A Crystal Seen From Each of Its Vertices: European Views of European National Characters

Abstract

Europeans from 15 locations share a similar image of the national characters of each other and of nations outside of Europe, an image organized on the dimensions of modernity and self-control. Variation of the shared image is complexly patterned: Nations that are geographically close are judged similarly, especially if they are relatively far away from the judge. Similarly, judges that are close judge similarly, especially if the target nations are relatively far away. Conversely, neighboring nations are differentiated much more than those far away. Although the chauvinism of the responses is muted, antagonisms with neighbors are often pronounced, especially between those with a history of warfare. The high agreement on this complex picture suggests that these stereotypes are not merely the product of prejudice; the stereotypes are more nuanced and more widely shared than one would expect if each of the groups were merely reveling in its own superiority.

Keywords

national character stereotypes values Europe cross-cultural variation psychological anthropology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bargh, J. A. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 361-382). New York: Guilford.

Bargh, J. A. , & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462-479.

Bargh, J. A. , & Dijksterhuis, A. (2001). The perception-behavior express-way: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1-40.

Choi, I. , Nisbett, R. E. , & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 47-63.

D’Andrade, R. (2002). Cultural Darwinism and language. American Anthropologist, 104(1), 223-232.

Frith, H. D. , & Frith, U. (1999). Interacting minds: A biological basis. Science, 286(445), 1692-1695.

Gigerenzer, G. , Todd, P. M. , & the ABC Research Group . (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Greenacre, M. J. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.

10.

Hogg, M. A. , & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325-340.

11.

Maltseva, K. , & Boster, J. S. (2004, November). The importance of being Swedish: Judgments of national character in Scandinavia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Atlanta, GA.

12.

Osgood, C. E. , May, W. H. , & Miron, M. S. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

13.

Peabody, D. (1985). National characteristics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Smith, E. R. , & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(6), 635-642.

15.

Spencer, S. J. , Fein, S. , Wolfe, C. , Fong, C. , & Dunn, M. (1998). Stereotype activation under cognitive load: The moderating role of self-image threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1139-1152.