Introduction
Cultures, communities, and societies across nations have differences ranging from their beliefs, customs, and norms. Most cultures exhibit higher levels of ethnocentrism in which members of such cultures hold that, everything they have is central, superior, and the best as compared to what belongs to other cultures. According to Neuliep, ethnocentrism contributes to a greater extent on the attitudinal and behavioural characters and features of the ethnocentric persons as they hold strongly to the attitude that they are strong and superior to others who they strongly believe they are weak and inferior (2002, p.214). Here, Neuliep insinuates that, ethnocentrism is a show of high ranking based on ethnic groups and cultural believes. Other social problems cropping up among cultures resulting from ethnocentrism include poor intercultural communication whereby, people from different cultural backgrounds are less willing to communicate to each other even when in the same environment; for example, in school. Studies show that, ethnocentrism and poor communication between cultures do exist between different cultures across nations. For instance, in a study about Riyadh citizens, it was hypothesized that, Riyadh citizens have a significant high tendency of ethnocentrism as compared to other cultures. Moreover, the study hypothesis covered the Riyadh citizen’s willingness to communicate with other cultures in which it was hypothetical that the Riyadh citizen had a low level of willingness to communicate with others.
Results
The study used the generalized ethnocentrism scale in which the Riyadh citizens answered twenty-two survey questions. The scaling for the questions administered ranged from 1 to 5; a score with a mean of 1 showed a low level of ethnocentrism, while a score with a mean of 5 showed a higher level of ethnocentrism. Conventionally, the results from the study showed an above average performance. Out of the twenty-two scores, only four scores were below average although the others were slightly above average. The least score recorded was 1.95 while the highest score recorded was 4.20. Although the difference, between the least score and the highest score, remains large, most of the citizens, show an increased tendency to practice ethnocentrism. This is because 18(eighteen) survey questions asked recorded means greater than the average value. These findings supported the hypothesis for the study as the results showed a significant increase in the tendency of exercising ethnocentrism by Riyadh citizens.
Comparison between male and female citizens also reveals differences with males having six (6) scores below average and sixteen (16) scores above average while, on the other hand, the females had three (3) scores below average and nineteen (19) scores above average. Males recorded the highest mean score of 4.44 and lowest mean score of 1.94. In comparison with the females, the highest for females was 4.25 and the lowest mean stood at 2.00. Males recorded a 27% score below average (less than 2.50) and 73% score above average (greater than 2.50). On the other hand, females recorded 14% below average and 86% above average. Although males registered the highest mean score, they showed a significantly low level of ethnocentrism as compared to females who depicted a higher level of ethnocentrism; however, there was a high score in the number of citizen scoring above average in both sexes.
Ethnocentrism contributes substantially to intercultural willingness to communicate, and McCroskey observes that, “Ethnocentrism is viewed as one of the key concepts in understanding of the process of intercultural communication” (1991, p.19). Ethnocentrism determines how individuals communicate with each other especially from different cultural groups. Ethnocentric citizens tend to express a sense of self-centeredness and thus in most cases they express a tendency of unwillingness to communicate with citizens from a different cultural background. From an intercultural communication point of view, Luken wonders, “…the disposition towards ethnocentrism might well be the characteristic that most directly relates to intercultural communication” (1998, p. 36). This assertion hinges on the fact that, ethnocentrism occurs in all cultures and acts as the basis from which citizens of a given culture judge other cultures.
Intercultural willingness to communicate indicates the tendency of individuals from different cultures to communicate freely, and conventionally depicts the attitude of an individual to communicate with others. Klopf argues that, “In any given culture, variation among individuals on willingness to communicate should exist” (1998, p.280). These variations in communication between cultures arise simply because of other forces such as the unique norms governing communication, which differs from culture to the other in a society.
From the study of Riyadh citizens, the variation portrayed a significant low willingness to communicate with others. On average performance, there was a 50/50 score in those recorded as above average and those below average. Three (3) out of six (6) were below average, and three (3) out of six (6) were above average leading to 50% score on either side. Conventionally, the Riyadh citizens tend to posses a low level of willingness to communicate with others from a different culture. This is because the values recorded were slightly above average with the highest score standing at 2.97 with a deviation of 0.47 from the average. Intercultural communication remains undefined, and as Kassing suggests, “The concept of willingness to communicate may be too unrefined in the context of intercultural communication” (1997, p. 399). People initiating intercultural communication may be reluctant to initiate the communication in a cultural setting and, therefore, lead to biased findings with unrefined intercultural communication concepts.
Intercultural willingness to communicate showed varied difference between Riyadh male citizen and female citizens. With the Riyadh males, only two scores were below average, and four scores were above average (33% was below average and 67% above average). The highest score for males stood at 3.10 and lowest score was 2.35. This showed that males were willing to communicate freely with others from different cultures. For the females, only one score was above average, and the other five scores remained below average (16% above average and 84%below average). The highest score was 3.00, and lowest was 1.38. This showed that, females were less willing to communicate with other people from different cultures. However, Grant (1993), suggests that, intercultural willingness to communicate varies within a culture where individuals guided by behaviour and personality may show wiliness to communicate with others (p. 153). Willingness to communicate worsens with females simply because of their attitude and social behaviour in which most females tend to be more self centred and conservative than males.
Conclusion
This study showed that there is a core-relationship between ethnocentrism and intercultural willingness to communicate with others. Ethnocentrism determines behaviour and social attitude, which play a significant role in the intercultural willingness to communicate. The findings of the study of Riyadh citizens support the hypothesis that Riyadh citizens have a high tendency of ethnocentrism and low intercultural willingness to communicate.
Reference List
Grant, P. (1993). Ethnocentrism in Response to a Threat to Social Identity. Journal Of Social Behaviour and Personality, 8(11), 152-154.
Kassing, J. (1997). Development of the Intercultural Willingness to Communicate Scale. Communication Journal, 14(8), 399-401.
Klopf, D. (199). Cross Cultural apprehension Research. Procedure and Comparison Journal, 19(9), 279-280.
Luken, J. (1998). “Ethnocentric Speech: Its Nature and Implication.” Ethnic Group Journal, 2 (11), 36-38.
Mccroskey, P. (1991). Willingness to Communicate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Neuliep, J. (2002). Assessing the Reliability and Validity of the Generalize Ethnocentrism Scale. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 31(9), 214-18.