to comprehend how Asians and Europeans interact with each other and within their group.
Asians’ responses to stereotypes and the social identity theory. There have been
numerous studies on Asian Americans responding to stereotypes in various contexts (e.g. Hong et al., 2000; Kibria, 2002; Yu & Danico, 2004; Devos, 2006). If people are confronted with
stereotypes they are unable to identify with, it is perceived negatively and people disagree with it (e.g. Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Gaither et al., 2014). For instance, it has been examined how Asian American college students react to stereotypes (Chou & Feagin, 2008). 43 Asian American interviewees took part in this study and explained how they were described as “token Whites” (p. 135), unattractive, nerd, foreigners and socially incompetent, which made them feel like outsiders (Cabrera, 2014). In another study it is verified, that Asians in the United States are still considered as foreigners, which heavily affects Asian’s identity feeling and belongingness to a group (Tuan, 1998; Devos & Banaji, 2005; Cheryan & Monin, 2005). The distinction was clear, because people gave Asians in America a separate category (Asian Americans), instead of considering them as Americans.
Simultaneously, Asian Americans often have a feeling of belonging to two cultures and therefore have a dual identity (Kibria, 2002; Yu & Danico, 2004). Some Asian Americans with a dual identity can switch from the American perspective to the Asian perspective depending on the
situation (Hong et al., 2000; Devos, 2006). Asian Americans heavily depend on their families, (Kagitcibasi, 1996; Dang & Kline, 2015) which indicates that Asians are from a collectivist culture. The collectivism aspect also affects how they interact with in-group members and out-group
members. In a study conducted by Smith and Long (2006) Chinese (collectivist culture) and American (individualistic culture) students were asked to give grades to their students for a course. Results showed, as Hofstede (1980) predicted, that Chinese students gave out-group members, so strangers, less favorable and fair grades, compared to their in-group members (fellow Chinese) (Hui et al., 1991). The American students however gave similar grades in both cases (Smith & Long, 2006).
In a dissertation study by Ritter (2013), Asian stereotypes at an American university were investigated. Qualitative research (interviews) was used to see how they dealt with stereotypes. The social identity theory was applied to explain the preferred interaction between in-group members and out-group members. The decision to interact with certain people is influenced by our
perceptions about others (racial stereotypes). Results show that when Asians first came to the United States, they interacted more with their in-group members than with out-group members. Over time these Asians became used to the life in America and started to interact with and befriend more locals. This affected their identity feeling because they did not only identify with their initial in-group members, but also with out-group members who have become their friends. A limitation to this study is that it wholly focused on Korean, Japanese and Chinese students of one university, and because the social identity theory and stereotypes are culturally bounded, the aim (1) of the current study is to focus on Asians in Europe.
Despite the well-known collectivist culture of Asians, a different study reports a deviant result regarding responses to stereotypes. According to Oyserman and Sakamoto (1997), some Asian Americans do not mind being labeled with positive stereotypes (positive stereotypes were not defined by the researchers), while others do not want to be labeled at all. This could be explained by the fact that some Asian Americans have adapted to the individualistic culture of Americans, so that
they do not want to be associated with any labeled groups (Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997). This is in line with what Huang (2014) found out in a later study. Huang (2014) found out that on some social media platforms, some Asians are known to either disregard the stereotype or even make fun of it themselves. What these studies did not take into account is how Asians and Europeans would discuss Asian stereotypes, and whether stereotypes affect their interaction. The interaction is important for the aim (3).
To sum up, it can be said that Asians and Europeans might respond differently to Asian stereotypes, according to the social identity theory. None of the existing literature has addressed YouTube videos in particular, it is important to examine whether similar results are seen regarding responses of Asians and Europeans towards Asian stereotypes on YouTube. Asians themselves are likely to react differently to stereotypes (e.g. try to justify the behavior or deny what is seen), depending on whether these Asian Europeans experience a dual identity and how much they have adapted to the individualistic culture in Europe. Europeans, however, will most likely take it the way it is, since Asians do not belong to their natural social group and because they do not
understand the intricacies of the Asian culture. Besides, the mentioned studies also have not looked into how Asians would react to out-group and in-group members by means of a focus group. They have merely used individual interviews, where the interaction cannot be seen directly.
CONCLUSION
Overall, it can be said that existing literature showed, that Asian Americans are mainly portrayed as nerds and experts in martial arts (Chang & Kleiner, 2003; Cabrera, 2014). The expected responses are due to the platform’s characteristics (source, motivation and interactivity) itself that is different from traditional media. Studies on the social identity theory showed that there are mixed results about how people react to images of their in-group members and out-group members depending on whether they are from a collectivist culture or an individualistic culture. Likewise, different reactions to Asian stereotypes on YouTube videos by Asian and European users towards are expected. Conclusively, the main research questions and aims will be:
1. How do Asians compared to Europeans respond to YouTube videos with Asian stereotypes? 2. Does in-group and out-group favoritism play a role in the response to Asian stereotypes? 3. How do Asians and Europeans interact within their groups and how do they interact with
each other?
M
ETHODOLOGY
This part explains how data were collected for this study. To meet the aims of this study, four focus groups were employed. In the beginning of each focus groups two examples of YouTube videos were shown. Focus groups were chosen because this will help to better illustrate the
interaction between Asians and Europeans. The way people react to in-group and out-group members would not be visible in individual interviews.
SAMPLE
Many studies have dealt with Asian Americans (Chang & Kleiner, 2003; Kibria, 2002; Cabrera, 2014), however as argued in the theoretical framework, there are differences between Europeans and Americans. Therefore, it was important to look specifically at Asians in Europe and Europeans. Having two categories (Asians versus Europeans), helped to compare and point out the differences between them. Two homogenous (Asians only and Europeans only) and two
heterogeneous focus groups were made. The different groups are important because the research question is about comparing two groups and the concentration lies on the cultural differences as the background analysis points out. Based on the theoretical background, it is important to look at the dynamic of in-group interaction and/versus out-group interaction.
The sample consisted of 26 students from Asia and Europe. One heterogeneous group consisted of seven participants and the other of five participants. The homogenous Asian group consisted of seven students and the homogenous European group also consisted of seven
nine were European countries. A detailed description of the participants can be found in the appendix A.
PROCEDURE
During all discussions, the confidentiality was explained to the respondents and they all completed a written consent. It explained that they will remain anonymous at all times and that they had the right to refrain from the study. The discussions took place at student’s familiar places, such as common room of a student house and lecture rooms of the university, where beamers were available to show the videos. In rooms where no beamers were available, a laptop was used to show the videos. The participants were audio-visually recorded. Mainly, in the beginning video-recorded to see their non-verbal responses to the videos shown. The discussion lasted around one to two hours. The researcher facilitated the discussion and tried to let the respondents mainly talk to not bias the discussion. Furthermore, the questions were open-ended to better comprehend the view of the participant (Creswell, 2008).
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Three main topics are built on the existing literature and are in an interview guide (see appendix B) designed to support the researcher during the discussions (Boyce & Neale, 2006). The first topic consisted of questions, such as “What comes into your mind after seeing the video?” The second topic touched upon questions, such as “What do you tell people, when they ask you where you are from? How does it make you feel?” The last topic discussed questions, such as “What differences do you see when encountering stereotypes on YouTube and in your everyday life?” Probing questions were used to gain a deeper understanding of their views by asking for instance “what exactly do you mean”?
To help kick-start the discussion two YouTube videos were selected based on four criteria. Firstly, the video needed to include either the ‘nerd’s stereotype or the ‘martial art’ stereotype. Secondly, videos from Asian Americans were used because the literature was based on Asian American stereotypes. In the theoretical framework it was argued that Asian Europeans, however
would react differently and with these example videos this issue can be examined. Thirdly, the videos needed to be in English, so that all attendees of the focus group are able to understand it. Finally, it needed to be made by a relatively popular YouTuber to ensure some quality of the video. The video ‘Kungfooled’ has 11 million viewers and the second video ‘What kind of Asian are you?’ at the moment of data collection had 7 million viewers. If a YouTuber is somewhat popular, s/he is also taking the creation of videos more seriously and therefore it can be assumed that the video quality is better compared to others.
The first video ‘Kungfooled’ showed how two Asian Americans discuss how stereotypes are overrated and that they are not necessarily true. However, later in the storyline one of the Asian Americans used the stereotype of martial art expert to his advantage to protect himself from being mugged. It also shows how he starts to believe that he actually can do Kung Fu. He also pretends to fight with another Asian American, but they both spate with the excuse that they should not fight in anger (see also https://youtu.be/pN8E8L5c9WI).
The second video ‘What kind of Asian are you?’ shows an Asian American meeting a ‘regular’ American during jogging. They start a conversation and the ‘regular’ American starts questioning where she would be from. No answer seemed to satisfy him, until she says that her grandparents are from Korea. He then starts to mention everything he knows about Korea, which irritated the Asian American woman. In the later scene the woman turns the question around and does exactly what the man did to her in the first place. He concluded that she was weird (see also
https://youtu.be/DWynJkN5HbQ).
DATA ANALYSIS
Firstly, the data were transcribed verbatim (Qian & Yarnal, 2011). Secondly, after the data were transcribed, Atlas.Ti was used to do the open coding, which resulted in 2000 codes (see example of code list appendix C). For this the transcript was read line by line to not miss out on any meanings. Thirdly, the codes with its belonging sections were printed to do focus coding. From the coding, several incidents were repeatedly mentioned and therefore categorized (see also
concept-indicator model in appendix D). In total four dimensions were identified: (1) evaluations of stereotypes, (2) experiences with stereotypes in YouTube videos, (3) reactions to stereotypes in daily life and (4) stereotypes enforce a certain presentation of social identity. Each of these dimensions consists of variations that illustrate the various opinions of the participants. For example, it was repeatedly in different words described how negative stereotypes were unacceptable and how positive stereotypes were acceptable. These opinions fell under the category/dimension “evaluations of stereotypes”. Fourthly, the transcript was read and the video-recorded data were examined to understand how Asians and Europeans interacted with each other. This was then also noted on the printed transcript. Finally, the demographics of the sample were illustrated by means of tables (see also appendix A).
To have internal validity two steps were undertaken. Firstly, member checks were important (e.g. Mays-Pope, 2000). For this a couple of participants were asked to read and see whether they could agree with what was written. Unclear statements were discussed with the participants and adjusted in the results. Secondly, the results were discussed with several other people and with the assigned supervisor. This is important because it can help to bring up other aspects that the
researcher might have overlooked (e.g. Shenton, 2004).
R
ESULTS
THE MEANING OF STEREOTYPES FROM STUDENT’S PERSPECTIVES
The meaning of stereotypes from the respondents’ position is one main concept that stood out from the analysis of data. Four dimensions belong to this core concept and are described as follows: (1) the evaluation of stereotypes, (2) the experiences with stereotypes in YouTube videos, (3) the reactions to stereotypes in daily life, and (4) the relationship of stereotypes with the pressure to present social identity. Each of these dimensions, together with its variations, will be explained in-depth. This section follows the structure of the concept-indicator model, which summarizes the results of this study in a graph as an answer to aim (1). The results for aim (2) and aim (3) will be
discussed in light of the literature in the discussion and conclusion section, as it is considered as more appropriate.
1. EVALUATION OF STEREOTYPES
This dimension describes how the participants concurred that negative stereotypes are unacceptable and positive stereotypes are acceptable. From the stories that participants have told, various strong opinions were expressed. From being annoyed and upset, to feeling that stereotypes are unacceptable and that stereotypes are reducing a person to only a few characteristics. However, stereotypes can also be positive, when a personal benefit is the result. Thereby, this dimension covers four variations, namely annoying greeting, unacceptable, minimizing person, and taking advantage.
Annoying greeting. This variation describes how Asian participants felt annoyed when facing people who were approaching them with greetings in Chinese or Japanese. They felt annoyed since they were assumed to be either Chinese or Japanese, when in fact they were Korean or Thai. What makes it even more annoying and bothersome for the students was the way the greetings were said. Especially in the Asian group discussion, everyone was familiar with such situations and nodded repeatedly to express agreement. One of the participants described it as follows:
“When they said to me (from others), then it’s like ni hao, konichiwa. They are adding with accent like niii haaao. Something like that: “Hey konishiwa sushi sushi.” So it’s like… I feel awkward and oh wow….”
In this case, the Asian participant explained that how someone greets him is more important than whether the greeting was in the correct language or not. It made the person feel strange and the participant was speechless and uncomfortable that someone did greet him in such a way.
Unacceptable. Some participants expressed that negative stereotypes are unacceptable. It would make them feel bad and offended. This opinion was the same across all groups.
“They (stereotypes) are also not nice, there are nasty ones. They are dirty, for example they eat weird things, or they eat everything. So for example these are really bad stereotypes. For the Arabs we have really bad ones. For example you can say you are a terrorist, you are anti-feminist.”
The participant gave an example of how people judge the participant because of the food choice. Some people confronted the participant to be eating strange food or that they are dirty. These examples are seen as examples of negative stereotypes. The participant considered the negative stereotypes as not true and offending.
Minimizing a person is bad. This opinion was repeatedly mentioned in all discussions. It portrayed how the participants felt reduced to stereotypes and that the stereotype made them feel bad. What is important here is that by using the stereotypes themselves, people are accepting the labels and actually support the way people are minimized by stereotypes.
“It’s also minimizing yourself because you… when you accepted it yourself, then you also did it with another Asian, trying to play Kung Fu. You minimize yourself. That means that you accept the label that was set by others.”
This quote refers to the first video where two Asians pretend to know Kung Fu to be protected. The participant cannot see the point in doing so because the people in the video are reducing themselves to a few characteristics to live up to the expectations of stereotypes and pretend to be someone they are not.
Taking advantage is good. This variation explains how some participants believed that there are not only bad issues coming with stereotypes. It is also possible to see the advantages when having stereotypes and using them to your benefit. One of the participants explained the following:
“Well, being German, people know Germans. They think you are really organized. It did get me a job once. They thought she must be organized. So that was good.”
The positive stereotype for her is that ‘Germans are organized’ because it turned out to be an advantage for her. Therefore, this stereotype seemed acceptable and good for her.
Overall, these variations described the ways stereotypes were generally evaluated.
Participants could see both sides of having and using stereotypes. They set the boundaries of when stereotypes are still acceptable and when they become unacceptable.
2. EXPERIENCES WITH STEREOTYPES IN YOUTUBE VIDEOS
This dimension explains that after watching the two example videos, students were
entertained because the stereotypes were rather positive and presented with humor. Two variations belong to this dimension, namely humor makes it acceptable and recognition.
Humor makes it acceptable. This variation has to do with whether the stereotypes were true and/or exaggerated. For the Asian participants it helped that the Asian stereotypes were presented with humor because the stereotype in the video was then more accepted. For Europeans, the video was harder to judge whether the stereotypes are still true or not. They had not much to say about the video in particular because the stereotypes were not about them, but they liked it that humor was involved.
“If there was no entertainment or humor or if it wouldn’t have been packaged like that. I think it would be tooreal for people”.
This participant points out how humor can make the shown stereotypes more acceptable.
Recognition. This variation deals with how students recognized the situation in the YouTube video or in any other media channel. They felt the more unrealistic the situation was, the higher the potential for them to feel confronted and eventually offended. The participants indicated that the first video (‘Kungfooled’) was less realistic because it was surreal and exaggerated. No one would pretend to fight in public in that way. The second video (‘What kind of Asian are you?’) was more realistic because they realized that they had encountered this situation before i.e. whether they were the one asking the question (‘where are you from?’) or they were being asked this question.
“That’s why they make the video like that. Because they want us to feel you are a part of it. You also experienced something. Oh it happened it me! Oh I see it somewhere in my daily life! It’s more or less the same, I would say.”
This quote explains how the participant recognizes himself or herself in the video and therefore the reaction in reality or to the video would be the same. The participants seemed positive about the video and were not upset or irritated.
Many of them also mentioned additional media, such as television. Media channel was less important compared to the strength of the stereotypes. For instance, some said that documentaries are often more neutral, which makes the stereotype less offensive. However, movies or YouTube videos that use strong and obvious stereotypes, but do not bring the message across that those stereotypes should not be taken seriously, are less favorable. The strength or obviousness of a stereotype is defined by how untrue a stereotype is. It would also help if the storyline were told with humor because the participants would not take it seriously and therefore feel less offended.
3. REACTIONS TO STEREOTYPES IN DAILY LIFE
This dimension describes how the students reacted to stereotypes in their everyday life by either reacting with irony, direct education or leaving the conversation.
Reacting with irony. When approached with stereotypes some participants opted to react with irony. They felt they had no other choice than to react in this way to get their message across. Participants felt that it was impossible to get rid of stereotypes. Instead of wasting energy on being upset about it, they tried to embrace the situation and make the ‘best’ out of it by reacting with irony. Especially, in the Asian group, the majority felt that they would not react as boldly as the women in the YouTube video (‘What kind of Asian are you?’). Only one participant, after another participant asked her, responded that she would react like the woman in the video. This answer surprised most of the participants and it seemed that the rest would not dare to do so.
“But sometimes once when I go to the open market, the guy also said ni hao in Chinese and I said back to him in Chinese. Of course I don’t know, but I know whatever I say, he wouldn’t understand. Just pretend.”
This person tries to react with irony by pretending to know Chinese and make fun of him that the person at the open market would not even understand what she was saying. It did not matter what she would say because she assumed that he would not understand in any case. Whether she would answer in a made up language or in any other Asian language. She does not care what he would think of her or whether it is appropriate or not because she was not thinking about the
consequences. For instance, what if the person indeed know a certain Asian language and get mad at her for making fun of him.
Direct education. Instead of reacting with irony most of the students also indicated to deal with stereotypes by trying to educate the conversation partner. They tried this by explaining them what other nice things exist about their country and how the stereotype might have been created and that it does not apply to every individual.
“You want (the knowledge about) that culture from their perspective. That’s very rich and then for me myself I’m tired of always explaining again again again and again and forward again and again. But then I had more of (an)other thought, which I felt (and) is that I also love to correct people’s perception. It also makes me feel better. But it’s also very tiring.”
Despite the fact that he acknowledges that it has its advantages to directly educate the people he is still tired of doing so.
Leave conversation One of the extreme reactions to stereotypes in everyday life is the situation when they felt that the conversation partner is no longer listening. Respondents mentioned that they would leave the conversation, when the conversation partner stays stubborn and sticks to personal ideas and stereotypes. In those situations, the participants felt bad, offended and
simultaneously helpless, because they could not do anything about it.
“I quit the conversation and get out of the situation, but I couldn’t do anything with it. Because maybe it something to do with culture wise to say it’s nasty to say it’s rude to tell her. So I couldn’t, so I shut and then I just pulled away. It was very mean. It was very mean.”
The participant felt helpless to the point that there was no other way to deal with the situation than leaving the conversation. To quit the conversation was not an ideal solution either, but it was the only way to deal with it. The participant did not know what else to do and was somewhat hurt by the actions of the person stereotyping him.
4. STEREOTYPES ENFORCE A CERTAIN PRESENTATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY
stereotypes about them would make them feel uncomfortable. This dimension has two variations, namely avoidance of negative identity connotation and mentioning certain identities for better impression.
Avoidance of negative identity connotation. This variation describes how some participants felt the need to use a different and a less common name of their country than the more common country name. By doing so they expect to not immediately trigger the negative stereotypes about their country. Some participants were surprised about that fact and felt by giving an unknown country name it would create more questions. Eventually, the person would need to explain him- or herself.
“I try to avoid Iranian. So it’s away from this media thing happening. I would say I’m Persian.”
This participant tries to avoid saying that s/he is from Iran, as this would create more negative stereotypes. This is to prevent being immediately judged or even seen as a ‘bad’ person.
Mentioning certain identities for better impression. This deals with how some students decide to mention other social identities than the country they are originally from. By doing so they expect to give a better impression of themselves and to actually use the stereotype to their
advantage. This choice and opinion found more agreement than the previous first variation of this dimension.
“I also mentioned UK, it kinda changed me and the opinion of the person because I’m from Latvia. Last three years I lived in UK, so it’s changed and they ask why you have so good English and so it’s a challenge to say only Latvia.”
The reason why this participant mentions the UK is because the person believes that it would reflect more positively on them. It is not only seen as an advantage, but because of the longer termed stay in the UK the person feels that it would give them a reason to add it to their social identity next to Latvia.
C
ONCLUSION AND
D
ISCUSSION
The first aim of the study was to find out how Asians and Europeans respond to YouTube videos with Asian stereotypes, and secondly, whether in-group and out-group favoritism played a role. The third aim was to look at the interaction among Asians (separately) and between Europeans and Asians. Firstly, the focus groups showed that negative stereotypes, were evaluated as bad and unacceptable. Positive stereotypes, however, were accepted and taken advantage of. Here, no differences were found between Asians and Europeans. The results go on to show that students are sometimes entertained by such YouTube videos because the stereotypes were rather positive and presented with humor. Moreover, the students reacted to stereotypes in their everyday life by either reacting with irony, direct education or leaving the conversation. It was also made known through the discussions, that students felt the pressure to present their social identity in a way, so other people would not have negative stereotypes about them. Secondly, the results for aim two indicate that in-group and out-group favoritism played only a role among Asians and the favoritism
depended on whether the Asian participants accepted the other person as Asian. Thirdly, Asians generally agreed more to each other with their body language by nodding, whereas Europeans expressed stronger verbal opinions.
In this section the results for aim (2) and (3) are also discussed in light of the theoretical framework. For aim (1), the reactions to Asian stereotypes and their social identity, as well as YouTube compared to traditional media and students’ reactions are discussed. For aim (2), in-group and out-group favoritism is discussed. Thirdly, the interaction between collectivist cultures and individualistic cultures are considered.
ASIANS’ AND EUROPEANS’ REACTIONS TO ASIAN STEREOTYPES AND THEIR SOCIAL IDENTITY
The background analysis showed that some Asians did not mind being labeled with positive stereotypes, whereas others did not want to be labeled at all (Oyserman and Sakamoto, 1997). In the focus groups, it did not matter whether the participants were Asians or Europeans since both groups found negative stereotypes to be unacceptable and positive stereotypes rather acceptable. Thehistorical background of a country did also not determine whether a person acknowledged negative stereotypes or not (Mlicki & Ellemers, 1996). This could be because all participants are living in an international environment and have dealt several times with negative and positive stereotypes. It was easier for them to handle positive stereotypes as they felt it had no disadvantage for them. Negative stereotypes however made them feel upset and sometimes to the point of helpless madness that they decided to leave the conversation.
The literature review also showed that Asians in the United States are still considered as foreigners and it affects their identity feeling (Tuan, 1998; Devos & Banaji, 2005; Cheryan & Monin, 2005). The literature explained that although they are named Asian American, it is still a separate category, which separates them from the ‘regular’ American. This could not be seen with Asians in Europe. There was only one participant who had an Asian Dutch background, but the person did not indicate any problems. It is to note that most Europeans struggled with defining the social identity at all since most of them have lived in multiple countries before coming to the Netherlands. Additionally, the European participants considered themselves as an international or a global citizen, rather than being a European or German or Dutch citizen. This is different to how Americans would define themselves as seen in literature, as they see themselves as strictly
Americans. When participants made the conclusion about being a global citizen, they realized that a stereotype is too simplistic and it is impossible to judge someone by their appearance.
A dual identity as described in literature (Kibria, 2002; Yu & Danico, 2004) came not up the focus groups. In some occasional cases participants described having a dual identity. Some said they would not know whether they are a Southerner or a Northerner (from their country). Or others said they grew up in the Netherlands, but their parents were from India. Thereby, they could not say whether they were Indian or Dutch. Nonetheless, the place where they were born is mostly the identity that they decide for and present to others. As the literature also mentioned, when Asian Americans felt belonging to two cultures, they used it to their advantage and adapted depending on the situation (Hong et al., 2000; Devos, 2006). In the focus group some participants said it would
help to mention both or one or the other because it would either help to avoid negative identity connotation (see also dimension four, variation one) or it would help to get a better impression (see also dimension four, variation two). The exact advantages as found in the results were not
mentioned in literature.
YOU
TUBE COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL MEDIA AND STUDENTS’
REACTIONSThe reactions to the YouTube videos were expected to be different due to the platform’s characteristics (source, motivation and interactivity) compared to traditional media. Firstly, regarding the source participants indicated that the medium is less important than the content. For instance, it was said that the strength of stereotypes is more of a decisive factor than the media choice itself. Furthermore, because traditional media has gatekeepers (Croteau, 2006; Schultz & Sheffer, 2010, Hull & Schmittel, 2015), participants expected them to have ‘better’ or less
stereotypes displayed than on YouTube. The reason is that traditional media has larger publicity and if the cultural representation is inaccurate, then more people will criticize them. The consequences are larger and more significant. Whether the Internet is perceived to be more credible compared to traditional media was unclear from the focus group discussions.
Secondly, regarding the interaction because YouTube is a two-sided communication platform, participants were more motivated to comment, dislike, and to share on social media than to do so with traditional media. In traditional media, the students felt that it was too much of a hassle to go to a second platform to complain about what they saw. If the video offered a direct comment section or buttons to like or dislike it, it would be easier for them to express their opinion towards the content. This shows a small advantage when using the platform YouTube, because it gives more insight into what users prefer. Thirdly, regarding the motivation of the producer of the videos, participants did not mention anything significant about it.
Most of the times the students felt indifferent when Asian stereotypes were shown in the YouTube video. However, in real life they would feel more attacked and addressed as mentioned by
that they felt like that. It would have been the same on television or any other media. What mattered was the strength of stereotypes and that it was presented in a humoristic way. Humor was important because it made all participants, no matter European or Asian, feel less attacked or offended.
IN-‐GROUP AND OUT-‐GROUP FAVORITISM
Mastro (2010) explains that people would justify negative behavior of in-group members and would feel indifferent about the negative behavior of out-group members. This means if people accept others as their in-group members, then they also favor them more and thereby justification takes place. What Mastro (2010) found in his study, is somewhat reflected in the focus groups. The sample videos did not particularly display negative behavior compared to what Mastro (2010) did with criminal behavior. Each individual defines a ‘negative’ behavior subjectively. In this case, a behavior was considered “negative” when participants described the people in the video as stupid or dumb, for instance.
The results of the current study showed that not all Asians accepted Asian Americans as Asians. Some participants considered the Asian Americans to be more American than Asians. As a result, they felt less related to Asian Americans in the YouTube video and did not feel the need to justify any ‘negative’ behavior. When Asian participants justified the ‘negative’ behavior, they showed in-group favoritism. Justification took place by finding positive aspects of the people’s behavior in the video. For instance, it was said that it was smart of them to use Asian stereotypes (being a martial expert) as a protection for themselves, when in danger. Europeans did not feel related to the Asian stereotypes and thereby started to talk about stereotypes in general and connecting it to their personal experiences about their own country. They felt indifferent about Asian stereotypes as Mastro (2010) found out.
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN COLLECTIVIST AND INDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURES
Asian countries are collectivist cultures (Kagitcibasi, 1996) and this was seen in the
interaction. Generally, Asians expressed less extreme opinions if at all, and they were often talking about “our country” unlike European participants who often talked about “I” and “me”. The
interaction among Asians was different compared to Europeans. Asians nodded more and agreed more to each other than Europeans. This affected the overall interaction atmosphere because Asian participants had to be often approached by the interviewer to receive their opinion about the discussed topic. Europeans were stronger in expressing their personal opinion and were not shy when their opinions were different from the rest. This difference between Europeans and Asians was especially seen when both were in the same group.
Comparatively, the more “westernized” Asians were, the more open they were and had more non-Asian friends than Asian friends. They were considered as more westernized since they
interacted with Western people and also had a more extrovert character. This is in line with what Ritter (2013) illustrated in his dissertation, that Asians are becoming more westernized over time. Nonetheless, these westernized Asian participants did not want to say explicitly that they are more Western than Asian. They preferred to say that they are not the “regular” Asian person. This might be because fear to be not accepted by other Asians anymore.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Three main limitations come along with the current study. One of the limitations is the sample, because only students were recruited. The students that participated in the discussions were used to the question “where are you from?” and often answered the question themselves, before the conversation partner would ask them. These students have adapted to an international life and have encountered various situations with stereotypes. Consequently, they learned to deal with situations that had stereotypes. It would be interesting to see a different perspective. Other people with not so much experience abroad and people who do not regularly encounter foreigners might not have the experience and knowledge about how to deal with stereotypes (e.g. Rivadeneyra, 2006). Their reaction might be different from international students, because they are more likely to rely on the media. This is their only source for encountering other racial groups. Such people could be living in a strongly closed community, such as Asians in Europe who live, work in China Town and only interact with Asians. These people might react differently because they could have a stronger sense
of belonging to their original heritage than have adapted to the culture of the place they are living. This is also referred to as community identity, because it refers to the community people live in and whether they strongly they feel belonging to it (Peroff, 1997; Cheng, 2015).
The second limitation is the fact that only YouTube videos were used as examples in the discussion, although the background analysis indicated a comparison between YouTube and traditional media. This limited the study results because in this case the participants only imagined how it would be on traditional media. During the focus group discussions, it was seen that
participants had difficulties to imagine stereotypes in other media and thus could not say much about it. By adding a commercial from television or a short scene from a movie and then showing the YouTube video, participants could have had a better understanding of what is meant to have stereotypes on YouTube.
In line with this, a future research suggestion is to explore how humor is related to
stereotypes and its acceptance. Humor was not considered before in the theoretical framework, but it came up multiple times during the discussions. Stereotypes could be influenced by humor. The example videos had humor in them, as the participants described it, which made the videos acceptable and entertaining. Different kinds of humor can bring out different reactions because humor can be understood differently depending on the person and situation (Lickyer & Pickering, 2008).
The third limitation refers to the role of the interviewer. It is important to acknowledge that the interviewer is of Asian descent and this could have influenced the results of the focus group discussions. On the one hand, participants might have felt reluctant to express their opinion about Asians, when having an Asian interviewer in front of them. They might not want to offend the interviewer or say something wrong. On the other hand, Asian participants might be more comfortable because they considered the Asian interviewer as their in-group member and more trustworthy. To get the most out of the discussions, it is recommended to have one European
looking interviewer and one Asian looking interviewer to see whether the results differ. The results then would draw a better picture of the overall meaning of stereotypes in YouTube videos.
CONCLUSION
Stereotyping will always exist because it helps people to make sense of their social environment. Especially, with globalization and people becoming more international and sophisticated, new cultures will and can emerge. This was not yet taking into account with
regarding stereotypes and social identity theory. How international people already are, were seen in the current study by having international students participating. A simple question, “where ARE you from?” cannot be easily answered anymore as before, when cultures merge. Thus, new
stereotypes with new challenges can emerge. What matters is how stereotypes are used and for what reasons, because at the end the participants only cared about whether the stereotype was negative. If the negative stereotypes were presented with humor, it would have been acceptable. The current study is adding to the overall understanding of how Asian and European students evaluate and deal with stereotypes in the media and in their everyday life. The study results indicated that Asians in Europe and Europeans differ from Asian Americans and this should be further explored.
Advertisers and famous YouTubers should take the trueness of the stereotypes into consideration. If they would like to make use of stereotypes, then it is better to use positive stereotypes and to present stereotypes in humoristic way. This is because humor can make it less offensive and entertaining. Stereotypes exist as the quote in the beginning said for simplistic reasons and it only exists because people eventually believe stereotypes are real.
R
EFERENCES
Adami, E. (2009). ‘We/ YouTube’: Exploring sign- making in video- interaction. Visual Communication, 8(4), 379-399. doi: 10.1177/1470357209343357
Appiah, O. (2001). Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian American adolescents' responses to culturally embedded ads. Howard Journal of Communications, 12(1), 29-48. doi: 10.1080/10646170117577
Armstrong, C. L., & Nelson, M. R. (2005). How newspaper sources trigger gender stereotypes (author abstract). Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 820.
Benevenuto, F., Duarte, F., Rodrigues, T., Almeida, V., Almeida, J., & Ross, K. (2008). Characterizing video responses in social networks. Retrieved from
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4865
Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting In-Depth Interviews: A Guide for Designing and Conducting In-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Pathfinder International. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/R3s3jR
Burgess, J. (2009). In Green J. (Ed.), YouTube: Online video and participatory culture / Jean Burgess and Joshua Green; with contrib. by Henry Jenkins and John Hartley. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge etc.] : Polity.
Cabrera, N. L. (2014). Beyond black and white: How white, male, college students see their Asian American peers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(2), 133-151.
doi:10.1080/10665684.2014.900427
Chang, & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). Common racial stereotypes. Equal Opportunities International, 22(3), 1-9. doi: 10.1108/02610150310787388
Cheng, S. Y. (2015) Beyond the cultural turn: Indigenous identity and mainstream identity. In Jacob, W. J., Cheng, S. Y., & Porter, M. K. (2015). (Eds.) Indigenous Education: Language, Culture and Identity, (381-394). Dordrecht: Springer
Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2005). “Where are you really from?” Asian Americans and identity denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 717-730. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.717
racism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Croteau, D. (2006). The growth of self- produced media content and the challenge to media studies. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23(4), 340-344. doi:
10.1080/07393180600933170
Daniels, J. (2009). Cloaked websites: Propaganda, cyber- racism and epistemology in the digital era. doi: 10.1177/1461444809105345
Dang, C. T., & Kline, S. L. (2015). "I can't afford you to flunk": Positive Asian stereotypes and supportive communication for Asian college students. In Modern Societal Impacts of the
Model Minority Stereotype (pp. 1-35). Retrieved from https://goo.gl/nBIydx
Devos, T. (2006). Implicit bicultural identity among Mexican American and Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(3), 381-402. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.12.3.381
Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = white? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 447-466. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.447
Duffy, M. E. (2003). Web of hate: A fantasy theme analysis of the rhetorical vision of hate groups online. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 27(3), 291-312.
Gaither, S. E., Chen, E. E., Corriveau, K. H., Harris, P. L., Ambady, N., & Sommers, S. R. (2014). Monoracial and biracial children: Effects of racial identity saliency on social learning and social preferences. Child Development, 85(6), 2299-2316. doi:10.1111/cdev.12266 Godwin-Jones, R. (2007). Digital video update: YouTube, flash, high- definition. (column).
Language, Learning & Technology, 11(1), 16-21.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self- esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27.
Americans, Latinos, and Asians in YouTube videos. Howard Journal of Communications, 25(3), 281-302. doi:10.1080/10646175.2014.925413
Hall, S., Evans, J., & Nixon, S. (2013). Representation (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709-20. Hossein, A., Sultana, N., & Biswas, S. (2015). A proportional study and analysis: Evaluation the
effectiveness of word of mouth marketing in opposition to traditional advertising
concerning medical treatment facilities in Bangladesh. Management and Organizational Studies, 2(1), 143-152. DOI: 10.5430/mos.v2n1p143
Huang, G. (2014). Assimilation, Social Network Sites and Asian Stereotype: Understanding
Chinese-American Teenagers in Austin (Master's thesis, University of Texas).
Hui, C. H., Triandis, H. C., & Yee, C. (1991). Cultural differences in reward allocation: Is collectivism the explanation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 145-157. Inoue, Y. (2005). Critical Thinking and Diversity Experiences: A Connection. American
Educational Research Association.
Jonas, J. R. (2010). Source credibility of company-produced and user-generated content on the Internet; An exploratory study on the Filipino study on the Filipino youth. Philippine Management Review, 17, 121-132.
Kâğıtçıbaşı, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Kibria, N. (2002). Becoming Asian American: Second generation Chinese and Korean American identities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Koch, E. (n.d.). Access-Brainy Quote. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/SJZK71
Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal- based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 522-544. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.522
Loftus, G., & Harley, E. (2005). Why is it easier to identify someone close than far away? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(1), 43-65. doi: 10.3758/BF03196348
Mastro, D. E. (2003). A social identity approach to understanding the impact of television messages. Communication Monographs, 70(2), 98-113.
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research (education and debate). British Medical Journal, 320 (7226), 50-52.
McCauley, C., & Stitt, C. L. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(9), 929-940. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.9.929 McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Spears, R. (2002). Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of
meaningful beliefs about social groups / ed.] by Craig McGarty, Vincent Y. Yzerbyt and Russell Spears. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge etc.]: Cambridge University Press.
Mlicki, P. P., & Ellemers, N. (1996). Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(1), 97-114. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199601)26:1<97::AID-EJSP739>3.0.CO;2-F
Murji, K. (2006). Using racial stereotypes in anti-racist campaigns. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(2), 260-280. doi: 10.1080/01419870500465488
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231-59.
Oyserman, D., & Sakamoto, I. (1997). Being Asian identity, cultural constructs and stereotype perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(4), 435-453.
Peroff, N. C. (1997). Indian identity. The Social Science Journal, 34(4), 485-494. doi: 10.1016/S0362-3319(97)90007-0
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multi group ethnic identity measures a new scale for use with diverse Groups. Journal of Adolescent Research. doi: 10.1177/074355489272003
Redmond, M. R. (2010). Cultural stereotypes of disabled and non‐ disabled men and women: Consensus for global category representations and diagnostic domains. British Journal of
