山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）1－16

ArticleEthnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem
Stephen B. RYAN
1.0 Introduction
In this paper, we discuss how cross-cultural communication is affected by cognitive biases thatare often reinforced by the way we regard culture. Although the study of cognitive bias is within thefield of cognitive psychology, it frequently overlaps with Intercultural Communication (IC) contexts.
Biases are a natural part of the thinking process that allow us to take mental shortcuts to process theoverabundance of stimuli in our environments. This is particularly applicable in IC contexts because
we are surrounded by new cultures and people along with different stimuli cues that require quickinterpretation. We first discuss how particular definitions of culture itself can influence ethnocentric
thinking and specific types of stereotypes in cross-cultural contexts. We then move on to discussing theintertwining concepts of ethnocentrism, stereotype, cultural schema and bias. Several bias categories are
particularly prone to negatively affecting cross-cultural interaction and the misinterpretation of others’
intended meaning. We argue that once cultural biases are initially formed, they often result in uniqueand deep-rooted cultural schemas that can continually affect cross-cultural communication outcomes.
By highlighting cognitive aspects of cultural schema, deep cultural knowledge can be brought out of theunconscious mind of cultural schema and into a conscious level of understanding where it can be better
understood and studied to avoid unnecessary ethnocentric thinking and interpretations.

2.0 Defining ethnocentrism and stereotyping
In section 3.0, we shall discuss how the way we see and think about culture may encourage
ethnocentrism and stereotyping. First, however, let us now define these two terms. The terms
ethnocentrism and stereotyping are similar but refer to different areas within the same abstract meaning.
Ethnocentrism is basically defined as, “the attitude that one’s own group, ethnicity, or nationality issuperior to others. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d.). We can see that the definition of ethnocentrism
is quite broad, negative in meaning and can be applied intra-culturally (within the same cultural group)
as well as inter-culturally (outside our cultural in-group). Because ethnocentrism is an attitude or a
－1 －Ethnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem―RYAN

mindset, it operates at a cognitive level as a schema or preexisting set of knowledge. Schema exists
as an unconscious level of thinking formed by years of experience and interactions that underpin ourvalues and norms which we use to make judgments of others’ behavior. An ethnocentric mindset views
one’s own culture as the standard by which to judge other cultures. This standard becomes establishedand made accessible through learned cultural background knowledge or cultural schema. Although
we certainly learn some biases and apply them through cultural schema, most researchers (Kahneman2011) tend to agree with Allport (1954) that ethnocentrism is also a natural phenomenon and notnecessarily negative as we tend to value individuals in our in-group communities in a largely positive
way. However, ethnocentrism tends to have a larger negative impact on the minority cultural group(C2) and second language speaker. Some authors (see Lee and Rice 2007, Goundiam 2024) describe
how ethnocentrism can affect the C2 speaker. For instance, regarding immigrants trying to fit into thedominant culture (C1) office or classroom culture “…may be subjected to discrimination, bias andracism. I myself have been isolated and bullied, and I’ve faced language barriers as a francophone;even after all these years, my mind works differently than those whose first language is English. These
factors can hinder your growth” (Goundiam, 2024). The author’s experience is consistent with my own
experience (33 years) as a (challenged) second language Japanese-speaking American living in Japan.
But, I would also add here that the dominant culture native speaker may at times be unaware of theirbias because of a lack of awareness of their cultural norms and values. Hence, a need for a cognitive
approach to the study of culture.
While the term ethnocentrism applies a broad standard, stereotyping tends to be more specific toa particular image or person. Stereotyping can be defined as, “a fixed idea or image that many people
have of a particular type of person or thing, but which is often not true in reality and may cause hurt
and offence” (Oxford Learners’ Dictionary, n.d.). Thus, stereotyping is more specific to persons or things
while ethnocentrism focuses on comparing other cultural groups to our own. Stereotyping involves anatural mental process of simplifying and categorizing people from different groups based on broad
generalizations for ease of recall and understanding. Although both stereotyping and ethnocentrism arenatural human phenomena, when applied to groups of people they can easily lead to discrimination,
cultural insensitivity, and minimization, if not recognized. In sum, ethnocentrism is a larger term moresuitable for intercultural communication because we are often comparing two national group cultures
while stereotyping is more specific to a person or symbol.
2.1

Background of stereotype
When we discuss stereotyping and aspects of the mind, we must acknowledge Allport’s (1954)

groundbreaking work in psychology that explored the concept of stereotyping as it applied to shaping－2 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）1－16

prejudice and discrimination. He introduced a key hypothesis called the “contact hypothesis” which isparticularly relevant to the field of Intercultural Communication education and training. This simple
hypothesis suggests that positive face-to-face interactions between two distinct cultural groups canhelp reduce prejudice, discrimination, and challenge long-held stereotypes. For this reason, many
universities and governments have established study abroad programs, internships, and scholarships
to encourage foreign students to visit their institutions (and vice versa) to interact with others faceto-face. Unfortunately, in many countries, including the US and Japan, humanities and liberal arts
programs that promote face-to-face intercultural interaction are continually under pressure of being
defunded or are undervalued. A 2013 survey (Times Editorial Board) found that 90% of employers
agreed that an applicant’s ability to solve complex problems, communicate clearly, think critically, andpossess intercultural skills is important to their success. These skills are emphasized in most humanities
curricula and help contribute to successful intercultural communication.
Although stereotypes can be harmful in forming negative attitudes towards other groups, Allportalso contends that stereotypes, like its larger cousin ethnocentrism, are not inherently negative andprovide cognitive shortcuts which allow us to process complex stimuli more easily thus smoothingcommunication and decision making especially within similar cultural groups. Jost and Hamilton(2005) give an overview of past research on stereotypes explaining how content for them is formed andcategorized. The authors add that stereotypes diffuse meaning and legitimacy into social interactions
and serve to “preserve and bolster the status quo” (p. 220). In Intercultural Communication we divide
the native speaker (C1 culture) and non-native speaker (C2 culture) into two distinct national groups.
Cognitive psychologists above label these groups as being advantageous or disadvantageous groups.
From an IC perspective, the native speaker (C1) can not only be at an advantage, because of language
competency, but also at a disadvantage because of the lack of C2 knowledge of the listener’s (C2)communication norms. However, it is almost always the C2 disadvantageous group that receives thebrunt of the negative effects of ethnocentrism and stereotyping.
2.2

The process of cultural system justification
The paradox created by ethnocentrism and stereotyping is that by valuing our like-minded

community members (C1), people from different backgrounds (C2), the out-group, tend to be minimized
as a result. This minimizing or devaluing process of the outgroup creates a lack of empathy which inturn can easily result in discrimination and prejudice because it has become the standard in societal
norms. For example, loss of human life due to natural disasters will almost always tend to be coveredin the affected home country’s media more extensively than in faraway international media. Or, in the
United States, those who can afford the best health care insurance and care (advantageous group) tend
－3 －

Ethnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem―RYAN

to believe that a higher-priced for-profit insurance system is perfectly acceptable because of a lack ofaffordability and accessibility does not affect them greatly due to their income level, political ideology
or because they are benefiting in some way from the current system. Lack of empathy underpins a lackof effort (denial and minimization) to attempt to understand something that is different and perceived
to be of less value than the current system thus completing a vicious cycle of ignorance and uncaring
attitudes towards differences. When the dominant cultural group seeks to maintain an advantageous
position in society by using existing institutional systems, and unspoken rules it is a phenomenon calledsystem justification process (Jost and Hamilton, 2005). This term in cognitive psychology refers to a
“psychological mechanism by which individuals tend to rationalize and defend existing social, economic,
and political systems, even when those systems may be unfair or unequal. It is a cognitive bias that
leads people to perceive these systems as more legitimate and just than they might actually be. This
process plays a significant role in how people view and interact with the larger social world aroundthem” (OpenAI 2023).
So, how does the cognitive psychology term “system justification process” apply to interculturalcommunication contexts?

People from different cultural backgrounds perceive and interact withinstitutions and social systems very differently. For example, as mentioned above, in the US, a private
healthcare system is used as opposed to a public one. Most people believe that private institutions are
more efficient and serve the individual more effectively and believe that public institutions are related to“socialism” - a word that is perceived negatively in the US which strongly affects how people perceive
and interact with government institutions. This type of belief system justifies a private health careinsurance system that is not only more expensive and less accessible than a public option but has poorer
health outcomes. Such kind of cognitive biases are “shaped and exacerbated by actual inequalities ofopportunity in society (which prevent group memberships and achieved outcomes from varying freely)
as well as by selective reporting in the mass media” (Josh and Hamilton, p. 214).
Another way that the system justification process applies to intercultural communication is theway cultural groups regard equality, justice and fairness. This process can “influence how individuals
from different cultural backgrounds perceive and respond to perceived injustices within their societies.
Some individuals may be more prone to justifying existing systems, even when they lead to inequities,
while others may be more motivated to advocate for change. These differences in perception can lead tomisunderstandings and conflicts during intercultural interactions” (OpenAI, 2023).
Cultural beliefs and values play a significant role in system justification. As mentioned above,some cultures like Japan, value collectivism, social hierarchy, (see Hofstede et.al. 2010) and highcontext communication styles (see Hall 1976). This cultural preference results in indirect or ambiguous
communication strategies that highly prize social harmony in relationships. Therefore, when discussing－4 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）1－16

sensitive topics like social issues or social systems, you are less likely to see open conflict or criticalcomments made in public or a room full of strangers. This tendency sharply contrasts with low power
distance, and low context cultures that base communication on social equality.
By understanding the role of system justification in intercultural communication contexts, we are
empowered to develop effective cross-cultural communication strategies. In sum, understanding thesystem justification process of cognitive psychology provides a useful framework for understanding how
individuals from different cultural backgrounds perceive and interact with social systems and institutions.

3.0 The culture definition problem
We can have a better understanding of cultural stereotyping by linking it to how we think about
and define culture. The basic dictionary definition of culture starts with a superficial or surface approachby defining culture as something (e.g. art, food, clothing, music, etc) that results from human activity.
Culture, regarded in this way, is something to be appreciated, seen, or used. Most dictionaries give a
range of definitions suggesting that the definition of culture itself depends on context. For example,
Webster’s dictionary gives eight distinct definitions of culture ranging from “a set of values, conventions
or social practices associated to particular field” to “ the act of developing the intellectual and moral
faculties ” (Merriam-Webster 2023). Culture seems to mean something different depending upon ourcontext of study, work, or point of view. Therefore, how we regard culture makes it easier to form
both positive and negative biases. For example, we sometimes connect food to cultural values, “Latin
American food tends to be spicy because the people value passion in daily life” or “Japanese food israther bland and simple showing the Japanese values of humility and simplicity”. We often stereotype
entire generations as being of a certain type – “Millennials don’t like to work as hard as the Baby
Boomers.” Stereotyping and ethnocentric attitudes are a natural way humans try to understand complex
stimuli. Humans stereotype especially when it is something we have little first-hand knowledge about- such as people living in different cultures. For example, we often stereotype entire nationalities orregions without much thought: “Latin Americans are passionate”, “Germans are efficient and organized”
or “Japanese communicate ambiguously.” However, by approaching the definition of culture from a
cognitive or mental perspective, we can more readily recognize how we interpret the behavior of others
by being more aware of our point of view. Making a conscious effort to understand “the other” culture
can also help build empathy a key component for increasing intercultural competence.
To avoid using “culture” to justify stereotypes, it is useful to think of culture in a way that canhighlight cognitive bias. Shaules (2023) offers a useful way to define culture by organizing the way wethink about it into three areas: culture as being ( identity) , doing ( behaviors) and seeing ( understanding－5 －Ethnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem―RYAN

shared ways of interpretation) . First, culture as identity stresses a national identity and emphasizes
pride in our own culture while clearly delineating us (my culture) and them (the other culture). Thinkingof culture as “being” tends to reinforce ethnocentrisms based on national identity – “French take a lotof holidays” and “British people are reserved.” It is often the result of a lack of experience, and what
Kahneman (2011) calls intuitive heuristics or mental shortcuts because our mind is always searching forthe easiest most accessible answers and familiarity. Biases such as familiarity bias are often the result.
It takes mental effort to interpret new information or behavior and organize it into new categories forinterpretation. Bennett (2011, 2017) labels (see Figure 1) this level of understanding of culture as Denialin his Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). That is, the thinking goes like this; “I
don’t need to understand other cultures because mine is the best.” People who think in these simplistic
terms often feel there is no need to know more about the other and are on the Denial-Defensive end ofBennett’s intercultural competence scale.
Figure 1

Regarding culture as a national identity (being) is the most simplistic viewpoint that requires little
introspection and, therefore, often results in perpetuating negative stereotypes and biases.
Another way of regarding culture, which can influence ethnocentric thinking, is to see culture
from a predictable set of behaviors (doing) perspective (Shaules 2023). For example, expecting that all
Japanese will bow instead of shaking hands or speak more politely to outsiders. Indeed, the vast majority
may do so and regarding culture as an expected set of behaviors can be useful in many short-term
situations, particularly business contexts, by helping us get by in novel cross-cultural contexts (e.g., don’t
immediately put a Japanese person’s business card in your pocket after they give it to you). However,by reducing our understanding of culture to a set of predictable behaviors risks legitimizing current
stereotypes and maintaining the current level of ethnocentrism by seeking to minimize differences. Of
course, some people do indeed act differently than what is expected from the norm (e.g., Some Japanese
are in fact not reserved but outgoing) and this diversity of divergent behavior from the cultural norms
is why the study of intercultural communication can be challenging. Intercultural Communication
seeks to highlight cultural patterns and tendencies to help both parties share a common understanding.
－6 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）1－16

Understanding culture as a set of behaviors has useful benefits to the short-term sojourner but is also
potentially harmful to long-term communication if it is the only cultural perspective we understand.
The final way of understanding and thinking about culture regards culture as understanding sharedways of interpretation (seeing). This perspective is the most complex and takes a cognitive perspective
because perception plays a key role here. By regarding culture in this way, culture is seen as a shared
way of understanding the stimuli around us. Do we share the same perception and interpretation of aparticular gesture or use of speech? If not, why? This approach then takes cognitive effort and highlights
the need to understand what norms are typical in our own cultural value system not only the other.
“We acquire our cultural beliefs, values and communication norms often on a very unconscious level.
Without a comparative basis, we may never question the way we have been conditioned and socializedin our primary cultural system. Cultural socialization, in one sense, encourages the development of
ethnocentrism” (Ting-Toomey and Chung 2012, p. 14).
As Shaules (2023) states, mixing these three perspectives of being, doing and seeing often causes
confusion when trying to understand culture. Critics will often say, “If Japanese people are so politethen why does my friend Taro speak very directly and rudely?” (culture as doing perspective). Anothercriticism suggests that, “we should regard people as unique individuals rather than stereotyping themas cultural beings.” This point of view minimizes (see Ryan 2020) cultural differences and cedes
power to the dominant cultural group. These types of viewpoints are also counterproductive for several
reasons. First, if we fall into the cognitive trap of trying to understand culture solely from a being or
doing or solely humanistic perspective, we fall into what Bennett (2011) calls the minimization stageof the intercultural sensitivity model. Minimization occurs when minority individuals are believed
to be “just like us” and differences are unconsciously minimized, or disregarded, thereby ceding
power, and decision-making to the majority (see system justification process in cognitive psychology,
Section 3.1). Being a unique individual and sharing ways of understanding has never been mutually
exclusive. To recognize unique or individualistic behavior, a shared understanding of what is regarded
as typical behavior in the first place is necessary. If an intercultural trainer walked into an interculturalcompetence training seminar and suggested to the participants that we are all individuals, there is no
big C culture, and we only need to see others as a unique individual, then besides some angry seminar
participants, a “minimization” of differences is promoted and culture as “being” perspective becomes aschema or an unconscious knowledge default position.
In sum, culture internalizes our beliefs, values, and communication norms but this process also
encourages further reinforcement of ethnocentrisms in the form of hard-to-change schema unless wecan compare our communication differences to another cultural system of norms and values while being
more aware of how we define culture itself.
－7 －Ethnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem―RYAN

3.1 Forming schema and bias
The parable of the blind encountering an elephant for the first time is a useful metaphor for how
we often deal with information from a particular cultural point of view. The Buddhist parable originatesfrom the ancient Buddhist text Tittha Sutta from c. 500 BCE (Wikipedia, n.d.). The story goes as follows:
Six blind men are brought to examine an elephant that has come to their village.
The first man touches the trunk and says that the elephant is like a thick snake.
The second man touches the tusk and says that the elephant is like a spear.
The third man touches the ear and says that the elephant is like a fan.
The fourth man touches the leg and says that the elephant is like a tree.
The fifth man touches the side and says the elephant is like a wall.
The sixth man touches the tail and says the elephant is like a rope.
Each of the blind men is convinced that he is right, and that everyone else is wrong.
								

(Bloom, n.d.)

The story suggests that while one’s subjective experience can hold truth, it is also quite limited
due to its failure to account for the truths of others or the totality of them. Likewise, in crosscultural communication, we interact with others who hold different subjective experiences resulting
in unique world viewpoints, opinions, values and norms. Without descending into a simple form ofcultural relativism, a cognitive approach to intercultural communication seeks to find those patternsof differences and explain how or why they came to be in the first place. Armed with this knowledge,
communication can improve building trust and empathy making it easier to correctly interpret and sharethe same meanings.
If interpretation is the key factor in sharing understanding, then a cognitive approach tounderstanding and highlighting intercultural communication patterns becomes paramount. The processof stimuli interpretation starts with our perception. The process starts with the selection of what ourcultural schema tells us to recognize as the key stimuli, then we use our experience to organize thisinformation and then the final interpretation follows. If we have no experience with elephants, such aswith the six blind men, we make our best guess based on what we have experienced in our own culturalcontext.
We know that to communicate efficiently, we need to take mental shortcuts (see Kahneman’s intuitive heuristics 2011) and simplify the complex world of stimuli surrounding our busy journey
through daily life. Taking mental shortcuts to increase efficiency in thinking and communication
involves the use of schema or schemata (pl.). This has a wider meaning than the term “cultural－8 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）1－16

construct” which refers to a specific belief or understanding about something in the world shared bymembers of the same culture. Schemata are mental representations that organize our knowledge, beliefs
and experiences into easily accessible categories. Research has shown that our behavior is connected tothe type of information we store in our brains (Nishida 2005, p. 402). Thus, schemata provide a structure
or framework of interpretation for our mental biases. Nishida (2005) identifies eight types of culturalschemas: fact-and-concept schema, person schema, self-schema, role schema, context schema, procedureschema, strategy schema, and emotion schema. These schemata activate preexisting knowledge such asproblem-solving strategies and social role expectations. Each framework greatly aids in making sense ofcomplex information and guides us to be able to communicate efficiently. However, schemata, becauseof their simplified framework, also result in unconscious biases that have the potential to be harmful tosharing the same meaning in the cross-cultural communication process. For example, when I first lived
in Japan and rented an apartment, I contacted my landlord about an old air conditioner that was notcooling well. The telephone conversation in Japanese went something like this (M=me, L=landlord):
M: Hello. I’m calling about my air conditioner. It is not cooling well.
L: Is that so…. have you tried cleaning it?
M: Yes, I have tried, but it still is not working well.
L: Yes, I understand.
M: It looks quite old. So, can it be replaced?
L: I will contact the owner….but I think it will be difficult.
M: OK, well, tell him that I will be happy to help him if he needs it.
In this short exchange, I did not have the Japanese schemata for “indirect refusals” (i.e. “It will bedifficult”) as this information was inconsistent with my own English low-context, direct style ofcommunication. As a result, I misunderstood the landlord to mean, “although it will be difficult todo the work, it is possible to have a new one installed.” The Japanese phrase むずかしです ,or it isdifficult, is a common way to indirectly refuse a request without directly saying “no” in Japanese. This
communication strategy is inconsistent with native English speakers’ schemata and so the meaning has
become distorted to fit my existing C1 schemata.
As this example shows, schema bias represents our core (cultural) beliefs and is resistant tochange. This resistance creates hidden biases that influence how we interpret communicative behavior
among other things. Information that does not fit tends to be unrecognized, ignored, rejected, distorted,or minimized, while information that fits our schema tends to make the existing schema stronger (seeFigure 2).
－9 －Ethnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem―RYAN

Figure 2(Schema Bias Worksheet. Psychologytool.com)

Looking at Figure 2 above, existing schema tends to be resistant to conflicting new information
because it takes more mental effort to incorporate it. We tend to follow the path of least resistanceand allow information that already fits with our preexisting set of knowledge to make decisionmaking easier and more efficient. Because individuals construct their subjective reality on their biased
interpretations of input, a cognitive bias is formed that affects behavior and decision-making. Having
too much information often results in confirmation bias, expectation bias and a host of other biases (seecognitive bias codex, section 4.0).

4.0 Cognitive Bias Codex
Understanding cognitive biases is a helpful way to highlight ethnocentrism and specific types ofstereotypes that we may have in intercultural communication contexts. The cognitive bias codex wheel(see Figure 3) visually highlights a prodigious number of biases. In total, 188 cognitive biases have been
identified and coded into four categories: 1) what should we remember? 2) too much information 3) notenough meaning 4) need to act fast. If these biases can indeed be applied to communication contexts
for two speakers of the same culture (C1-C1), the effect they have on intercultural communication (C1-C2)
are most likely larger because the second language speaker (C2) is using a unique set of learned norms
and values to interpret the native speaker’s (C1) intended message. In addition, language competency andintercultural competence play a strong role in meaning negotiation as the second language speaker may
be unaware of communication rules and/or lack the language competency to employ them correctly toreach the correct interpretation. While we are continually constructing a worldview, we use our previous－11 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）1－16

experience to interpret specific events. We react to the stimuli around us quickly utilizing what wealready know and have experienced. Because the world around us contains too many stimuli to mentallyprocess, we select the stimuli that we learned how to perceive as important, or different. Thus, we areculturally conditioned to select certain stimuli and while ignoring others. The term “bias” results fromthis process. When we are operating in a foreign context or under stress, we are more susceptible tobiases because of the unique patterns and norms of each respective culture valued in communication.
Figure 3(Wikipedia Commons, 2023)

While the Cognitive Bias Codex (see Figure 3) identifies 188 biases falling under four categories of bias
two of these categories (3 and 4) are particularly disruptive to intercultural communication contexts.
4.1 Category 3 – the need to act fast (in unfamiliar cultural contexts)
In real-time communication, we need to act fast in order to process the information we hear andsee. However, information that comes too quickly overloads our ability to assimilate and function
effectively. Therefore, we must rely on previous experience and norms of our C1 to interpret information.
Status quo bias falls under the need to act fast category of the codex. This bias occurs because of thehuman tendency to favor information that is immediate and relatable as opposed to distant and delayed.
Humans have a constant need to simplify to interpret the fluid flow of external stimuli. When applied
to a cross-cultural context, speakers will default to unique forms of the status quo depending on the－11 －Ethnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem―RYAN

framework of our cultural schema. For instance, in the Japanese workplace, team members working on acommon project tend to avoid singling out individual achievements to maintain group harmony and thehierarchy within the group. This approach is consistent with what Hofstede labels “high power distance”
cultures where social roles are more defined by age, rank and status-based credibility (Hofstede 2010,
p. 74). The result of any individual recognition will often result in humble and ambiguous language(e.g. “I don’t think I deserve this award. My teammates deserve as much credit. I couldn’t have done it
without them”). The preference contrasts with individualistic cultures where individual achievements
are normally highlighted and whose language will be more direct and egocentric (e.g. “Thank you forthis award. I worked hard to achieve my goal. I appreciate the help from my teammates.”). The statusquo for high context cultures is to recognize other in-group members and deflect individual credit toreinforce in-group social harmony while low power cultures openly accept individual recognition as it
reinforces one’s individuality and status.
4.2 Category 4 – not enough meaning (for the C2 speaker)
Perhaps the biggest obstacle for Intercultural Communication is category number 4) not enoughmeaning bias category. The second language speaker is not only dealing with interpreting complex
stimuli but also struggling with language competency which forces a stronger reliance on pastexperience and cultural norms to decipher the native speaker’s true meaning.
When context does not have enough meaning, we unconsciously fill in the gaps of missing
knowledge based on personal beliefs and experience. This leads to stereotyping and is probably themost harmful cross-cultural hidden bias. Social psychologists (see Tversky and Kahneman 1974)
have attempted to describe how the process of simplification in thinking works. They have labeled it
as intuitive heuristics taking mental shortcuts to solve complex, time-consuming tasks in an efficientmanner. When we are faced with a complex question that takes mental effort, we tend to default toour existing schemata so that we can justify or simplify in order to answer the question. Psychologists
use intuitive heuristics to explain how when we are, “faced with a difficult question, we often answer
an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution” (Kahneman, 2011, p.12). If the default
schemata differ between two culturally diverse speakers, then it is easy to imagine that the easierquestion being answered would also differ.
In-group and out-group biases tend to be stronger in high context cultures than low context
cultures. But this does not mean people who do this are necessarily unfairly biased or wrongly
stereotyping. High context cultures find greater meaning in in-group contexts than out which helps
them communicate more efficiently albeit with more ambiguity. Not having enough meaning allows us
to continue using mental shortcuts to interpret complex cultural behavior. This makes it much easier to－11 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）1－16

draw what Hofstede calls “moral circles” around those in our in-group to help us delineate those whohave “full rights and obligations” (2010, p. 12) while justifying the cultural system already in place (seesection 2.1).

5. 0 Discussion
Recognizing communicative strategies that differ between cultures is the first step towards
increasing intercultural competence and highlighting biases. We have argued that once cultural biases
are initially formed, they often result in unique and unrecognized cultural schemas that can continuallyaffect cross-cultural communication outcomes. By highlighting the cognitive aspects of cultural schema,
deep cultural knowledge can be brought out of the unconscious mind of cultural schema and into a
conscious level of understanding where it can be better understood to avoid unnecessary ethnocentric
thinking affecting decision-making and interpretations.
The minimization of the C2 speaker is a psychological phenomenon known as system justification
process that allows the existing social, economic and political systems of the dominant (C1) culturegroup to be preserved or bolstered as the status quo. Although Bennett (2004, 2011) identifies theminimization stage in his intercultural sensitivity development model, it is argued here that crosscultural minimization is a term that is rarely specially identified and studied but deserves much greaterattention and research as it relates to understanding cultural identity and the perpetuation of culturebased ethnocentrisms through schema.
Understanding culture as a shared way of understanding, rather than as a set of behaviors or
identities, is another key to developing intercultural competence. By highlighting how our cultural values
may cause ethnocentrism or stereotyping, we are better positioned to avoid unnecessary cognitive biases.
Although most cognitive biases develop naturally through common experience, we cannot easily put
ourselves in the others’ (C2) shoes without being aware of these unconscious schemata that can preventthe development of empathy - a key component in developing intercultural awareness (Bennett 1986).
Because empathy is reported to be on the decline in modern-day society (Persson and Kajonius, 2016)
there is a greater need than before for face-to-face cross-cultural interactions to develop and improve
international relations and intercultural education.

References
Allport GW. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bennett, M. (1986). A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity. International－11 －Ethnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem―RYAN

Journal of Intercultural Relations 10, no.2: 179-95.
Bennett, M. J. (2004). From Ethnocentrism to Ethnorelativism. In J.S. Wurzel (Ed.) Toward
multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education. Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource
Corporation.
Bennett, M.J. (2011) A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. www.idrinstiture.org
Bennett, M. (2017) Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In Kim, Y. (ed). Interculturalencyclopedia of intercultural communication. Wiley.
Bloom, S. (n.d.) The Blind Men & the Elephant. Mindset & Life Lesson. https://www.sahilbloom.com/
newsletter/the-blind-men-the-elephant
Persson, B. N., & Kajonius, P. J. (2016). Empathy and universal values explicated by the empathyaltruism hypothesis. The Journal of social psychology, 156(6), 610-619.
Cognitive Bias Codex. Wikipedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cognitive_bias_
codex_en.svg
Goundiam, K. (2024, August 2). What I Wish Someone Had Told Me About Working in Canada When I
First Immigrated.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/leadership/article-what-i-wish-someonetold-me-about-working-in-canada-when-i-first/
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hofstede, G., Gofstede, G. J. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind.
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in
psychology and culture, 2 (1), 2307-0919.
Jost, J.T., Hamilton, D.L. (2005). Stereotypes in our Culture. Dodidio, J.F., Glick, P., and Rudman, L.A.
(Eds.). In On the Nature of Prejudice. Fifty Years after Allport. (pp. 208 - 224), Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrah, Straus and Giroux.
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination.
Higher Education, 53(3), 381-409.
Merriam-Webster. (2023). Ethnocentrism. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary . https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/ethnocentrism
Merriam-Webster. (2023). Culture. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary . https://www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/culture
Nishida, H. (2005). Cultural Schema Theory. In Gudykunst, W.B. (ed.). Theorizing about Intercultural
Communication. London:Sage Publications－11 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報第21号（2024．３）1－16

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (August 3 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com
Oxford University Press (2023). Stereotype. Oxford Learner’s Dictionary.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype_1?q=stereotype
Ryan, S.B. (2018) Cultural Bias in Intercultural Communication. Bulletin of Yamagata University( Humanities) , Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 17-30.
Ryan, S. B. (2020) Developing Intercultural Competence: recognizing the minimization effect. Journal of
Yamagata University, School of Humanities and Social Sciences. Vol. 17 , pp. 59-69 .
Shaules, J. (Host). (2023 March). Ethnocentrism (season 3, #30) [Audio podcast episode]. Deep
Culture Podcast. Japan Intercultural Institute. https://japanintercultural.org/podcast/episode-30ethnocentrism/
Times Editorial Board. (2023, November 26). Editorial: The demise of liberal arts? Students lose whencolleges trade humanities for STEM. The Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-11-26/editorial-the-demise-of-liberal-arts-itdoesnt-help-students-when-colleges-trade-humanities-for-stem
Ting-Toomey, S. and Chung, L.C. (2012). Understanding Intercultural Communication. 2nd edition. New
York: OUP.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science,185,pp.1124-1131.
Wikipedia. (n.d.) Blind Men and the Elephant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant－11 －Ethnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem―RYAN

Ethnocentrism, Bias and the Culture Definition Problem

Stephen B. RYAN
Abstract
This paper describes how cross-cultural communication is affected by cognitive biases that are often
reinforced by the way we regard culture. First, in section 2.0, we discuss the definitions of ethnocentrism
and stereotyping before moving on to describe how stereotypes are formed and maintained through schema.
In section 3.0, we discuss how culture in some definitions can be problematic and result in unrecognizedethnocentrisms preserving the advantageous positions in society for the dominant cultural group. It isargued that once a stereotype or cultural bias is initially formed, it often results in unique and deep-rooted
cultural schemas that can continually affect cross-cultural communication outcomes. To avoid this, acognitive approach to understanding cultural differences is suggested. We then move on to discussing theintertwining concepts of ethnocentrism, stereotype, cultural schema and bias. In section 4.0, we introduce
the Cognitive Bias Codex and discuss several bias categories that are particularly prone to negatively
affecting cross-cultural communication. By highlighting the cognitive aspects of cultural schema, deep
cultural knowledge can be brought out of the unconscious mind of entrenched cultural schema and into
a conscious level of understanding where it can be better understood and taught to begin the process ofdeveloping intercultural competence.

－11 －