0147.17fl7 x413.00+ 00

Copyright 0 1984 Pcrgamao Press I Id

EXPERIMENTER LANGUAGE CHOICE

AND ETHNIC AFFIRMATION BY CHINESE TRILINGUALS

IN HONG KONG

MICHAEL H. BOND AND MAN-KING CHEUNG

The Chinese Universitjl of Hong Kong

ABSTRACT When communicating with a member of his or her ethnic in-group, a multilingual typically uses his common first language. If; however, the multilingual uses a common second or third language, we believe this choice will indicate his or her endorsement of attitudes believed to be held by that language out-group. An audience will respond to this implicit statement by a shtft in its ethnically relevant attitudes either towards or away from the position of the speaker. Convergence is assumed to occur tf relations between the language communities are harmonious, ethnic affirmation of relations are hostile. To explore this reasoning, experimenters addressed Chinese trilinguals in their first language of Cantonese, their second language of English, or their third language of Mandarin. When instructed in Mandarin, subjects assumed their experimenter held more traditional Chinese beliefs and the.v themselves completed a measure of traditional Chinese beliefs in a more Western direction. Although most Hong Kong students at university are ambivalent

about their colonialstatus under Great Britain, they oppose Hong Kong’s reversion to China in 1997andare threatened by this prospect. Consequentl,v, we believe that they responded to an experimenter speaking the Mandarin language of China by affirming a more Western identity,.

In a cross-cultural or inter-ethnic encounter, the language of the interac- tion is subject to negotiation (Scotton, 1980) and has important implications for how the interactants will be perceived (Genese & Bourhis, 1982). Interactions between bilinguals or trilinguals from the same culture or ethnic community are much less problematic since the demand for communication efficiency almost always ensures that both parties use their common first language. Nevertheless, code-switching does occur in such interactions and this article explores its impact on the cultural identity of the participants.

Different languages are, of course, markers for different ethnicities or nationalities (Giles, 1979). These ethnic or national groups are distinguishable

The experimenters extend their thanks to the professionalism of Howard Giles, Godfrey

Harrison, and oneanonymous reviewer whose thoughtful comments considerably improved the

caliber of this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael H. Bond, Department of Psychology, The

Chinese University of Hong Kong. Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong.

347

348 Michael H. Bond and Man-king Cheung

from one another by their attitudes, values, and ideologies. When a multilingual uses a second or third language with a multilingual of the same ethnicity, it seems reasonable to assume (a) that this use of language will be highly salient to listeners because of its rarity, and (b) that these listeners will assume the multilingual to endorse at least some of attitudes, values, and ideology associated with the group whose language is being used (cf. Taylor & Royer, 1980).

What impact will the multilingual’s atypical language choice have upon the cognitions of his or her audience ? First, it seems plausible that the listener will be sensitized to the identity-relevant issues that distinguish his or her language community from that associated with the language adopted by the speaker. Secondly, the listener’s own endorsement of these differentiating issues will shift to help prepare the listener to interact appropriately with the speaker. This shift can be towards the presumed position of the speaker, in which case we have a form of cross-cultural accommodation. Alternatively, the shift may be away from the presumed position of the speaker, in which case we have a form of ethnic affirmation (Bond & Yang, 1982). The terms “cross-cultural accommodation” and “ethnic affirmation” are similar, of course, to the terms “convergence” and “divergence” as used in speech accommodation theory to designate changes in speech patterns (Giles & Smith, 1979). Perhaps the term “ethnic affirmation” should be retained, however, as its use specifies that the direction of the divergence is towards the position believed to be held by one’s own cultural group. As such, it represents a divergence that shores up or buttresses a cultural identity.

Whether there is a general tendency to react with affirmation or convergence probably depends in part on whether relations between the two language communities represented by the languages are seen as friendly or hostile (Bond, 1983). Moving towards the other group’s presumed position probably facilitates a harmonious interaction and is appropriate when relations are friendly; moving away probably denies the common ground necessary to sustain the interaction, and thus would be appropriate for maintaining inter-group polarization.

In the present study, we plan to vary the language in which experimenters address subjects from the same ethnic group before they complete a questionnaire tapping ethnically relevant issues. A number of experiments have recently explored this language-of-experimenter manipulation, but it has always been confounded with the language of the questionnaire subsequently used to tap the subjects’ attitudes and perceptions (Gibbons, 1983; Price, Fluck, & Giles, 1983; Yang & Bond, 1980). Studies have already shown that the language of the questionnaire alone can function to shift respondents endorsement of ethnically keyed items (Bond, 1983; Bond & Yang, 1982; Marin, Triandis, Betancourt, & Kashima, 1983). Written language has been hypothesized to operate in this way by cueing the respondents to the ethnic identity of future questionnaire readers (Bond &

Experitnenrer Language 349

Yang). As a permanent document available to many potential readers, the questionnaire in a second language may galvanize concerns about cultural self-presentation to a greater extent than the language used by the experi- menter to address the subjects. The present research thus aims to establish whether the interaction-bound variable of the experimenter’s language choice alone can have an impact on ethnically related attitudes.

To explore this question, Chinese trilinguals were instructed by a Chinese experimenter speaking Cantonese, English, or Mandarin to complete a questionnaire written in Chinese tapping their endorsement of traditional Chinese attitudes. When addressed in English, we predicted that the subjects would assume the experimenter to be more Western (i.e., less traditionally Chinese) in his beliefs and would themselves respond with more Western attitudes. This convergence arises out of the promotively interdependent relations of the British and the Cantonese in the colonial setting of Hong Kong. Mandarin, of course, is the official language of the People’s Republic of China and its /inguafranca, given the extraordinary variety of dialects in that vast country. We predicted that when addressed in Mandarin, subjects would assume the experimenter to be more traditionally Chinese in his beliefs and would themselves respond with more traditionally Chinese attitudes. This convergence arises out of the respect and deference Hong Kong Chinese feel towards China, often described as their “mother-country.”

METHOD

Subjects

Forty-five males and 45 females were approached in the main library of the Chinese University. They were invited to participate in a short study on social attitudes. All agreed to help.

Undergraduates at the Chinese University speak Cantonese as a first language. Most, however, have attended English-language secondary schools where they took the majority of their lessons in English. All receive lectures at the Chinese University in Cantonese, English, and Mandarin. The ability to decode spoken Mandarin as well as English is further reinforced by its use in some movies, some radio programs, and certain public events in Hong Kong. For the purposes of this study then, all subjects were sufficiently fluent in these languages that they could decode simple, spoken instructions in any of the three.

Procedure

Subjects were contacted by a Cantonese-speaking, male assistant. After obtaining the subject’s consent, the assistant escorted him or her to a small room where the experimenter was waiting. The assistant introduced the

350 Michael H. Bond and Man-king Cheung

subject to the experimenter and spoke briefly with the experimenter using Cantonese. The purpose of staging this conversation was to establish for the subject that the experimenter could speak fluent Cantonese and was therefore not choosing English or Mandarin because of inability to manage the Cantonese language.

The experimenter sat the subject down, giving him or her the 20-item attitude survey written in Chinese. He then introduced the study to the subject, using the language appropriate to the condition being run. This introduction was simple and took about 45 seconds.

The subject was not required to sign the questionnaire, and the experi- menter sat well away from the subject filling in the form. These steps were taken in an attempt to create the impression that the subject’s responses were anonymous and would not be challenged by the experimenter. Any change in cultural self-concept should therefore reflect changes in the subject’s self-construction rather than needs for an appropriate self- presentation (Baumeister, 1982).

Upon completion, the experimenter gave the subject an inventory measuring perceptions of the experimenter, his attitudes, and reasons for using either of the two atypical languages (if applicable). The experimenter told the subject he would leave the room while this inventory was being answered and asked the subject to put the completed inventory and attitude questionnaire in an envelope mixed up with other envelopes in a large box. These procedures were undertaken to further minimize any self- presentational concerns the subjects may have had. The language ap- propriate to the condition being run was once again used.

The assistant met the subject as he or she left the room and thanked him or her in Cantonese for participating in the study.

The Language Manipulation

The instructions were the vehicle for effecting the language manipulation. They were originally written in Cantonese and translated into English and Mandarin. Native English and Mandarin speakers first checked the instruc- tions for simplicity and fluency before making a tape recording for the experimenters to mimic when instructing the subjects.

Five male experimenters’ were used to ensure the generalizability of results. Each memorized the three language versions of the instructions and practiced the whole procedure with one another to standardize the presentation to the subjects. Each experimenter ran 18 subjects, three males and three females in each of the three language conditions.

‘The authors wish to thank Kai-wah Chu, Pak-yee Fung, Yuen-man Ho, Tak-fai Lau, and

Chor-on Leung for their assistance in running the experiment and analyzing the data.

Experimenter Language

The Dependent Variables

351

Measure of Chineseness of Attitudes. Yang and Bond (1980) constructed a 20-item, forced choice inventory for exploring the impact of questionnaire language on attitude endorsement. One of these items was later dropped because it did not discriminate between Western and Chinese positions (Bond & Yang, 1982). The remaining 19 items have clearly perceived differences in the Chinese and Western endorsements and so can be used to assess tendencies to diverge or converge vis a vis a Chinese or Western target.

These 19 items were supplemented by one other: “ln class, teachers should encourage more discussion with students and avoid one-way communica- tion.” All 20 items were presented in a 5-point Likert format, varying from “strongly agree” to “agree” through “neither agree nor disagree” to “dis- agree” and, finally, “strongly disagree.” A subject’s level of Chinese en- dorsement was the average response to the 20 items after they had all been keyed to the Chinese direction.

Measures of the Experimenter. Six person-perception measures were taken, four tapping the experimenter’s agreeableness, two his competence. Again, 5-point Likert scales were used. Scores on each of these scales were also summed to create indices for experimenter warmth and ability.

Open-ended scales were used to ask subjects “How Westernized do you believe the experimenter is?” and “Do you know why the experimenter did not use Cantonese to instruct you?

RESULTS

Chineseness of Attitudes

As there were two sexes, five experimenters, and three languages, a 2 x 5 x 3 ANOVA was run on the subjects’average endorsement across the 20 attitude items. The only significant effect was for the language variable, F(2, 60) = 4.69,~ < .025. A Duncan’s means test run on the cell averages indicated that subjects responded in a less Chinese way when instructed in Mandarin (M = 2.19) than when instructed either in Cantonese (M = 2.33) or English (M = 2.41), p < .05.

Perceptions of the Experimenter S Degree of Westernization

This open-ended question was scored using a 5-point scale ranging from “strongly Chinese” to “strongly Westernized.” Inter-judge reliability was .8 1.

352 Michael H. Bond and Man-king Cheung

A 2 x 5 x 3 ANOVA on this score again revealed only a significant language effect, F(2, 60) = 3.57, p < .05. A Duncan’s test indicated that subjects perceived the Mandarin-speaking experimenter to be more Chinese (M = 1.23) than either the Cantonese-speaking experimenter (M = 2.00) or the English-speaking experimenter (M = 1.87) p < .05.

Perceptions of Experimenter S Warmth and Ability

None of these individual items or their composites showed any significant effects.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to our initial hypothesis, the use of spoken English had no effect on the subjects’ Chineseness of attitudes relative to the Cantonese baseline condition. Nor did the use of Mandarin lead to a higher endorsement of the Chinese position. Subjects, in fact, gave a more Western response to the Mandarin-speaking experimenter, increasing rather than decreasing the difference between his imagined position and their endorsed position. How can these results be explained?

Ethnic affirmation is a descriptive term applied when subjects shift behavior or cognitions they believe to be ethnically differentiating in order to bring their responses closer to their perceived ethnic position. A necessary condition for its occurrence is that the target be perceived to respond differently from in-group members on the behavior or cognition in question. So ethnic affirmation on the measure of Chineseness did not occur to the English-speaking experimenters because they were perceived to be no more or less Chinese than the Cantonese-speaking experimenters.

It is important to note that written or spoken language can have different effects because of this necessary precondition. When a questionnaire is written in a foreign language it is probable that bilinguals assume it will be read by an out-group member (Bond, 1983; Bond & Yang, 1982). This out-group member or target will by definition hold a different position on ethnically distinguishing attitudes, values, or opinions. A similar situation would be obtained if the out-group member were to act as an experimenter in the present study, speaking his first language of English or Mandarin.

When, however, an in-group experimenter uses a foreign language, it does not always follow that his or her position on ethnically differentiating behavior is perceived as being different from that of the subjects. In the present study, an English-speaking experimenter was seen to be equally Chinese as his Cantonese-speaking counterpart. There are, of course, many occasions in a formal academic setting when English would frequently be used as a matter of course. One of these settings may well be an experiment (cf. Genese & Bourhis, 1982 on situational norms). In response to the

Experimenrer Language 353

open-ended question about why the experimenter used English, fully 19 of the 30 subjects with an English-speaking experimenter said its use was due to some aspects of the experiment itself. Only 7 of 30 subjects with the Mandarin-speaking experimenter gave the same explanation. With an external attribution for the use of English so readily available, the subjects had no reason to assume that their experimenter was any more or less Chinese than a typical in-group member (cf. also Simard, Taylor, & Giles, 1976 on this attribution question).

Such was not the case when the experimenter used Mandarin. In this condition he was seen as being less Westernized than his Cantonese or English-speaking counterparts. As an external attribution for language choice was less available, subjects made an internal attribution. Nine of the 30 believed the experimenter was trying to create an impression about himself or a feeling in them, one usually concerning the question of ethnicity. Only four subjects in the English-speaking condition said the same. With internal attributions more available, the subjects came to believe that the experimenter’s use of Mandarin revealed information about his Chineseness vis a vis that of the other experimenters.

This perception of difference from the in-group member’s position meets the precondition for the occurrence of ethnic affirmation. We believe that the critical factor then becomes the quality of the relations between the two groups in question. Where the subject feels threatened by the out-group politically, economically, socially, or culturally, ethnic affirmation will result (cf. Bourhis & Giles, 1977 for a related phenomenon). Shortly after this experiment was planned, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain visited China and brought the vexing 1997 issue to a boil. This issue concerns the future of Hong Kong after the lease on 92% of its territory expires on that date. During Mrs. Thatcher’s visit, the Chinese authorities reaffirmed their non-negotiable intention to regain sovereignity over the whole territory. The result in Hong Kong was a muted panic, especially among the relatively advantaged Hong Kong Chinese who stand to lose most from this reversion. University students fall into this category of those most threatened and therefore, we suspect, responded by affirming a more Western identity when instructed by a Mandarin-speaking experimenter.

It is important to note that this revelation of ethnic affirmation was not mediated by impressions of the experimenter’s warmth or ability. The subjects’ response was not interpersonal in nature. Judging from their perception that the Mandarin-speaking experimenter was less Westernized, the subjects’ response should perhaps be construed as intergroup in nature. It may be that the language manipulation is one which par excellence shifts response towards the intergroup end of Tajfel’s (1974, 1978) interpersonal vs. inter-group continuum.

It should be repeated that convergence rather than ethnic affirmation would be expected if relations between Hong Kong and China were

354 Michael H. Bond and Man-king Cheung

perceived to become promotively interdependent (Bond, 1983). If China renounced claims to sovereignity or allowed Hong Kong to become a self- governing territory, such a shift would seem likely. In fact just such a pattern of cross-cultural accommodation has already been observed in an earlier study (Yang & Bond, 1980) when subjects responded with a high level of Chineseness to one Mandarin-speaking experimenter. The 1997 issue was not then salient, of course.

Finally, we view ethnic affirmation as a manifestation of a more general phenomenon. When cherished aspects of the self-concept are threatened in an interaction, cross-cultural or otherwise, persons will shore up these elements of the self by moving them away from the imagined position of the threatening interactant. This movement occurs within a lattitude of ac- ceptable variation for the self-concept (Sherif & Hovland, 1961) and prepares the person for a difficult interaction by denying some of the common ground necessary to sustain an interaction. Just such a process has been shown in the traditional area of attitude change (Kiesler & Jones, 197 I), and we expect it could be demonstrated for other elements of the self concept, such as values and traits. What is special about cross-cultural interactions in this respect is that it may simply be easier to generate a sense of threat over a wider range of the self-concept in such encounters.

REFERENCES

BAUMEISTER, R.F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 19, 3-26.

BOND, M.H. (1983). How languagevariation affects inter-cultural differentiation of values by Hong Kong bilinguals. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 57-66.

BOND, M.H., & YANG, K.S. (1982). Ethnic affirmation versus cross-cultural accommodation: The variable impact of questionnaire language on Chinese bilinguals in Hong Kong. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, l69- 185.

BOURHIS, R.Y., & GILES, H. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.

GENESEE. F., & BOURHIS, R.Y. (1982). The social psychological significance of code switching in cross-cultural communication. Journalyf Language and Social Psychology, 1, l-28.

GIBBONS, J. (1923). Attitudes towards languages and code-mixing in Hong Kong. Journal of Mulriiingual and Multicultural Development, 4, I29- 148.

GILES, H. (1979). Ethnicity markers in speech. In K.R. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds.), Social markers in speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GILES, H., & SMITH, P. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Lunguageandsocialpsycholog~v. Baltimore: University Park Press.

KIESLER, C.A., & JONES, J.M. (1971). The interactive effects of commitment and forewarning: Three experiments. In C.A. Kiesler (Ed.), The psychology of commirment. New York: Academic Press.

MARIN, G., TRIANDIS, H.C., BETANCOURT, H., & KASHIMA, Y. (1983).

Ethnic affirmation versus social desirability: Explaining discrepancies in bilinguals’ responses to a questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14, 173-1814.

PRICE, S., FLUCK, M., & GILES, H. (1983). The effects of languageof testing on bihngual preadolescents attitudes towards We&h and varieties of English Joournai of ~~~t~l~~g~a~ and ~~~~ti~~tu~a~ ~e~e~op~~e~t, 4, f49- 162.

SCOTTUN, C. M. f 19X0>. Explaining linguistic choices as identity negotiations. in H. Giles, N.P. Robinson, & P.M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SHERIF. M.. & HOVLAND, C.I. (1961). Social judgment. New York: Yale University Press.

SIMARD, L., TAYLOR, D.M., & GILES. H. (1976). Attribution processes and interpersonaL accommodation in a bilingual setting. tanguage and Speech, 19, 374-387.

TAJFEL, H. (1974). Sociat identity and inter-group behavior. Sociaf Sefence fnformation, 13, 65-93.

TAJFEL, H. (Ed.). (1978). D@‘fereentiation between social graups: Studies in intergroup behavior. London: Academic Press.

TAYLOR, D.M., C ROYER, L. (1980). Group processes affecting anticipated language choice in intergroup relations. In H. Giles, N.P. Robinson, & P.M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social p.~~~ho~ogj~a~ perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

YANG, KS,, & BOND, M.H. (1980). Ethnic af~rmat~o~ in Chinese bihnguals. Juurnal of Cross-Crriiurat Ps.~~hc~fo~,~, 1 t, 41 L-425.

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS

Dans la communication avec un mcmbre de son proprc groupe ethnique un individu multilinque utilise sa premi&e langue, qui est aussi la premikre langue de son interlocutuer. Si, cepdndant, cet , individu multilingue se met ‘a utiliser la seconde, ou la troisieme langue commune dans ce groupe, nour penson qu’une telle option indique que cette personne approuve les attitudes cens&s &re celles du groupe qui parle la langue B ou la langue C. Cette option represente done une declaration implicite; a cette dklaration implicite, l’auditoire va re’agir: il va modifier son jugement au sujet d’attitudes ethniquement pertinentes, soit en se rapprochant de la position du locuteur, soit en s’en Qloignant. 11 est prt&eme’ que se produira un effet de convergence si les relations sont harmonieuses entfe le groupe A et le group B; au contraire, se Ies relations sent hostiles, il se produira un effet d’opposition et dzauto-affirmation ethnique. En we de documenter cette hypothke, nous avons address& la parole ‘a des cbinois trilingues soit dans leur premi&rr lange {Cantcnnais), soit dans leur seconde (Anglais), soit dans leur troisikme (Mandarin). Or, quand Ie mandarin gtait ?mploye, les sujets de l’expe’rience prgsumaient que le locuteur etait plut% traditionnel dans son adhesion aux croyances chinoises: L la pre*sentation de telle ou telle croyance chinoise ils rgagissaient en se rapprochant de la position occiden;ale.

356 Michael H. Bond and Man-king Cheung

Al communicar a un miembro de su “in-group” &nico el multilingue usa tipicamente la primera idioma corn&. Cuando el multilingue use una seconda o tercera idioma co&n se crea que esta selection indicara su endoso de attitudes creido se= sostenido por esa idioma “out-group.” Una audencia respondera/ a esta declaration implicit0 por un cambio de su attitudes &nico, o hacia o lejos de la position de1 hablante. Se asume convergencia en el case de que relacjones entre las comunidades Sean armonioso, pero afinacion etnico en el case de que Sean hositles. Para investigar esta razonamiento 10s experim/entadores instruieron trilingues chinos en su primera idioma de cantones, su seconda idioma de ingles o su tercera idioma de mandari’n. En case de que ser instruido en mandarai% 10s sujetos asumieron que el experimentador sostuvo creencias chinas was traditional y se,completo una medida de traditional creencias chinas hack ma direction mas occidental. Aunque la mayoria de la gente de Hong Kong estan ambivalente acerca de su estado colonial bajo de Gran Bretana, la reversion a China per 1997 es opuesto y un suceso amenazante. Por

consiguiente, se creyo que 10s sujetos respondieron al experimentador hablando la idioma mandarin (de China) por afirmando un identidad mas occidental.