Introduction

　Communication scholars have become increasingly interested in studying the nature of dyadic interactions from the perspective of intercultural communication (Barnlund, 1989; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984; Ma, 1990). An area which has received attention is selfdisclosure.  Following the line of research on selfdisclosure, this study examines differences in selfdisclosure, comparing patterns of the Americans versus the Chinese. Specifically, this study compares the two cultures on the degree of selfdisclosure on different conversational topics and to selected target persons.

　Selfdisclosure is conceptualized as "the process of making the self known to other person" (Jourard & Lasakow, 1958, p. 91).  The process of selfdisclosure is considered "the process of communication through selfdisclosive messages" (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). Target persons refer to those individuals who receive the information about the self.  Target persons may include parents, friends, acquaintances, strangers and so on.  The comparative study of selfdisclosure patterns among different cultures has gradually gained popularity in the field of intercultural communication.  It is assumed that, through the knowledge of selfdisclosure patterns, people from different cultures can better understand each other. More research on this line becomes necessary.       

　According to Nakanishi (1987), the reciprocal relationship between culture and communication may lead to the different patterns of selfdisclosure in different cultural contexts. Culture not only conditions the perceptions of reality, but also programs our language patterns. What, where and how we should talk is regulated by culture (Becker, 1986; Chen, 1993; Oliver, 1962; Zimbardo, 1977). Culture is necessarily manifested in persons' communication patterns. Thus, culture contributes to selfdisclosure. For example, Lewin (1948) finds that Germans disclose themselves less than Americans. Jourard and Lasakow (1958) find the total disclosure of American whites is significantly higher than blacks.  Barnlund's (1975, 1989) studies show as well that Americans substantially reveal more information than Japanese on different topics (e.g., physical appearance, sexual adequacy, financial affairs, and personal traits) and to different target persons.   

　Wheeless, Erickson, and Behrens (1986) indicate that a greater depth of selfdisclosure is associated with subjects of nonWestern cultural origins, and greater amounts of selfdisclosure are associated with American subjects.  Furthermore, less depth, greater amount, less internal control locus, and more positively intended disclosiveness are associated with American subjects rather than nonWesterns.   

　Moreover, Nakanishi's (1987) study on perceptions of selfdisclosure in initial interactions among the Japanese illustrates that the Japanese, compared to Americans, generally show a high reluctance to initiate conversations with strangers. The Japanese also rate low levels of selfdisclosure positively, and, in contrast to sex differences of selfdisclosure for Americans, the Japanese females feel more comfortable in the lowdisclosure conversations than do the Japanese males.   

　Similarly, the Chinese subjects feel more constraint on their behaviors in the lowdisclosure conversation than the American subjects (Wolfson & Pearce,1983). Finally, Gudykunst and Nishida (1984) report that Americans show a higher level of selfdisclosure than the Japanese.  This is consistent with Ogawa's (1979) findings that Asian Americans are more hesitant to express themselves verbally and show more selfrestraint in interactions. In order to investigate the differences in selfdisclosure patterns between Americans and the Chinese, it is necessary to describe the characteristics of American and Chinese cultures.

　The individualismcollectivism dimension of culture is often used to understand the differences in communication styles between Americans and the Chinese. According to Hofstede (1980), the American culture is individualoriented, and the Chinese culture is collectiveoriented.  Individualistic cultures show a tendency for members to be more concerned with the consequences of one's behaviors to one's own interests, needs, and goals (Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, 1986; Triandis, Brislin, & Hui, 1988). Individualistic cultures consider "I" identity the prime focus, and emphasize "individual goals over group goals, individualistic concerns over group concerns, and individual rights and needs over collective responsibilities and obligations (TingToomey, 1988, p. 224).  In contrast, members of collectivistic cultures are more willing to sacrifice personal interests, needs, and goals for the group's purpose.  Collectivistic cultures value "interdependence, reciprocal obligation, and positiveface need" (TingToomey, 1988, p. 224).  

　The individualismcollectivism dimension of culture is complemented by Hall's (1976) classification of highcontext and lowcontext cultures.  According to Hall, people of highcontext (e.g., China) and lowcontext (e.g., the United States) cultures show significantly different communication styles. TingToomey (1988) summarizes the characteristics of the lowcontext culture as valuing "individual value orientation, line logic, direct verbal interaction, and individualistic nonverbal style," and the highcontext culture valuing "group value orientation, spiral logic, indirect verbal interaction, and contextual nonverbal style" (p. 225). The individualistic culture is therefore associated with the lowcontext culture, and the collectivistic culture is associated with the highcontext culture.      

　The differences in communication styles between Americans and the Chinese, based on the classification of individualismcollectivism and highlow context cultures have been supported by many studies.  Becker (1986) examines three areas of the oriental culture including social history, linguistic features, and philosophy and religion. He concludes that Chinese people reject debate and argumentation in the process of communication. Becker's conclusion is well supported by Confucian and Taoist thoughts.  For example, sayings like "The superior man acts before he speaks, and afterwards speaks according to his actions," and "The superior man seeks to be slow of speech but quick in action" from Confucius; "Much talking will lead to a dead end," and "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know" from Lao Tze; and "Words are the ladders leading to disorder," and "He who uses few words is rewarded with good fortune" from I Ching are typical examples of discouraging the use of speech in interactions.   

　Yum (1988) examines the impact of Confucianism on communication patterns in East Asia and finds that the Chinese emphasize process orientation, differentiated linguistic codes, indirect communication, and receivercentered communication, as opposed to the Northern American patterns of communication which emphasize outcome orientation, lessdifferentiated linguistic codes, direct communication, and sendercentered communication.  Leung (1987) compares communication behaviors of the Chinese and Americans.  The Chinese show much higher preference of bargaining and mediation than American subjects in conflict situations.   

　All these studies confirm the differences in communication patterns between Americans and the Chinese. Two hypotheses are proposed to investigate the differences of selfdisclosure patterns between Americans and the Chinese:      

　  H1: There are significant differences of selfdisclosure between Americans and the Chinese on conversational topics (i.e., opinion, interests, work, finances, personality and body).  

　  H2: There are significant differences of selfdisclosure between Americans and the Chinese to different targetpersons (i.e., parents, strangers, acquaintances, and intimate friends).

　In addition to the two hypotheses, it is predicted that sex differences of selfdisclosure on conversational topics and to target persons also exist.   

Method

Respondents and Procedures

　Respondents include 200 American students (93 males, 104 females) and 144 Chinese students from Taiwan (83 males, 55 females) studying in fouryear public universities at the northeastern area of the United States.  Nine students do not report their gender. The average age is 21.72 for Americans and 24.30 for the Chinese. Data for the Americans are collected in the basic speech communication classes. The average time Chinese students have stayed in the United States is two years and three months. The researcher personally delivers or mails the questionnaire to the Chinese respondents.   

Measurement

　A revised version of the SelfDisclosure Scale developed by Barnlund (1975) is used in this study. A questionnaire of selfdisclosure on different conversational topics and to target persons is devised. Target persons in this study include parents, strangers, acquaintances and intimate friends.  Conversational topics are comprised of six categories: opinions, interests, work, financial issues, personality and body.  Each category contains three to five items. For example, the category of opinions includes topics of politics, religion, education, social problems and world affairs.  Participants are asked to complete the questionnaire by indicating the degree of willingness they like to disclose information of each item to target persons. Participants mark a scale from 1 to 7  7 representing "very much," 1, representing "not at all," and 4, representing "neutral".  The coefficient alpha for the overall scale is .98.  Thus, the scales are considered highly reliable in this study.

Design and Data Analyses

　Nationality (the United States and China) and sex (male and female) are the two independent variables in this study.  The degree of selfdisclosure to target persons (parents, strangers, acquaintances and intimate friends) and on different conversational topics (opinions, interests, work, financial issues, personality and body) are the two dependent variables.  The 2 (nation) x 2 (sex) factorial design is used to analyze the data.

Results

　MANOVA is used to test the effect of nationality and sex on selfdisclosure of different conversational topics.  MANOVA produces a significant main effect for nationality ［F(5,161) = 42.19, p < .001］.  The results of univariate tests indicate that Americans consistently show a higher level of selfdisclosure than the Chinese on topics of opinions, interests, work, financial issues, personality and body.  The multivariate tests also reveal a significant main effect for sex ［F(5,161) = 2.62, p < .05］.  No significant difference is found in the univariate tests (see Table 1).  

Table 1. Mean National and Sex Differences of SelfDisclosure on Different Conversational Topics


　The multivariate tests on the selfdisclosure to target persons reveal a significant main effect for nationality ［F(5,161) = 40.33, p < .001］.  The results of univariate tests indicate that Americans show a substantially higher degree of selfdisclosure than the Chinese to target persons such as parents, strangers, acquaintances and intimate friends.  The multivariate tests also reveal a significant main effect for sex ［F(5,161) = 4.26, p < .05］.  The results of univariate tests indicate that sex difference exists on disclosing to intimate friends (see Table 2). 

Table 2. Mean National and Sex Differences of SelfDisclosure to Target Persons



Discussion

　The overall findings of this study suggest that there are significant differences in verbal styles between Americans and the Chinese. The differences of selfdisclosure between the two nations may be attributed to the consequence of cultural values. The difference between individualismcollectivism and lowhigh context cultures is a plausible explanation. Traditionally, to Chinese, speech is considered not an effective way of communication. It is the "act," based on the sincerity of mind, which accounts for the development of interpersonal relationship.  Articulation and talkativeness through the means of words are not valued in the Chinese society. Eloquent persons are considered to be less knowledgeable and even dangerous.  

　Speech, in contrast, is regarded by Americans as the principal vehicle for exchanging personal experiences and for the achievement of interpersonal relationship. In the Western cultures speech is a form that "is seen not only as the species differentiating potential of human beings, but the source of their greatest accomplishment as well," and "the social system rests upon a deep commitment to discussion as the primary mode of inquiry, of learning, of negotiation, and of decision making" (Barlund, 1975, p. 89).   

　The differences of verbal styles between Americans and the Chinese found in this study also support Nakanishi's (1987) assertion that culture and communication are reciprocal. This further demonstrates that "culturespecific" approach for the study of intercultural communication is increasingly important. According to Shuter (1987, 1990), the present research in the field of intercultural communication lacks region and culture specific studies. Intercultural communication scholars pay much attention to communication process while ignoring the concept of culture itself. For future research it is necessary for communication scholars to investigate the specific ways that culture affects the communication process in different societies.   

References

Barnlund, D. C. (1975). Public and private self in Japan and the United States.  Tokyo: Simul. 

Barnlund, D. C. (1989). Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and realities.  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Becker, C. B. (1986). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 7592. 

Chen, G. M. (1993). Selfdisclosure and Asian students' abilities to cope with social difficulties in the United States. Journal of Psychology, 127, 603610.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1984). Individual and cultural influences on uncertainty reduction. Communication Monographs, 51, 2336. 

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture.  Garden City, NY: Anchor.    

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in workrelated values.  Beverly Hills, CA:  Sage.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986).  Individualismcollectivism: A study of crosscultural researchers. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 17, 225248.

Jourard, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in selfdisclosure.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 9198.

Leung, K. (1987).  Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A crossnational study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898908.

Lewin, K. (1948).  Some socialpsychological differences between the United States and Germany.  In G. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving  social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics, 19351946. New York: Harper. 

Ma, R. (1990). An exploratory study of discontented responses in American and Chinese relationship. The Southern Communication Journal, 55, 305318. 

Nakanishi, M. (1987). Perceptions of selfdisclosure in initial interaction: A Japanese sample. Human Communication Research, 13, 167190. 

Ogawa, D. (1979). Communication characteristics of Asian Americans in urban settings: The case of Honolulu' Japanese. In M. K. Asante, E. Newmark, & C. A. Blake (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural communication (pp. 321339).  Bevely Hills, CA: Sage.

Oliver, R. T. (1962). Culture and communication: The problem of penetrating national and cultural boundaries. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Shuter, R. (1987, November). Pedagogical assumptions of intercultural communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Speech Communication Association, Boston, MA.

Shuter, R. (1990).  The centrality of culture. The Southern Communication Journal, 55, 237249. 

TingToomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A facenegotiation theory.  In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213238). Beverly Hill, CA:  Sage.

Triandis, H. C. (1986). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in crosscultural psychology.  In C. Bagley & G. K. Verma (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and values: Crosscultural perspectives of childhood and adolescence.  London: Macmillan. 

Triandis, H. C., Brislin, R., & Hui, C. H. (1988).  Crosscultural training across the individualismcollectivism divide. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 269290.

Wheeless, L. R., Erickson, K. V., & Behrens, J. S. (1986). Cultural differences in disclosiveness as a function of locus of control.  Communication Monographs, 23, 3646.  

Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976).  Conceptualization and measurement of reported selfdisclosure. Human Communication Research, 2, 338346. 

Wolfson, K., & Pearson, W. B. (1983). A crosscultural comparison of the implications of selfdisclosure on conversational logics.  Communication Quarterly, 31, 249256.

Yum. J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374388.  

Zimbardo, P. C. (1977). Shyness: What it is and what to do about it.  Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.