This chapter discusses and summarizes the results presented in Chapter 3. The results concerning the hypotheses and research questions are reviewed and explained. A new model of intercultural communication competence is examined. Finally, the limitations and future directions of this study are discussed.
The purpose of this study was o examine one model of intercultural communication competence. Previous research has proposed several incomplete dimensions of intercultural communication competence. In the present study, the intercultural communication competence model was tested. It included four dimensions: Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness. Ruben's (1976) Intercultural Behavioral Assessment Indices were tested as well. The hypotheses and research questions were explore by conducting Pearson productmoment correlations, regression analysis, canonical analysis, and factor analysis.
Hypothesis 1 predicted significant correlations among measures of Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness. Hypothesis 1 basically was supported. Pearson productmoment correlations indicated significant, yet moderate relationships among measures of (a) dimensions of Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation; and (b) dimensions of Communication Skills and Cultural Awareness. However, the measures of Cultural Awareness dimension did not appear related to Personal Attributes and Psychological Adaptation.
The results concerning the Personal Attributes dimension are consistent with Lundstedt's (1963) proposal that closemindedness may affect effectiveness of a sojourner's psychological adjustment. Lundstedt's study showed that openness or selfdisclosure, especially intent of disclosure and honesty of disclosure, positively correlated with psychological adaptation. The results further support Gardner's (1962) findings. Gardner suggested that the "universal communicator" will have the least amount of psychological difficulty in adjusting to another culture. Gardner described the universal communicator as having a wellintegrated personality and a high degree of sensitivity toward others.
The results are, as well, consistent with models proposed by Cegala et al. (1982) and Duran (1983). Cegala et al. founds significant relationships between personality factors such as neuroticism, impulsiveness, social anxiety, sociability, communication apprehension, private and public selfconsciousness, and interaction management. And Duran found significant relationships between communication apprehension, selfesteem, and communication adaptability.
The results reporting significant relationships between measures of Communication Skills and Psychological Adaptation are consistent with results found by Sewell and Davidsen (1956) and Deutsch and Won (1963). These authors indicated that a sojourner with good communication skills, especially fluency in the host language, is especially satisfied and psychologically adjusted in another culture. Ruben and Kealey's (1979) findings are also supported by the results. They found that two major elementsempathy and interaction managementwere two of the communication skills significantly related to cultural shock. Sojourners with the ability to empathize and take turns in interaction are expected to encounter more psychological adjustment problems at the beginning of a stay in a foreign country because they tend to have more interaction with people.
The relationships between Communication Skills and Cultural Awareness support the Hammer et al. (1978) proposal that awareness of another culture is based on the sojourner's effective communication skills. According to Hammer et al., communication skills such as interaction posture and interaction management in Ruben's (1976) Intercultural Behavioral Assessment Indices are necessary for sojourners to gather information about various aspects of the host cultures to interact effectively with the people from the host culture.
Finally, Smith's (1956) findings on relationships between Personal Attributes and Cultural Awareness are not supported in this study. One possible explanation is that the number of indices used to tap the dimensions of Personal Attributes and Cultural Awareness were limited. Also, the Cultural Awareness index used here may not be a valid measure.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that a linear combination of the seven dimensions of intercultural communication competence would be significantly related to a linear combination of measures from Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness dimensions. The hypothesis was confirmed. Display of respect defined the first set while communication competence defined the second set. Conceptually, these loadings seem to be consistent, suggesting that display of respect and communication competence are related to generalized competence in intercultural communication. Behavioral appropriateness is certainly a strong component of each measure. In fact, it may be that appropriateness is a more salient concept in intercultural communication competence than is effectiveness.
The canonical analysis further indicated a high degree of relationship among display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, empathy, relational role behavior, interaction management, and tolerance of ambiguity and between these indices and communication competence. The same analysis also indicated a significant but small positive relationship between display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, empathy, relational role behavior, interaction management, tolerance of ambiguity, and cultural awareness. Because both Ruben's (1976) Intercultural Behavioral Assessment Indices and Rubin's (1985) Communication Competence OtherReport Scale considered the communication skills of behavioral performance, it is not surprising to see the high correlation between intercultural communication competence and communication competence. Previous research by Hall (1959) and Hall and Whyte (1963) also showed the relationship between Communication Skills and Cultural Awareness. The authors indicated that the ability to be aware of one's host culture may lead to sojourners to be effective in intercultural communication. The results are also further consistent with the findings in Hypothesis 1 in which Cultural Awareness was found to be significantly correlated with Communication Skills.
The first research questions in this study sought to determine which of the 16 measures of Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness best predict the seven dimensions of intercultural communication competence. As revealed in the multiple regression results, the seven dimensions of intercultural communication competence (i.e., display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, empathy, relational role behavior, interaction management, and tolerance of ambiguity) were best predicted by communication competence.
The results are consistent with previous research which found: (a) display of respect to be an important component in effective interpersonal and intercultural relations (Arensberg & Niehoff, 1971; Carkhuff, 1969; Ruben, 1976, 1977; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Wiemann, 1977); (b) interaction posture to be positively related to effective crosscultural interpersonal functioning (Arensberg & Niehoff, 1971; Barna, 1972; Brislin & Pedersen, 1976; Gudykunst et al., 1977; Ruben, 1976, 1977; Ruben & Kealey, 1979); (c) orientation to knowledge to affect the degree of difficulty for a sojourner to adjust to other people in another culture (Adler, 1972; Barna, 1972; Bochner, 1974; Gudykunst et al., 1977; Ruben, 1976, 1977; Ruben & Kealey, 1979); (e) the importance of relationship role behavior for crosscultural effectiveness (Gudykunst et al., 1977; Guthrie & Zetrick, 1967; Ruben, 1976, 1977; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Samovar & Porter, 1976); (f) that how a personal manages interaction has important social sequences (Parks, 1976; Wiemann, 1976), and eventually leads to effectiveness in intercultural communication (Ruben, 1976, 1977; Ruben & Kealey, 1979); and (g) that tolerance of ambiguity is an important asset when adjusting to a new culture (Aitken, 1973; Guthrie & Zetrick, 1967; Ruben, 1976, 1977; Ruben & Kealey, 1979).
The result furthermore showed that: (a) display of respect was also explained by communication perceptiveness and social anxiety, (b) interaction posture was also explained by honesty of disclosure, and (c) orientation to knowledge was also explained by amount of disclosure.
The research question required first a factor analysis of the seven dimensions of intercultural communication competence and 16 measure of intercultural communication, and then investigation of which facto best predicts intercultural communication competence. Finally, the goal was to generate a new model that would best explain intercultural communication competence.
The results of the factor analysis of the seven intercultural communication competence dimensions showed that only one factor was extracted. These results are reasonable even tough Ruben (1976) saw the seven items as seven separate dimensions. The seven dimensions of intercultural communication competence were behavioral and concerned a sojourner's communication skills. For example, display of respect is the ability to express positive regard through eye contact, body posture, voice tone and pitch, and general display of interest. This is consistent with Park's (1976) and Wiemann's (1977) ideas of rewardingness, supportiveness, and affiliation which they defined as major communication skills for effective communication.
Interaction posture and relationship role behavior are also consistent with Park's (1976) and Wiemann's (1977) rewardingness and supportiveness, and affiliation and support categories. According to Ruben 91976), interaction posture was conceptualized as the ability to respond to others in a descriptive way in order to develop a supportive climate in the interaction. Relationship role behavior is the ability to build or maintain relationships through communication skills such as nods of agreement and eye contact.
Empathy (i.e., the ability to obtain an accurate sense of another's thoughts, feelings and experiences), and interaction management (i.e., the ability to take turns in interaction and to initiate and terminate interaction) were found in past research to be important communication skills (Foote & Cottrell, 1955; Bochner & Kelly, 1974; Parks, 1976; Wiemann, 1977).
Tolerance of ambiguity is the ability to react with flexibility to new and ambiguous situations. This is also similar to the type of communication skills proposed Foote and Cottrell (1955), Bochner and Kelly (1974), Parks (1976), and Wiemann (1977). Orientation to knowledge is the ability to perceive oneself and the world in different ways. A competent communicator always treats perceptions, knowledge, feelings, and insights as personally based (Ruben, 1976). This ability seems to be connected with the selfconcept, but because the ability must be expressed through message skill, it becomes understandable that it falls into the category of communication skills.
The second factor analysis extracted three factors from the 16 measures of intercultural communication: Social Adjustment, SelfAwareness, and SelfDisclosure. Social Adjustment seems to be composed of social anxiety, social situations, communication adaptability, and communication responsiveness. All the measures deal with the sojourner's ability to adapt effectively and appropriately to different social situations.
SelfAwareness consists of measures of communication perceptiveness, private selfconsciousness, and public selfconsciousness. The facto is basically dealing with sojourner's ability to monitor or understand his or her own behavior in interactions.
Figure 2. A new model of intercultural communication competence.
SelfDisclosure seems to include both amount of disclosure and depth of disclosure. Both measures deal with selfdisclosure in terms of quantity and quality. This is similar to Altman and Taylor's (1973) social penetration theory. According to Altman and Taylor, relationships develop from superficial to more personal levels through the process of selfdisclosure. Depending on the information, a relationship can be defined as casual (in which the breadth may be high but not depth) and intimate (in which both breadth and dept are high).
The results also indicated that Social Adjustment is the best predictor of intercultural communication competence. This finding is, of course, consistent with results of Hypothesis 2 in which measures of communication adaptability were found to be significantly related to the seven components of intercultural communication competence.
The original model of intercultural communication competence was tested by factor analyzing the new intercultural communication competence factors and the 16 measures of intercultural communication; five factors were extracted (see Figure 2). The first factor, named Social Adjustment, is similar to the first factor extracted in the previous analysis from the 16 measures of intercultural communication. The factor consists of measures of social anxiety, communication adaptability, communication responsiveness, and social situations.
The second factor, named SelfConsciousness, is similar to the second factor in the previous factoring of the 16 measures of intercultural communication. The factor includes measures of private selfconsciousness and public selfconsciousness.
The third factor includes measures of intercultural communication competence and communication competence. This factor was labeled Communication Competence.
The fourth factor is the same as the third factor extracted from the 16 measures of intercultural communication. The factor consists of measures of amount of disclosure and depth/intimacy of disclosure. It was labeled SelfDisclosure.
Interaction Involvement was the fifth factor. It was composed of measures of communication attentiveness and communication perceptiveness.
In the first and second factor analysis, cultural awareness was neither extracted as a single factor nor included in other factors. These results did not support previous research by Hall (1959), Hall and Whyte (1963), Kluckhohn (1949), and Turner (1968).
Hall (1959) and Hall and Whyte (1963) indicated that being aware of a host culture may enable sojourners to modify their patterns of communication to be congruent with the cues of people of the host country. This, in turn, leads to effective interaction with people in the host culture. Kluckhohn (1948) emphasized that knowledge of a culture is important in understanding others; "If a map is accurate and you can read it,, you won't get lost; if you know a culture, you will know your way around in the life of a society" (p. 28). Turner (1968) stressed that the ability to understand the "cultural theme" of the host culture is one of the main factors to establish adequate intercultural communication.
There are two possible explanations for this result. First, items of the Test of American Culture failed to represent the total aspects of Cultural Awareness. The test measures neither cultural variation nor conscious understanding of the culture, just knowledge about the American culture. This indicates that people are not always conscious of how they understand their cultures. Second, even though previous research has shown the importance of cultural awareness for effective intercultural communication, cultural awareness is only a necessary but not a sufficient element, being an independent dimension of intercultural communication competence.
The results of this new model may help to clarify some of the confusion over the dimensions of intercultural communication competence. The results indicated five dimensions of intercultural communication competence including Social Adjustment, SelfConsciousness, Communication Competence, SelfDisclosure, and Interaction Involvement. The new model supports the theoretical dimensions of intercultural communication competence and makes two improvements to it. First, measures of selfawareness and selfdisclosure were originally under the dimension of Personal Attributes. The new model separates them into two independent dimensions. Second, after Ruben's (1976) seven Intercultural Behavioral Assessment Indices were found to be one single dimension, it clustered with communication competence as a Communication Competence factor. Moreover, Social Adjustment broadened the scope of the Psychological Adaptation dimension because measures for this dimension focus on the sojourners' psychological and behavioral abilities to adjust themselves to the different social situations.
The new model in this study also helps to clear up the controversy of culturegeneral (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1984; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978) and culturespecific (Abe & Wiseman, 1983) interpretations of intercultural communication competence. Previous studies were based upon small sample sizes of one single culture, this study was directed at 149 subjects representing a variety of cultures. The results support the culturegeneral interpretation of intercultural communication competence. The model can be applied to people from different cultures sojourning in foreign countries. All in all, the new model might be used to represent the new dimensions of intercultural communication competence.
Finally, the level of acquaintance was found to be significantly correlated with communication competence and intercultural communication competence. The results reflected social penetration theory in which Altman and Taylor (1973) indicated that intimate relationships are defined by breadth and depth of selfdisclosure. Since the previous literature review had shown that selfdisclosure is one of the main components in effective communication with people from the same or different cultures, it was predictable that people who know better the sojourners would have more information on which to base their judgments of communication and intercultural communication competence.
Limitations
The results of this study stress the interrelationships among the intercultural communication dimensions of Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness. However, even though each original dimension was comprised of several different components, only a limited number of the components could be examined in this study. Subject fatigue and the effects of instrumentation would have become too great if each component was fully tapped. So evidence about the relationships among the components and dimensions of intercultural communication competence is still incomplete at this time. Future research should examine more components of intercultural communication competence in order to develop a more complete understanding of the interrelationships among these components and dimensions.
International students at Kent State University were selected as subjects because they came from different parts of the world, especially from Asia, Africa, and Europe. If Afrocentric, Eurocentric, and Asiocentric are the three broad views of reality existing in the world (Asante, 1980), then the results of this study may represent a comprehensive view of intercultural communication competence. Yet we must be aware that all the subjects were college students and not truly representative of all sojourners to the United States. Future research should extend to nonstudent populations, such as transient and immigrant groups. In addition, future research should also extend to nonstudent populations who sojourn other cultures.
This study of intercultural communication may also include several of the inherent limitations mentioned by Klopf and Cambra (1983); these were originally derived from Campbell's (1969) lists of fifteen factors that may jeopardize the validity of crosscultural research data. First, social variables may affect the one being measured on survey responses. For example, in some cultures selfdisclosure is not positively valued and so subjects might score themselves low on this trait. This may be why Asians and Africans were more positive about selfdisclosure than Europeans and those from the Far East. Second, paper/pencil testing may be an uncommon activity in many cultures. Even though these subjects are used to such tests in college, they may not be used to revealing such personal information. Lastly, response biases such giving inaccurate answers to researchers of different races may affect the validity of data. All these problems may impact on intercultural communication studies. For this study, these problems might have been reduced to a minimum level because of the initial agreement to participate. Future research in intercultural settings should avoid these barriers.
Future Research
The new model of intercultural communication competence developed in this study has great potential for future research. For instance, path analysis might be used to see if a more precise model can be generated and tested.
Future research may, as well, examine whether a person has to possess all the components of intercultural communication competence to be effective in foreign cultures, or only possess some of them. In addition, a scale of intercultural communication competence might be created in the future by using those components proposed in this new model.
The results of this study can be applied to intercultural training programs to help people who have sojourned or immigrated to other cultures.
In the area of intercultural training, many programs have dealt with cognitive explanation of culture shock and communication skills in terms of fluency of the host culture language (Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978). The results of this study seem to suggest that more specific ways of social adjustment are necessary in dealing with culture shock, and communication skills should not be only related to linguistic competence. Basically, the new model of intercultural communication competence in this study indicates that communication skills are the most important elements for effectiveness in intercultural interaction. Except for language ability, other communication skills in the Communication Competence, Social Adjustment, and Interaction Involvement dimensions have been clearly specified in the new model. There communication skills are essential to intercultural training. Finally, the results of this study also suggest that Personal Attributes such as selfawareness and selfdisclosure are important for effective intercultural communication. Future intercultural training programs should continue to consider these factors.
Moreover, these elements in the new model might be used in various training programs proposed by Gudykunst, Hammer, and Wiemann (1977), Triandis (1977), and Brislin (1979). For example, in behavioral training, communication skills in the Communication Competence, Interaction Involvement, and Social Adjustment dimensions can be utilized to teach trainees how to behave appropriately and effectively when they interact with people in another culture; and SelfConsciousness and SelfDisclosure can be utilized in cognitive, selfawareness, and selfinsight approaches to train people to understand their own attributes; that would, in turn, lead to a greater ability to adjust in another culture.
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Data for International Students
Geographic Area Number of Students Countries Included
AFRICA57Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liveria, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, S. Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbawee.
ASIA73Banglandesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka.
AUSTRALIA3Australia.
CARIBBEAN3Bahamas, Jamaica, W.Indies.
EUROPE49Austria, Cyprus, Italy, France, West Germany, Greece,Netherlands, Holland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Portugal.
FAR EAST203Brunei, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, PROC, ROC, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore,Thailand.
MIDDLE EAST60Egypt, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Lebanon, Qatar, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen.
NORTH AMERICA21Canada
SOUTH AMERICA &
CENTRAL AMERICA9Columbia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela.
NO COUNTRY LISTED133n/a
TOTAL611
Appendix B. Kent State Human Subjects Consent Form
I am conducting research on intercultural communication. My goal is to find out which Communication Skills help people when they first come to the United States.
My proposed study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Subjects Review Board of Kent State University. I need volunteers to take part in the study and would like you to consider participating. This is entirely voluntary and you will not be penalized in any way for not volunteering. Your involvement will last approximately 50 minutes.
You have a right to full and complete information regarding this project. If you decide to participate you are free to stop at any time without penalty of any sort. Information on University policy and procedures for research involving humans can be obtained from the Human Subjects Review Board, care of Dean Wenninger, at 6722070.
For this project you will be asked to complete a booklet of questionnaires. At the end of the booklet, you will be asked to give the names of two Americans who know you well; they will be asked to provide information about how you communicate with Americans. Please remember that all information will be kept confidential. You should experience no discomfort or risk through your participation in this study.
Since this study deals with intercultural communication competence, it will be beneficial for people, especially for international students, to know how to communicate effectively in intercultural settings.
The data gathered on you will be kept confidential. Your name will be eliminated after data are collected. A number will be used instead of your name in that step.
The persons listed below will answer any questions you may have regarding procedures or any other aspects of the study:
Rebecca B. Rubin (6722659)
GuoMing Chen (6781734)
Consent
I have been briefed by the project director in detail on this project and understand what my participation involves. I agree to participate with the understanding that I may withdraw at any time.
Date Signature
Appendix C. The Intercultural Behavioral Assessment Indices
Directions: We are interested in learning about how international students communicate with Americans. Your response is very important to us. Please read the instructions for each questionnaire and circle the number that best describes the international student whose name appears below. Your answers will be kept completely confidential. We sincerely appreciate your help. Thank you very much!
Here are international behavioral indices. For each index, please circle the number that best describes the international student whose name appears above.
A. Respect
Instructions: There are different degrees to which individuals express respect or positive regard for other persons around them. These behaviors may take many forms ranging from verbal and nonverbal expressions of minimal interest and regard to statements, gestures, and tones that are extremely supportive and demonstrate high regard and respect. Please indicate on a 1 to 5 continuum which pattern of expression was most characteristic of the person.
DESCRIPTION
1. The verbal and nonverbal expression of the individual suggest a clear lack of respect and negative regard for others around him or her. By his or her actions the individual indicates that the feelings and experiences of others are not worthy of consideration or that others are not capable of acting constructively on their own. Examples include a condescending tone, lack of eye contact, general lack of interest, etc.
2. The individual responds to others in a way that communicates little respect for others' feelings, experiences, or potentials. The individual may respond mechanically or passively or may appear to ignore many of the thoughts and feelings of others.
3. The individual indicates some respect for others' situations and some concern for their feelings, experiences, and potentials. He or she may indicate some attentiveness to others' efforts to express themselves.
4. The individual indicates a concern for the feelings, experiences, and potentials of others. The individual responds to enable others to feel worthy of interaction and provides others a sense of being valued as individuals.
5. The individual indicates a deep respect for the worth of others as persons of high potential and worth. He or she indicates (through eye contact, general attentiveness, appropriate tone, and general interest) a clear respect for the thoughts and feelings of others and seems committed to supporting and encouraging their development.
Circle the number which best describes the person
1 2 3 4 5
B. Interaction Posture
Instructions: Responses to another person or persons in an interpersonal or group situation range from descriptive, nonvaluing to highly judgmental. Indicate on a 1 to 4 continuum which interaction pattern was most characteristic of the person.
DESCRIPTION
1. High Evaluation. The individual appears to respond to others' verbal and nonverbal contributions in a highly judgmental and evaluative manner. He or she appears to measure the contributions of others in terms of a highly structured, predetermined framework of thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and values. Responses therefore communicate clearly whether the individual believes others to be "right" or "wrong". Reactions are made in declarative, often dogmatic fashion and will closely follow the comments of others indicating little or no effort to digest what has been said before judging it.
2. Evaluative. The individual responds to others verbally and nonverbally in an evaluative and judgmental manner and measures the responses and comments of others in terms of a predetermined framework of thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and values. The framework is not totally rigid but does provide a clear basis for determining whether others' contributions are "right" or "wrong". Reactions to others tend to follow fairly closely on the heels of termination of discussion by other interactants, but there is some break, indicating a minimal attempt to digest and consider others' ideas before responding positively or negatively.
3. EvaluativeDescriptive. The individual appears to measure the responses of others in terms of a framework based partly on information, thoughts, attitudes, and feelings gathered from the particular interaction and the individuals involved. He or she offers evaluative responses, but they appear to be less than rigidly held and subject to negotiation and modification. The time lapse between others' comments and the individual's response suggests an effort to digest and consider input before reacting either positively or negatively.
4. Descriptive. The individual responds to others in a manner that draws out information, thoughts, and feelings and provides evaluative responses, but only after gathering sufficient input so that the evaluative framework fits the individual (s) with whom he or she is interacting. He or she asks questions, restates others' ideas, and appears to gather information prior to responding evaluatively.
Circle the number which best describes the person
1 2 3 4
C. Orientation to Knowledge
Instructions: Different people explain themselves and the world around them in different terms. Some personalize their explanations, knowledge, and understandings, prefacing their statements with phrases such as "I feel" or "I think" and might say "I don't like Mexican food." Others tend to generalize their explanations, understandings, and feelings, using statements such as "It's a fact that," "It's human nature to," etc. This pattern could lead an individual to say "Mexican food is very disagreeable," indicating that the food is the basis of the problem rather than the person's own tastes. For each individual, indicate on a 1 to 4 continuum the pattern of expression that was most characteristic of the person.
DESCRIPTION
1. Physical Orientation. The individual treats perceptions, knowledge, feelings, and insights as inherent in the people and objects being perceived and assumes other people will always share the individual's perceptions, attitudes, and feelings if they are mature, knowledgeable, or insightful. Given this differences with others' perceptions imply that the other persons are "wrong" or lack maturity or knowledge. Such an orientation might lead to a statement such as "Mexican food is too hot." The individual of this orientation might use phrases such as "We've all experienced," "It's human nature," "That's inevitable," "What else could they have done,"etc.
2. Cultural Orientation. The individual treats perceptions, knowledge, feelings, and insights as highly generalizable from one individual to another within a culture and assumes that other persons of similar cultural heritage will almost always share the individual's perceptions. This may be shown by a statement such as "North Americans find Mexican food far too hot for their tastes." He or she may use phrases such as "In my country," "Canadians are generally," "Africans are a highly intelligent people," "In this culture," etc.
3. Interpersonal Orientation. The individual treats perceptions, knowledge, and feelings as personal to some extent, but potentially generalizable to others to some extent, also, tends to assume that others in an immediate group will share the individual's perceptions, feelings, or thoughts (as with friends, colleagues, family, other members of a group). An individual whose orientation to knowledge is of this sort might say "No one in my family would like these tacos" or may use phrases such as "We feel," "My husband and I believe," "Most of you in the group know that," "People in my profession," etc.
4. Intrapersonal Orientation. The individual treats perceptions, knowledge, feelings and insights as personally based, as shown by a statement such as "I don't like Mexican food," which makes clear that the mismatch between the food and the taster is a consequence of the taster's particular tastes, perceptions, likes, etc., and may have nothing necessarily to do with Mexican food. He or she sees that differences in perception between people are not problematical. Examples of phrases that may be characteristic of this orientation are "I feel that," "It is my view that," "I believe" etc.
Circle the number which best describes the person
1 2 3 4
D. Empathy
Instructions: Individuals differ in their ability to project an image that suggests they understand things from another person's point of view. Some individuals seem to communicate a fairly complete awareness of another person's thoughts, feelings, and experience; others seem unable to display any awareness of another's thoughts, feelings, or state of affairs. For each individual, indicate on a 1 to 5 continuum which pattern of behavior was most characteristic of the person.
DESCRIPTION
1. LowLevel Empathy. The individual indicates little or no awareness of even the most obvious, surface feelings and thoughts of others. The individual appears to be bored or disinterested or simply operating from a preconceived frame of reference that totally excludes the other persons around at a particular point of time.
2. MediumLow Empathy. The individual may display some awareness of obvious feelings and thoughts of others. He or she may attempt to respond based on this awareness; often the responses seem only superficially matched ot the thoughts and feelings of others involved in the iteraction.
3. Medium Empathy. The individual predictably responds to others with reasonably accurate understandings of the surface feelings of others around, but may not respond to or may misinterpret, less obvious feelings and thoughts.
4. MediumHigh Empathy. The individual displays an understanding of responses of others at a deeperthansurface level and thus enables others involved in interaction to express thoughts or feelings they may have been unwilling or unable to discuss around less empathic persons.
5. High Empathy. The individual appears to respond with great accuracy to apparent and less apparent expressions of feeling and thought by others. He or she projects interest and provides verbal and nonverbal cues that he or she understands the state of affairs of others.
Circle the number which best describes the person
1 2 3 4 5
E. Role Behavior
Instructions: Indicate how often this person exhibited each pattern of role behavior during the time periods observed.
DESCRIPTION
Relational Roles. Individuals differ in the extent to which they devote effort to building or maintaining the relationships within a group. Groupdevelopment activities, as they are sometimes termed, may consist of verbal and nonverbal displays that provide a supportive climate for the group members and help to solidify the group's feelings of participation. Behaviors that lead to these outcomes include harmonizing and mediating scraps and/ or conflicts between group members, attempts to regulate evenness of contributions of group members, comments offered relative to the group's dynamics, indications of a willingness to compromise own position for the sake of group consensus, and displays of interest (nods of agreement, eye contact, and displays of behaviors), etc. Indicate the frequency of displayed relational behaviors.
Circle the number which best describes the person
1 2 3 4 5
never seldom occasionally frequently continually
F. Interaction Management
Instructions: People vary in their skill at "managing" interactions in which they take part. Particularly with regard to taking turns in discussion and initiating and terminating interaction based upon the need of others, some individuals display great skill. Indicate on the 1 to 5 continuum which pattern was most characteristic of the person.
DESCRIPTION
1. Low Management. The individual is unconcerned with taking turns in discussion. He or she may either dominate or refuse to interact at all; be unresponsive to or unaware of other's needs for involvement and time sharing; initiate and terminate discussion without regard for the wishes of other individuals; continue to talk long after obvious displays of disinterest and boredom by others; or may terminate discussion—or generally withhold information—when there is clear interest expressed by others for further exchange.
2. Moderately Low Management. The individual is minimally concerned with taking turns in discussion. He or she often either dominates or is reluctant to interact; is often unresponsive to other's needs for involvement and time sharing; initiates and terminates interactions in a manner that is consistent with the needs of other participants.
3. Moderate Management. The individual is somewhat concerned with taking turns in discussion. He or she may tend to dominate or provide a low interaction profile from time to time, person to person, or topic to topic and show some concern for time sharing and initiating and terminating interactions in a manner that is consistent with the needs of others.
4. Moderately High Management. The individual is quite concerned with taking turns in discussion. He or she seldom either dominates or is reluctant to interact with most persons at most times and shows a concern for time sharing and initiating and terminating interaction in a manner that is consistent with the needs of other participants.
5. High Management. The individual is extremely concerned with providing equal opportunity for all participants to share in contributions to discussion. In the initiation and termination of discussion, he or she always indicates concern for the interests, tolerances, and orientation of others who are party to discussions.
Circle the number which best describes the person
1 2 3 4 5
G. Ambiguity Tolerance
Instructions: Some persons react to new situations with greater comfort than others. Some individuals are excessively nervous, highly frustrated, and/or hostile toward the new situation and/or the persons who may be present (who may be identified as sources of their problems). Other persons encounter new situations as a challenge; they appear to frustration best wherever the unexpected or unpredictable may occur and quickly adapt to the demands of changing environments. On the 1 to 5 continuum, indicate the manner in which the person observed seemed to respond to new and/or ambiguous situations.
DESCRIPTION
1. Low Tolerance. The individual seems quite troubled by new and/or ambiguous situations and exhibits excessive nervousness and frustration. He or she seems slow to adapt to the situation and may express hostility toward those in authority or leadership roles. Negative feelings may also lead to verbal hostility directed toward other individuals present in the environment and especially toward those perceived to be in control of the immediate environment.
2. Moderately Low Tolerance. The individual seems somewhat troubled by new and/or ambiguous situations, exhibits nervousness and frustration, is somewhat slow to adapt to the situation, and may express some hostility toward those perceived as in control.
3. Moderate Tolerance. The individual reacts with moderate nervousness and frustration to new or ambiguous situations, but adapts to these environments with reasonable speed and resilience. There are no apparent personal, interpersonal, or group consequences as a result of the individual's uneasiness. Those perceived as being in leadership or authority positions may be the target of minor verbal barbs—through sarcasm, joking, and mild rebukes—but there are no significant signs of hostility.
4. Moderately High Tolerance. The individual reacts with some nervousness and frustration to new or ambiguous situation. He or she adapts to the situation quite rapidly with no personal, interpersonal, or groupdirected expressions of hostility. Those in leadership and authority positions are not a target for verbal barbs or sarcasm, not are other individuals in the environment.
5. High Tolerance. The individual reacts with little or no nervousness or frustration to new or ambiguous situations. He or she adapts to the demands of the situation quickly with no noticeable personal, interpersonal, or group consequences and seems to adapt very rapidly and comfortably to new and/or changing environments.
Circle the number which best describes the person
1 2 3 4 5
Appendix D. The General Disclosiveness Scale
Directions:Here are several statements which reflect how people communicate with Americans. Please indicate the extent to which you feel that each statement describes your own behavior. There are no right or wrong answers. Just answer honestly how you feel.
7 Strongly Agree
6 Agree
5 Slightly Agree
4 Are Undecided
3 Slightly Disagree
2 Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
1. When I wish, my selfdisclosures are always accurate reflections of who I really am.
2. When I express my personal feelings, I am always aware of what I am doing and saying.
3. When I reveal my feelings about myself, I consciously intend to do so.
4. When I am selfdisclosing, I am consciously aware of what I am revealing.
5. I do not often talk about myself.
6. My statements of my feelings are usually brief.
7 I usually talk about myself for fairly long periods at a time.
8. My conversation lasts the least time when I am discussing myself.
9. I often talk about myself.
10. I often discuss my feelings about myself.
11. Only infrequently do I express my personal beliefs and opinions.
12. I usually disclose positive things about myself.
13. On the whole, my disclosures about myself are more negative than positive.
14. I normally reveal "bad" feelings I have about myself.
15. I normally express my "good" feelings about myself.
16. I often reveal more undesirable things about myself than desirable things.
17. I usually disclose negative things about myself.
18. On the whole, my disclosures about myself are more positive than negative.
19. I intimately disclose who I really am, openly and fully in my conversation.
20. Once I get started, my selfdisclosures last a long time.
21. I often disclose intimate, personal things about myself without hesitation.
22. I feel that I sometimes do not control my selfdisclosure of personal or intimate things I tell about myself.
23. Once I get started, I intimately and fully reveal myself in my selfdisclosures.
24. I cannot reveal myself when I want to because I do not know myself thoroughly enough.
25. I am often not confident that my expressions of my own feelings, emotions, and experiences are true reflections of myself.
26. I always feel completely sincere when I reveal my own feelings and experiences.
27. My selfdisclosures are completely reflections of who I really am.
28. I am not always honest in my selfdisclosure.
29. My statements about my own feelings, emotions, and xperiences are always accurate selfperceptions.
30. I am always honest in my selfdisclosures.
31. I do not always feel completely sincere when I reveal my own feelings, emotion, behaviors or experiences.
Scoring instructions: Sum the scores on the 31 items after reversing the scoring of items 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, 25, 28, and 31. Intent factor is items 1 through 4, Amount factor is item 5 through 11, Positiveness factor is items 12 through 18, Depth factor is items 19 through 23, and Honesty/Accuracy factor is items 24 through 31.
Appendix E. The SelfConsciousness Scale
Directions:Here are several statements that people sometimes make about themselves. For each statement, please circle the number that best expresses how you see yourself. There are no right or wrong answer. Just respond as honestly as you can.
5 Exactly Like Me
4 A Lot Like Me
3 Somewhat Like Me
2 Not Much Like Me
1 Not At All Like M
1. I'm always trying to figure myself out.
2. I'm concerned about my style of doing things.
3. Generally, I'm not very aware of myself.
4. It takes me time to overcome my shyness in new situations.
5. I reflect about myself a lot.
6. I'm concerned about the way I present myself.
7. I'm often the subject of my own fantasies.
8. I have trouble working when someone is watching me.
9. I never scrutinize myself.
10. I get embarrassed very easily.
11. I'm selfconscious about the way I look.
12. I don't find it hard to talk to strangers.
13.I'm generally attentive to my inner feelings.
14. I usually worry about making a good impression.
15. I'm constantly examining my motives.
16. I feel anxious when I speak in front of a group.
17. One of the last things I do before I leave my house is look in the mirror.
18. I sometimes have the feeling that I'm off somewhere watching myself.
19. I'm concerned about what other people think of me.
20. I'm alert to changes in my mind.
21. I'm usually aware of my appearance.
22. I'm aware of the way my mind works when I work through a problem.
23. Large groups make me nervous.
Scoring instructions: Sum the scores on the 23 items after reversing the scoring of items 3, 9, 12. Private selfconsciousness factor is items 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22. Public selfconsciousness factor is items 2, 6, 11, 14, 17, 19, 21. Social anxiety is items 4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 23.
Appendix F. The Social Situations Questionnaire
Directions:Here are several statements about your experiences in the United States. Please indicate the extent to which you feel that the statement describes your experiences.
6 Never Experienced
5 No Difficulty
4 Slight Difficulty
3 Moderate Difficulty
2 Great Difficulty
1 Extreme Difficulty
1. Making friends of your own age.
2. Shopping in a large supermarket.
3. Going on public transport (trains, buses, etc.).
4. Going to dances.
5. Making American friends of your own age.
6. Making close friends from other countries of your own age.
7. Going to a small private party with American people.
8. Going out with somebody who you are sexually attracted to.
9. Being with a group of people of your age, but of the opposite sex.
10. Going into restaurants or cafes.
11. Going into a room full of people.
12. Being with older American people.
13. Meeting strangers and being introduced to new people.
14. Being with people that you don't know very well.
15. Approaching others—making the first move in starting up a friendship.
16. Making ordinary decisions (plans) affecting others (what to do in the evening).
17. Getting to know people in depth (well, intimately).
18. Taking the initiative in keeping the conversation going.
19. People standing or sitting very close to you.
20 Talking about yourself and your feelings in a conversation.
21. Dealing with people staring at you.
22. Attending a formal dinner.
23. Complaining in public—dealing with unsatisfactory service at a shop where you think you have been cheated or misled.
24. Seeing a doctor.
25. Appearing in front of an audience (acting, giving a speech).
26. Being interviewed for something.
27. Being the leader (chairman) of a small group.
28. Dealing with people of higher status than you.
29. Reprimanding a subordinate—telling off someone below you for something that they have done wrong.
30. Going to a social occasion by yourself where there are many people of another national or cultural group.
31. Apologizing to a superior if you have done wrong.
32. Understanding jokes, humor and sarcasm.
33. Dealing with somebody who is cross and aggressive (abusive).
34. Buying special goods (medicines, books, electrical goods, etc.).
35. Using public and private toilet facilities. 1
36. Waiting in a line.
37. Getting very intimate with a person of the opposite sex.
38. Taking a bus.
39. Going to worship (church, temple, mosque).
40. Talking about serious matters (politics, religion) to people of your own age.
Scoring instructions: Sum the scores on the 40 items. Items scored as "6" are coded as missing.
Appendix G. The Interaction Involvement Scale
Directions:Here are statements that reflect how you communicate with Americans. Please use the number below to indicate how much the following statements are like you.
7 Very Much Like Me
6 Like Me
5 Somewhat Like Me
4 Not Sure
3 Somewhat Unlike me
2 Not Like Me
1 Not At All Like Me
1. I am keenly aware of how others perceive me during my conversation.
2. My mind wanders during conversations and I often miss parts of what is going on.
3. Often in conversations I'm not sure what to say I can't seem to find the appropriate lines.
4. I carefully observe how others respond to me during my conversations.
5. Often I will pretend to be listening to someone when in fact I'm thinking about something else.
6. Often in conversations I'm not sure what my role is; that is, I'm not sure how I'm expected to relate to others.
7. I listen carefully to others during a conversation.
8. Often I am preoccupied in my conversations and do not pay complete attention to the others.
9. Often in conversations I'm not sure what the other is really saying.
10. Often in conversations I am not sure what others' needs are (e.g., reassurance, a compliment, etc,) until it is too late to respond appropriately.
11. During conversations I am sensitive to others' subtle or hidden meanings.
12. I am very observant during my conversations with others.
13. In conversations I pay close attention to what others say and do and try to obtain as much information as I can.
14. Often I feel sort of "unplugged" from the social situation of which I am part; that is, I'm uncertain of my role, other's motives, and what's happening.
15. In conversations I really know what's going on; that is, I have a "handle on the situation".
16. In my conversations I can accurately perceive others' intentions quite well.
17. Often in conversations I'm not sure how I'm expected to respond.
18. In conversations I am responsive to the meaning of others' behavior in relation to myself and the situation.
Scoring instructions: Sum the score on the 18 items after reversing the scoring of items 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 17. Responsiveness factor is items 3, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17, Perceptiveness factor is items 1, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 18, and attentiveness factor is items 2, 5, 7 and 8.
Appendix H. The Communicative Adaptability Scale
Directions:Here are several statements which reflect how people communicate with Americans. Please indicate the extent to which you feel that each statement describes your own behavior. There are no right or wrong answer. Just answer honestly how you feel.
7 Strongly Agree
6 Agree
5 Slightly Agree
4 Are Undecided
3 Slightly Disagree
2 Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
1. In most social situations, I feel tense and constrained.
2. I enjoy social gatherings where I can meet new people.
3. I have a great deal of experience in different social settings.
4. I do not feel I handle myself well in most social situations.
5. I am generally relaxed when conversing with a new acquaintance.
6. I can fit in pretty easily with any group of people. 1
7. I find it easy to get along with new people.
8. I cannot adapt to new social situations.
9. I enjoy socializing with various groups of people.
10. I am not a good mixer.
11. I try to make the other person feel he/she counts for something.
12. I try to make the other person feel good.
13.I am sympathetic of the feelings of others.
14, I try to make the other person feel important.
15. I am sensitive to the needs of others.
16. I am sensitive to others' needs of the moment.
17. I try to increase the other person's selfconfidence.
18. I am an attentive listener.
19. I try to be warm when communicating with another.
20. I listen to what other people say.
Scoring instructions: Sum the scores on the 20 items after reversing the scoring of items 1, 4, 8, and 10. Adaptability factor is items 1 through 10. Rewarding impressions factor is items 11 through 20.
Appendix I. The Communication Competency OtherReport Scale
Directions: Here are several statements about communication. Please indicate the number that best describes this person's communication with Americans.
7 Very Strongly Agree
6 Strongly Agree
5 Mildly Agree
4 Neutral
3 Mildly Disagree
2 Strongly Disagree
1 Very Strongly Disagree
1. The person pronounces words correctly.
2. The words the person uses say one thing while her/his face and tone of voice say something different.
3. The person speaks clearly and distinctly.
4. The person is able to completely and concisely tell the main points of a meeting to someone who didn't attend.
5. The person doesn't know what to say when introducing him/herself to others.
6. When the person explains something to me, it tends to be disorganized.
7. When the person gives directions to me, the directions are accurate.
8. When the person tries to describe someone else's point of view, he/she has trouble getting it right.
9. The person is able to give a balanced explanation of differing opinions.
10. The person can be persuasive when he/she wants to be.
11. The person has trouble presenting ideas so that I can't understand them.
12. The person thoroughly expresses and fully defends her/his position on issues.
13. The person is unable to tell whether or not I understand him/her.
14. The person knows when he/she is hearing a fact and when she/he is hearing someone's personal opinion.
15. The person doesn't listen well.
16. The person understands oral explanations that are given to him/her.
17. The person has to ask a question several times, in several ways, to get the information she/he wants.
18. When the person answers a question, he/she answers as completely as possible.
19. The person finds it difficult to express to me his/her satisfaction or dissatisfaction about my work.
Scoring instructions: Sum the scores on the 19 items after reversing the scoring of items 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19.
Appendix J. The Test of American Culture
Directions: Here are several statements designed to measure how much you know about American culture. There is only one correct answer to any question. If you do not find the answer, just leave it blank. Please mark your answer in the space provided on the left.
1. is famous for country music. (1) St. Louis (2) Nashville (3) Denver (4) Kansas
2. The Gettysburg address was given by. (1) Abraham Lincoln (2) Patrick Henry (3) Daniel Boone (4) Martin Luther King, Jr.
3. The Lincoln Memorial is located in . (1) New York (2) Washington D.C. (3) Chicago (4) Springfield
4. One of the major services is Greyhound. (1) bus (2) train (3) subway (4) airplane
5. If you break a mirror, you will have bad luck for years. (1) 1 (2) 3 (3) 5 (4) 7
6. "Senior" in high school refers to the grade. (1)10 (2) 11 (3) 12 (4) 13
7. When you need medicine, you buy it from the . (1) hospital (2) doctor (3) drug store (4) dime store
8. In most states people can start driving when they are years old. (1) 15 (2) 16 (3) 18 (4) 20
9. People bring flowers to graves on . (1) Veteran's Day (2) Fourth of July (3) Thanksgiving (4) Memorial Day
10. Caps and gowns are used for (1) weddings (2) funerals (3) engagements (4) graduations
11. The American dream is the belief that any individual can achieve wealth and fame through . (1) birth (2) privilege (3) hard work and honesty (4) good luck
12. The biggest sale in the year is . (1) after Xmas (2) in summer (3) before Easter (4) on Washington's birthday
13. Regular first class mail costs cents each. (1)10 (2) 15 (3) 22 (4) 25
14. Shrugging shoulders means .(1) I'm sorry (2) I beg your pardon (3) I don't know (4) important point
15. The normal salutation of a letter is . (1) Dear: (2) Hello! (3) How are you? (4) season's greeting
16. Two feet equals inches. (1) 12 (2) 18 (3) 24 (4) 30
17. One yard equals feet. (1) 3 (2) 5 (3) 10 (4) 15
18. A typical lunch is . (1) pancake (2) cereal (3) sandwich (4) steak
19. Poor manners are that . (1) you eat silently (2) you use a fork with your right hand (3) you leave right after you finish (4) you keep a napkin on your lap while eating
20. It is not appropriate to. (1) ask a lady her age (2) stand up when you are introduced (3) send a seasongreeting card (4) take coats of visitors
21. Speed limit on major highway is . (1) 40mph (2)55mph (3)65mph (4)75mph
22. Middle class people often live in . (1) the heart of a big city (2) downtown (3) the country (4) the suburbs
23. are formal cloths. (1) summer dress (2) short skirts (3) sport coats (4) tuxedos
24. Crossing fingers means . (1) friendship (2) love (3) good luck (4) money
25. A black cat means . (1) happiness (2) many children (3) bad luck (4) wealth
Appendix K. Cover Letter
To:
From: GuoMing Chen, School of Speech Communication
Date:
has given me your name
For my dissertation, it is important that I ask the international students' friends, roommates, or instructors to complete the attached intercultural behavioral assessment indices. Your name has been given to me by . You are considered by him/her as being the most qualified person to know him/her well.
The indices that need to be completed simply ask you to fill in or circle the number which best describes the person when in interaction with you or other Americans in daily life. Each index includes directions for how to complete it and includes description which represents the different numbers.
Please complete these indices within the new few days and deliver the completed indices to me through campus mail (a return envelop is enclosed).
I am very grateful for your time and willingness to accommodate my research. If there are any questions at all, please feel free to call me at 6781734, evenings.
Your cooperation is highly appreciated.
Sincerely,
GuoMing Chen
Appendix L. Survey Questionnaire
Directions:This survey is being conducted to better understand how we communicate interculturally. This booklet contains six questionnaires for you to complete. We are requesting your name only in order to organize this research. All information will be kept confidential. Please answer all questions as honestly as you can.
References
Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. L. (1983). A crosscultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 5367.
Adler, P. S. (1972). Culture shock and the crosscultural learning experience. In D. Hopes (Ed.), Readings in intercultural communication (Vol. 2). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
Aitken, T. (1973). The multinational man: The role of the manager abroad. New York: Wiley.
Allen, R. R.., & Wood, B. S. (1978). Beyond reading and writing to communication competence. Communication Education, 27, 286292.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationship. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Arensberg, C. M., & Niehoff, A. H. (1971). Introducing social change: A manual for community development. Chicago, IL: AldineAtherton.
Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. London: Tavistock.
Argyle,, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289304.
Argyris, C. (1965a). Explorations in interpersonal competenceI. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1, 5883.
Argyris, C. (1965b). Explorations in interpersonal competenceII. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1, 255269.
Asante, M. K. (1980). Intercultural communication: An inquiry into research directions. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 4 (pp.401410). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Asante, M. K., Newmark, E., & Blake, C. A. (1979). Handbook of intercultural communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Backlund, P. (1978). Defining communication competence. In C. Larson, P. Backlund, M. Redmond, & A. Barbour (Eds.), Assessing functional communication. Annandale, VA: SCA/ERIC.
Barlow, D. H., Able, G. G., Blanchard, B. B., Bristow, A. R., & Young, L. D. (1977). A heterosocial skills behavior checklist for males. Behavior Therapy, 8, 229239.
Barna, L. M. (1972). Stumbling blocks in interpersonal intercultural communication. In D. Hopes (Ed.), Readings in intercultural communication (Vol. 1). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburg.
Barna, L. M. (1979). Intercultural communication stumbling blocks. In R. E. Porter & L. A. Samovar (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 291298). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Benson, P. R. (1978). Measuring crosscultural adjustment: The problem of criteria. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 2137.
Bienvenu, M. J., Sr. (1971). An interpersonal communication inventory. Journal of Communication, 21, 381388.
Bochner, A. P., & Kelly, C. W. (1974). Interpersonal competence: Rational, philosophy, and implementation of a conceptual framework. Speech Teacher, 23, 279301.
Brislin, R. W. (1979). Orientation programs for crosscultural preparation. In A.J. Marsella, R. G. Tharp, & T. J. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on crosscultural psychology (pp. 287303). New York: Academic Press.
Brislin, R. W. (1981). Crosscultural encounters: Facetoface interaction. NY: Pergamon.
Brislin, R. W., & Pedersen, P. (1976). Crosscultural orientation program. New York: Gardner Press.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 252276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409429.
Campbell, R. J., Kagan, N., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1971). The development and validation of a scale to measure affective sensitivity (empathy). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 407412.
Carkhuff, R. R. (1969). Helping and human relations (Vol. 1). NY: Gardner Press.
Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative competence. Communication Education, 30, 109 121.
Cegala, D. J. (1984). Affective and cognitive manifestations of interaction involvement during unstructured and competitive interactions. Communication Monographs, 51, 320 338.
Cegala, D. J., Savage, G. T., Brunner, C. C., & Conrad, A. B. (1982). An elaboration of the meaning of interaction involvement: Toward the development of a theoretical concept. Communication Monographs, 49, 229248.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cleveland, H., Mangone, G. J., & Adams, J. C. (1960). The overseas Americans. NY: McGrawHill.
Cooley, R. E., & Roach, D. A. (1984). A conceptual framework. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 1132). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica, 16, 297334.
Cupach, W. R. (1981). The relationship between perceived communication competence and choice of interpersonal conflict message strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2362A.
Cupach, W. R. (1982, May). Communication satisfaction and interpersonal solidarity as outcomes of conflict message strategy use. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1981). Relational competence: Measurement and validation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, San Jose, California.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Trait versus state: A comparison of dispositional and situational measures of interpersonal communication competence. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 367379.
David, K. (1972). Intercultural adjustment and applications of reinforcement theory to problems of culture shock. Trends, 4, 164.
Delia, J. G., & O'Keefe, B. J. (1975, December). Social construal processes in the development of communicative competence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Houston, Texas. Journal of Personality, 43, 591611.
Detweiler, R. A. (1975). On inferring the intentions of a persona from another culture. Journal of Personality, 43, 591611.
Detweiler, R. A. (1980). Intercultural interaction and the categorization process: A conceptual analysis and behavioral outcome. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 275293.
Deutsch, S. E., & Won, G. Y. M. (1963). Some factors in the adjustment of foreign nationals in the United States. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 115122.
Dittman, A. T. (1972). Developmental factors in conversation behavior. Journal of Communication, 22, 404423.
Downs, J. F. (1969). Fables, fancies and failures in crosscultural training. Trends, 2, 3.
Duncan, S. (1973). Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica, 9, 2946.
Duran, R. L. (1983). Communicative adaptability: A measure of social communicative competence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 320326.
Elder, J. B., Wallace, C. J., & Harris, F. C. (1980). Assessment of social skills using a Thurstone equalappearing interval scale. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 2(3), 161165.
ErvinTripp, S. (1964). An analysis of the interaction of language, topic and listener. American Anthropologist, 66, 8694.
ErvinTripp, S. (1972). On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and cooccurrence. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directioin in sociolinguistics (pp. 213250). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Exline, R. V. (1971). Visual interaction: The glances of power and preference. In J. K. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (163206). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Fenigstein, A. (1974). Selfconsciousness, selfawareness and rejection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A H. (1975). Public and private selfconsciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522527.
Fiedler, F., Mitchell, T., & Triandis, H. (1971). The culture assimilator: an approach to crosscultural training. Journal of Applied psychology, 55, 95102.
Foa, U., & Chemers, M. (1967). The significance of behavior differentiation for crosscultural interaction training. International Journal of Psychology, 2, 4557.
Foote, N. N., & Cottrell, L. S. (1955). Identity and interpersonal competence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in crosscultural interaction. New York: Pergamon Press.
Gardner, G. H. (1962). Crosscultural communication. Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 241256.
Getter, H., & Nowinski, J. K. (1981). A free response test of interpersonal effectiveness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 301308.
Gillingham, P. R., Griffiths, R. D. P., & Care, D. (1977). Direct assessment of social behavior from videotape recordings. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 181187.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday anchor.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Greenwald, D. P. (1977). The behavioral assessment of differences in social skill and social anxiety in female college students. Behavior Therapy, 8, 925937.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer. R. (1984). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Culture specific or culture general? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 110.
Gudykunst, W. B., Hammer, M. R., & Wiseman, R. L. (1977). An analysis of an integrated approach to crosscultural training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 99110.
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An extension of the Ucurve Hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 3347.
Guthrie, G. (1975). A behavioral analysis of culture learning. In R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Crosscultural perspectives on learning. NY: Wiley.
Guthrie, G.M., & Zetrick, I. N. (1967). Predicting performance in the Peace Corps. Journal of Social Psychology, 71, 1121.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9, 83103.
Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Hall, E. T., & Whyte, W. F. (1963). Intercultural communication: A guide to men of action. Practical Anthropology, 9, 83108.
Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W., & Wiseman, R. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382393.
Harris, J. G. (1973). A science of the South Pacific: An analysis of the character structure of the Peace Corp volunteer. American Psychologist, 28, 232247.
Harris, L., & Cronen, U. E. (1976). A rulesbased model for the analysis and evaluation of organizational communication. Communication Education, 25, 222230.
Harrison, R., & Hopkins, R. (1967). The design of crosscultural training: An lternative to the university model. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 3, 34160.
Hart, R. P., Carlson, R. E., & Eadie, W. F. (1975). Attitudes toward communication and the assessment of rhetorical sensitivity. Communication Monographs, 47, 122.
Hecht, M. L. (1978a). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253264.
Hecht, M. L. (1978b, May). Contextual correlates of communication satisfaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Holland, J. L., Baird, L. L. (1968). An interpersonal competence scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 503510.
Jaffe, J., & Feldstein, S. (1970). Rhythms of dialogue. New York: Academic Press.
Kasl, S. V., & Mahl, G. F. (1965). The relationship of disturbances and hesitations in spontaneous speech to anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 425433.
Kelly, C. W., & Chase, L. J. (1978, April). The California Interpersonal Competence questionnaire: I. An exploratory search for factor structure. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Kelman, H. C. (1962). Changing attitudes through international activities. Journal of Social Issues, 18(1), 6887.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Riniehart & Winston.
Kitao, K. (1963). The test of American culture. NALLD Journal, 15(2), 2545.
Kleinjans, E. (1972). Opening remarks on a conference on world communication held at the East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Klopf, D. W., & Cambra, R. E. (1983). Communication apprehension in foreign settings: The results of exploratory research. Communication: The Journal of Communication Association of the Pacific, 12(1), 3751.
Kluckhohn, C. (1948). Mirror of man. New York: McGraw Hill.
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. M. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 595604.
Lee, L. (1979). Is social competence independent of cultural context? American Psychologist, 34, 795796.
Lowe, M. R., & Cautela, J. R. (1978). A selfreport measure of social skill. Behavior Therapy, 9, 535544.
Lundstedt, S. (1963). An introduction to some evolving problems in crosscultural research. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 19.
Macklin, T.J., Rossiter, C.M. (1976). Interpersonal communication and selfactualization. Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 4550.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). A noverbal betrayal of feeling. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5, 6473.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Mehrabian, A., & Ksionzky, S. (1972). Some determinants of social interaction. Sociometry, 35, 588609.
Miller, G. R. (1978). The current status of theory and research in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 4, 164178.
Minkin, N., Braukman, C.J., Minkin, B.L., Timbers, G.D., Timbers, B.J., Fixen, D.L., Phillips, E.L., & Wolf, M.M. (1976). The social validation and training of conversational skills. Journal of Applied Behavioral Research, 9, 127139.
Morganstern, B.F., & Wheeless, L.R. (1980, November). The relationship of nonverbal anxiety, status/selfcontrol and affective behaviors to relational anxiety. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New York.
Morris, R. T. (1960). The twoway mirror: National status of foreign students' adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mottram, R. (Ed.) (1963). The selection of personnel for international service. New York: World Federation for Mental Health.
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environment. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177182.
Oliver, R. T. (1962). Culture and communication: The problem of penetrating national and cultural boundaries. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Parks, M. R. (1976, December). Communication competence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Francisco, California.
Pearce, W. B. (1976). An overview of communication and interpersonal relationship. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
Pearce, W. B., & Sharp, S. M. (1973). Selfdisclosing communication. Journal of Communication, 23, 407425.
Phillips, D.C. (1949). Factors of effective and ineffective conversation. Speech Monograph, 16, 203213.
Phillips, G. M. (1984). A competent view of "competence." Communication Education, 33, 2536.
Porter, R. E., & Samovar, L. A. (1976). Communicating interculturally. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 423). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Robinson, W. P. (1972). Language and social behaviour. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
Rose, S. D., Cayner, J. J., & Edelson, J. L. (1977). Measuring interpersonal competence. Social Work, 22, 125129.
Rosenfeld, H.M. (1972). The experimental analysis of interpersonal influence processes. Journal of Communication, 22, 424442.
Ruben, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group & Organization Studies, 1, 334354.
Ruben, B. D. (1977). Guidelines for crosscultural communication effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies, 2, 470479.
Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of crosscultural adaptation. International Journal of intercultural Relations, 3, 1547.
Rubin, R. B. (1982a). Assessing speaking and listening competence at college level: The Communication Competency Assessment Instrument. Communication Education, 31, 1932.
Rubin, R. B. (1982b). Communication Competency Assessment Instrument. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Rubin, R. B. (1983, November). Conceptualizing communication competence: Directions for research and instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Washington, D.C.
Rubin, R. B. (1985). The validity of the communication competency assessment instrument. Communication Monographs, 52, 173185.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50, 696735.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (Eds.) (1976). Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The pair inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 4759.
Schegloff, E.A. (1972). Sequencing in conversational opening. In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp.346380). NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Scheidel, T. M. (1974). A system's analysis of two person conversations. Paper presented at the Doctoral Honors Seminar on Modern Systems Theory in Human Communication, University of Utah.
Selltiz, C., Christ, J. R., Havel, J., & Cook, S. W. (1963). Attitudes and social relations of foreign students in the United States. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Sewell, W. H., & Davidsen, O. M. (1956). The adjustment of Scandinavian students. Journal of Social Issues, 12, 919.
Sitaram, K. S., & Cogdell, R. T. (1976). Foundations of intercultural communication. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Sitaram, K.S., & Lawrence, L.W. (1979). The role of values in intercultural communication. In M. Asante, E. Newmark, & C.A. Black (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural communication (pp.147160). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Smalley, W. A. (1963). Culture shock, language shock, and the shock of selfdiscovery. Practical Anthropology, 10(1), 4956.
Smith, M.B. (1956). A perspective for further research on crosscultural education. Journal of Social Issues, 12(1), 5667.
Smith, M. B. (1966). Explorations in competence: A study of Peace Corps teachers in Ghana. American Psychologist, 21, 555556.
Snyder, M. (1979). Cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal consequences of selfmonitoring. In P. Pliner, K. R. Blankenstein, I. M. Spigel, T. Alloway, & L. Krames (Eds.), Advances in the study of communication and affect: Perception of emotion in self and others (pp. 181201). New York: Plenum.
Speier, M.(1973). How to observe facetoface communication: A sociological introduction. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1982a). Otherorientation and relational competence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Denver, Colorado.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1982b). Performance styles, interpersonal communication competence, and communicative outcome. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Denver, Colorado.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1982c, May). Relational competence: An empirical test of a conceptual model. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Boston, Massachusetts.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. L. (1984). Component model of relational competence. Human Communication Research, 10, 575599.
Stein, M. I. (1966). Volunteers for peace. New York: Wiley.
Stening, B. W. (1979). Problems in crosscultural contact: A literature review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 269313.
Stewart, E. C. (1978). Outline of intercultural communication. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Intercultural and international communication (pp. 265344). Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Taft, R. (1977). Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in crosscultural psychology, Vol. 1 (pp.121153). NY: Academic Press.
Trenholm, S., & Rose, T. (1981). The compliant communicator: Teacher perceptions of classroom behavior. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 1326.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Theoretical framework for evaluation of crosscultural training effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1 (4), 195213.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Subjective culture and interpersonal relations across cultures. In L. LoebAdler (Ed.), Issues in crosscultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 285, 418434.
Trower, P., Bryant, B., & Argyle, M. (1978). Social skills and mental health. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Turner, C. V. (1968). The Sinasina "Big Man" complex: A central culture theme. Practical Anthropology, 15, 1623.
Tylor, E. B. (1958). The origin of culture. New York: Harper & Row.
Weinstein, E.A. (1969). Toward a theory of interpersonal tactics. In C.W. Backman & P. F. Secord (Eds.), Problems in social psychology (pp.394398). NY: McGrawHill.
Weinstein, E. A. (1969). The development of interpersonal competence. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 753775). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Wheeless, E. W., & Duran, R. L. (1982). Gender orientation as a correlate of communicative competence. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48, 5164.
Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A followup study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 143157.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297333.
Wiemann, J. M. (1974, December). An experimental study of visual attention in dyads: The effect of four gaze conditions on evaluations of applicants in employment interviews. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Wiemann, J. M. (1975, May). Communicative competence: A paradigm for interpersonal communication theory and research. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association Doctoral Honors Seminar on Interpersonal Communication, East Lansing, Michigan.
Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of model of communication competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195213.
Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative competence. Review of Educational Research, 50, 185199.
Wiemann, J. M., & Knapp, P. (1975). Turntaking in conversations. Journal of Communication, 25, 7592.
Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language. New York: AppletonCenturyCroft.
Wiseman, R. L., & Abe, H. (1984). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 13, 333.
Wiseman, R. L., & Abe, H. (1984). Finding and explaining differences: A reply to Gudykunst and Hammer. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 1116.
Yeh, E. K., Chu, H. M., Klein, M. H., Alexander, A. A., & Miller, M. H. (1981). Psychiatric implications of crosscultural education: Chinese students in the United States. In S. Bochner (Ed.), The mediating person: Bridges between cultures (pp. 136168). Cambridge: Schenkman.
Zuroff, D. C., & Schwarz, J. C. (1978). An instrument for measuring the behavioral dimensions of social anxiety. Psychological Reports, 42, 371379.
书目分类 出版社分类