behavioral categories of intercultural communication competence: everyday communicators'...

Internarionol Journal of Inrercultuml Relations, Vol. 13, pp. 303-332. 1989 0147-1767189 13.00 + .OO

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.. Copyright 0 1989 Pcrgamon Press plc

MEASURING COMPETENCE

BEHAVIORAL CATEGORIES OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE: EVERYDAY

COMMUNICATORS’ PERCEPTIONS

JUDITH N. MARTIN

University of Minnesota

MITCHELL R. HAMMER

School of International Service, The American University

ABSTRACT This paper reports the development of a behaviorally-based inventory of social skills related to impressions of communicative competence, grounded in the perceptions of everyday communicators. The study examined two variables: (a) the cultural context (inter vs. intra) and (b) the locus of the communication (speaker vs. other). Six hundred and two respondents were asked to imagine they had just completed a dyadic interaction, in one of four cultural contexts: with (a) another American, (b) an international student; nationality not specified, (c) a Japanese student, or (d) a German student. They were then asked to describe (a) what they would do and (b) what the other interactant would do in order to create a favorable impression and to be perceived as a competent communicator Their responses were analyzed using standard content analysis procedures and four general dimensions emerged: one communicative function dimension and three specific behavioral dimensions (nonverbal, content/topic. and conversational management). Respondents identified 20-30 “behaviors” in each of these four dimensions that were fairly consistent for both loci (speaker, other). Most significant was the conceptual distinction made between the function dimension which comprised general statements of impressions (e.g., be friendly, be polite, show interest) and the other dimensions which comprised specific behaviors (smile, talk about topics of mutual interest, ask questions, etc.). Results also indicated that an additional set of competencies appears to be required for intercultural interactions, dealing with language difficulties and topic differences. The findings are examined in relation to previous research and their application to future research and training.

INTRODUCTION

Within the United States, communication competence is of central concern to both researchers and practitioners interested in an individual’s effectiveness in interacting with others (see reviews by Bostrom, 1984;

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Dr. Judith N. Martin, University of Minneso- ta, 317 Folwell Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

303

304 J: N. Martin and M. R. Hammer

Diez, 1984; Larson, Backlund, Redmond, & Barbour, 1978; Parks, 1985; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Within an intercultural context, communication competence has been investigated across a wide variety of conceptual focii, ranging from sojourner adaptation to cross-cultural training (see reviews by Benson, 1978; Brislin, 1981; Church, 1982; Gudykunst, 1977; Hammer, 1989; Landis & Brislin, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c; Stening, 1979).

For instance, in the area of sojourner adaptation, communication competence has been posited as integral to an individual’s successful adaptation in an overseas environment. As early as 1954, Hoselitz suggests:

The chief purpose of my insistence on difficulties is to show that in spite of mutual willingness to arrive at favorable solutions, in spite of goodwill exhibited on the part of those who come to help and those who need help, there arise often rigidities, misunderstandings, and gaps in communication which prevent the successful accomplishment of technical assistance. (p. 264)

Similar observations were echoed by Gardner (1962) who pointed out that the difficulties of many international development programs are due “to the ‘dynamics of the encounter,’ i.e., of cross-cultural communication” (p. 241). More recently, work by Barna (1985), Guthrie and Zektick (1%7), Gudykunst and Kim (1984), Ruben and Kealey (1979), Nishida (1985), Hawes and Kealey (1979, 1981), Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wise- man (1978), and Hammer (1987, 1989), along with reviews by Brein and David (1971), Benson (1978), Stening (1979), Church (1982), Brislin (1981), Dinges (1983), and Ruben, Askling, and Kealey (1977) have identified competence in communication as critically important to such intercultural effectiveness dimensions as job performance, personal adjustment, and social interaction.

Unfortunately, intracultural (i.e., within the United States) and intercultural research on the competence construct has been undertaken independently with little or no integration of findings. This has resulted in a paucity of work that has specifically investigated differences and similari- ties in “competent communication” as evidenced in interaction with someone from one’s own culture compared to interaction with someone from a different culture. In other words, the “cultural contexts” of communication competence have not been adequately examined. Further, because of the lack of integration in intracultural and intercultural work a theoretically sound conceptualization of communication competence has not emerged among researchers.

For instance, a variety of definitions and conceptualizations of “competent communication” within an intercultural context have been prof- fered. Communication competence appears to be viewed by Hawes and Kealey (1981) as both a component of intercultural interaction and as a set of interpersonal skills which influence effectiveness. In contrast,

Behavioral Categories of ICC Competence 305

Hammer et al. (1978) and Hammer (1987) conceptualize competent communication as one of three dimensions (the other dimensions being stress management and relationship development) which comprise a more general behavior construct of intercultural effectiveness. Further, much of the research that has examined competent intercultural communication has utilized researcher-imposed characterizations rather than a view of communication competence which is grounded in the perceptions of everyday communicators.

One approach that may offer an integrating framework for the study of intracultural and intercultural communication competence is that recently proposed by Spitzberg and Cupach (1984). These authors view competence essentially as a judgement or inference concerning the “goodness” of a communicative performance. As Spitzberg and Cupach suggest:

The perception of competence is a graduated phenomenon in which behaviors, affective responses, and cognition are enmeshed within an unfolding dynamic process of conversation. This dynamic process leads to impressions of a person or conversation as more or less appropriate and effective. (p. 109)

This view of competence as a social impression is useful because it can be equally applied to the study of within culture competence (an intracultural context) and between culture competence (an intercultural context). The present study is based on this conceptualization of the competence construct.

One aspect posited as central to the study of both intracultural and intercultural competence includes those “component communication skills which are instrumental in providing smooth and successful interaction . . . ” (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1983, p. 565). Unfortunately, the sheer number and variety of intracultural and intercultural social skills and abilities identified have resulted in a lack of congruence concerning the most salient behaviors. Also, research has not adequately examined behaviors in terms of their impact on an individual’s social impression of another person. Further, research has not identified the behaviors that everyday language users perceive to be important in forming impressions of competence of someone from the individual’s own culture. And, we do not yet know whether there are different behaviors that influence their communicative competence impression toward someone from another culture. Such an inventory of perceptions could be useful to cross-cultural trainers, enabling them to develop communication skills training based on a more realistic assessment of individuals’ pre-training level of competence (Paige & Martin, 1983).

The present study represents a preliminary effort at developing a behaviorally-based inventory of social skills related to impressions of communicative competence in both intracultural and intercultural contexts that is grounded in the perceptions of everyday communicators. In defin-

306 .I N. Martin and M. R. Hammer

ing our intercultural contexts, we recognize that interactions vary in the degree of “interculturalness” (Collier & Thomas, 1988; Porter & Sa- movar, 1988). For the purposes of this exploratory study, we have selected intercultural contexts that theoretically represent a high degree of interculturalness (where interactants differ in nationality and their experiences likely represent different systems of rules and meanings).

This study was designed to examine two important variables: (a) the context (intracultural vs. intercultural) and (b) the locus of communication (speaker vs. other). The study addresses the following research question:

What are the behaviors associated with impressions of communication competence for self and other in intracultural and intercultural communication contexts?

METHOD

In order to answer the research questions, 602 questionnaires were distributed to undergraduate students at a large midwestern university. These students were asked to describe communication competence for themselves and for another person in four interpersonal communication contexts:

1, In conversation with another American (n = 156) 2. In conversation with a foreign student (nationality not specified)

(n= 176) 3. In conversation with a Japanese student (n= 142) 4. In conversation with a German student (n = 128)

Respondents

The respondents were white undergraduate students enrolled in speech communication courses. Eighty percent (n=467) were between 18-21 years old, with a mean age of 20.6 years. Most respondents were interculturally naive; that is, 50% had no previous international experience and among those with travel experience, approximately 75% (n=219) had been abroad for relatively short periods of time (less than one month). In addition, approximately 75% (n=298) of their total trips abroad (n=398) were to Canada, Mexico, and/or the Caribbean.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire contained two sections. The first section asked for basic demographic information (age, racial/ethnic background, previous travel experience, number of friends of various national/ethnic origin, and parents’ occupations).


The second section asked the respondents to imagine they had just talked to a person (either American, foreign, Japanese, or German) and they wanted to create a favorable impression on this person. Respondents then answered two questions: (a) What would You do during your conversation to create a favorable impression and be seen as a competent communicator? (b) What would you expect the Other person to do to create a favorable impression and be viewed by yourself as a competent communicator?

The data consisted of respondents’ descriptions of behaviors in four dyadic communication contexts (1 intracultural and 3 intercultural) and two loci (behaviors exhibited by self, behavior exhibited by other), yield- ing 8 separate data sets: (a) Self behaviors in American-American dyad; (b) Other behaviors in American-American dyad; (c) Self behaviors in American-international student dyad; (d) Other behaviors in American- international student dyad; (e) Self behaviors in American-Japanese dyad; (f) Other behaviors in American-Japanese dyad; (g) Self behaviors in American-German dyad; and (h) Other behaviors in American-Ger- man dyad.

Con tent Analysis

The respondents’ descriptions were then analyzed, using standard content analysis procedures (Holsti, 1969; Krippendorf, 1980, pp. 71-84). The primary objective of the content analysis was to identify behavioral categories of communication competence identified by respondents. In order to minimize the subjectivity of the investigators’ judgement, until the final stage of the analysis, each data set was analyzed separately (i.e. no attempts were made to initially develop an overall set of categories that would apply to all contexts and both loci). Rather, the following procedures were followed in analyzing each of the 8 data sets:

1. All parts of all responses were listed and treated independently in order to minimize any investigator judgement at this stage of analysis. For example, the response “I would be friendly by smiling a lot” was treated as two separate units: (a) be friendly (b) smile.

2. Repeating categories were then identified (e.g., “smile,” “nod head,” “ listen attentively,” etc.).

3. An initial set of categories that were clear, unambiguous and non- overlapping (Krippendorf, 1980, p. 73) were developed. This resulted in about 100 behavioral categories for each data set (e.g., self behaviors in American context).

4. Frequencies were then counted; that is, the number of times that a behavior was mentioned by a respondent.

5. Any behavior that did not fit into an existing category was listed separately.

308 L N. Martin and M. R. Hammer

6. Finally, approximately 15 % (80) questionnaires were randomly selected and the frequencies were recounted to ensure the reliability of analysis.

At the end of the analysis eight sets of frequencies for behavioral categories emerged. Each set comprised approximately 100 categories with about 40 statements/descriptors that did not fit into any of the other categories. The final stage of the analysis was to compare the categories in all 8 sets to answer the research question.

RESULTS

Categories of Communication Competence

Results from the content analysis are presented in terms of (a) behaviors associated with impressions of communication competence for self and other in the particular intercultural and intracultural contexts identified in this study and (b) an overall profile of the most salient behaviors identified for both self and other across intercultural and intracultural contexts that are associated with impressions of communicative competence. The content analyses reveal that respondents identified one communicative function dimension and three behavioral categories that lead to impressions of competence. The three behavioral categories are: nonverbal behaviors, verbal (content) behaviors, and conversational management behaviors. Results of the communicative function dimension are presented first, followed by a discussion of the three behavioral categories.

Communicative Function Dimension

Tables 1 and 2 present frequencies for communicative functions identified by respondents. The functions identified in this dimension were abstract and general (e.g., be friendly, be polite, be yourself) and therefore conceptually different from the more specific behaviors identified in the other categories (e.g., smile, ask questions). These dimensions seem related to the abstract, higher-order dimensions of competence models proposed by several previous researchers-empathy, display of respect, flexibility, etc. (Hawes & Kealey, 1981; Ruben 8c Kealey, 1979) and are discussed in relation to this literature later.

This dimension reflected a great deal of variation; respondents identified hundreds of these general, abstract behaviors. Since the objective was to minimize subjective categorization in the content analysis, many of the categories were intentionally retained, rather than merged (e.g.,

TA

BLE

1

Fre

quen

cies

fo

r C

omm

unic

ativ

e F

unct

ions

A

ssoc

iate

d w

ith C

omm

unic

atio

n C

ompe

tenc

e fo

r S

elf

Con

text

Beh

avio

r

Am

eric

an-A

mer

ican

A

mer

ican

-For

eign

(N

= 1

56)

(N=

178

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

Am

eric

an-J

apan

ese

(N=

142

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Am

eric

an-G

erm

an

(N=

129

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Sho

w I

nter

est

37

23.7

50

28

.0

33

23.2

27

21

.o

Be

Frie

ndly

36

23

.0

26

14.6

15

10

.5

24

18.7

B

e P

olite

13

8.

3 IO

5.

6 10

7.

0 8

6.2

Mak

e O

ther

Per

son

Com

fort

able

13

8.

3 13

7.

3 9

6.3

9 7.

0 B

e M

ysel

f/Act

Nat

ural

12

7.

6 10

5.

6 9

6.3

9 7.

0 B

e O

pen

8 5.

1 4

2.2

9 6.

3 -

-

Be

Hon

est

10

6.4

5 2.

8 1

.7

4 3.

1 S

how

Res

pect

6

3.8

5 2.

8 6

4.2

4 3.

1 B

e A

ttent

ive

3 1.

9 5

2.8

6 4.

2 4

3.1

Be

Agr

eeab

le

7 4.

4 1

.5

- -

5 3.

9 B

e K

now

ledg

eabl

e/In

telli

gent

6

3.8

5 2.

8 3

2.1

- -

Be

Rel

axed

4

2.5

1 .5

3

2.1

3 2.

3 B

e E

nthu

sias

tic/O

utgo

ing/

Tal

kativ

e 8

5.1

- -

- -

2 1.

5

TA

BLE

1

Con

tinue

d

Con

text

Beh

avio

r

Am

eric

an-A

mer

ican

A

mer

ican

-For

eign

A

mer

ican

Jap

anes

e A

mer

ican

-Ger

man

(N

= 1

56)

(N=

178)

(N

= 1

42)

(N=

129

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

Be

Ple

asan

t/ H

appy

D

on’t

Offe

nd

Be

Nic

e D

on’t

Judg

e/B

e C

ritic

al

aTre

at O

ther

Lik

e A

nyon

e E

lse

aBe

Cou

rteo

us

Be

War

m

Tre

at O

ther

as

Equ

al

Be

Ope

nmin

dedl

Not

E

thno

cent

ric

Be

Info

rmal

/Cas

ual

Like

able

lEas

y G

oing

S

ince

re

Pos

itive

Atti

tude

C

onsi

dera

te/C

once

rned

/Car

ing

6 3.

8 1

.6

2 1.

2 4

2.5

- -

13

8.3

3 1.

9 5

3.2

1 .6

5

3.2

2 1.

2 1

.7

-

3 3 3 4 7 3 3 - 4 2 1 4 - 3

1.6

1.6

1.6

2.2

4.4

1.6

1.6

- 2.2

1.1 .5

2.2

- 1.6

2 4 3 4 3 1 1 7 1 - 1 - 2 2

1.4

2.8

2.1

2.8

2.1 .7

.7

4.

9 .7

-

.7

- 1.4

1.4

4 1 3 2 4 3 4 1 - 1 5 2 4

3.1 .7

2.

3 1.

5 3.

1 2.

3 3.

1 .7

-

.7

23

1.5

3.1

alnt

ercu

ltura

l co

ntex

ts o

nly.

TA

BL

E 2

F

req

uen

cies

fo

r C

om

mu

nic

ativ

e F

un

ctio

ns

Lea

din

g to

imp

ress

ion

s o

f C

om

pet

ence

fo

r O

ther

Con

text

Beh

avio

r

Am

eric

an-A

mer

ican

A

mer

ican

-For

eign

(N

= 1

56)

(N=

178

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

Am

eric

an-J

apan

ese

(N=

142

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Am

eric

an-G

erm

an

(N=

128)

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Do

Sam

e T

hing

I D

o 15

9.

6 17

95

18

12

.6

20

15.6

S

how

Int

eres

t 40

25

.6

53

29.7

44

30

.9

41

32.0

ti

Be

Frie

ndly

19

12

.1

20

11.2

16

11

.2

11

8.5

=:

Be

Hon

est

16

10.2

7

3.9

5 3.

5 2

1.5

Be

Pol

ite

6 5.

1 10

5.

6 9

6.3

7 5.

4 B

e C

ourt

eous

2

1.2

3 1.

6 1

.7

4 3.

1 M

ake

Me

Fee

l Com

fort

able

8

5.1

6 3.

3 3

2.1

6 4.

6 B

e R

espo

nsiv

e 4

2.5

5 2.

8 1

.7

2 1.

5 B

e A

tten

tive

4

2.5

5 2.

8 1

.7

2 1.

5 B

e O

pen

7 4.

4 9

5.0

8 5.

6 2

1.5

Be

Ope

nmin

ded

1 .6

4

2.2

5 3.

5 2

1.5

Be

The

mse

lves

/Act

Nat

ural

6

3.8

7 3.

9 6

4.2

5 3.

9 B

e R

elax

ed/A

t E

ase

5 3.

2 1

.5

6 4.

2 5

3.9

TA

BLE

2

Con

tinue

d

Con

text

Am

eric

as-A

mer

icas

A

mer

ican

-For

eign

A

mer

ican

-Jap

anes

e A

mer

ican

-Ger

man

(N

J 15

6)

(N=

176

) (I

V=

142

) (N

= 1

28)

Beh

avio

r F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

Tre

at O

ther

As

Equ

al

(not

con

desc

endj

ng)

5 3.

2 8

4.4

2 1.

4 5

3.9

h z D

on’t

Judg

e 4

2.5

4 2.

2 4

2.8

1 .7

S

how

Res

pect

for

fvie

5

3.2

7 3.

9 -

- 2

1.5

Be

Nic

e 2

1.2

2 1.

1 4

2.8

4 3.

1 B

e P

leas

ant/H

appy

2

1.2

1 .s

4

2.8

5 3.

9 aP

ositi

ve R

egar

d fo

r th

e U

S.

- 8

4.4

7 4.

9 3

2.3

%ur

iosi

ty

Abo

ut U

.S.

- -

4 2.

2 2

1.4

1 .7

aD

on’t

Gen

eral

ize/

Ste

reot

ype

- 2

1.1

1 .7

2

1.5

Rec

ipro

cate

My

Cou

rtes

y &

Res

pect

15

9.

6 8

4.4

7 9.

9 5

3.9

Be

Kno

wle

dgea

blei

lnte

tlige

nt

2 1.

2 3

1.6

2 1.

4 7

5.4

Be

War

m

3 1.

6 1

*7

1 .7

S

ince

re

2 1.

2 2

1.1

1 .7

%te

rcul

tura

l co

ntex

ts o

nly.


leaving “be polite” and “be courteous” as two separate categories) even though they may reflect the same function.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the most frequently mentioned statement in the communicative function dimension for both self and other in all contexts is “show interest.” Respondents indicated that showing interest in the other person and their country, and in what the other person was saying is important in exhibiting competence, mentioned by 28%-30% of all respondents. The second most frequently mentioned function across all contexts was “be friendly,” mentioned by lo%-20% of respondents. Being polite, making other feel comfortable, being yourself, being honest, being open, and treating the other as equal were also frequently mentioned.

While most of the same functions were mentioned for both self and other, there were some differences. For example, in the intracultural context there were several functions identified only for self: be agreeable, be enthusiastic/outgoing, don’t offend, be informal/casual. There were also functions identified as important only for the other person in the intracultural context: be responsive, do the same things I (speaker) do, recip- rocate my courtesy and respect, and be sincere. In the intercultural context there were few differences between functions mentioned for self and other that were not already mentioned in the intracultural context (e.g., for self: treat like anyone else and be courteous; and for the other: have a positive regard for the United States, be curious about the United States, don’t generalize and stereotype).

Concerning differences between the intra- and intercultural contexts, the functions identified as important for self concerned attitudes toward the other person, that is, being courteous but also treating the other (international person) like anyone else. For the other person, respondents seemed more concerned about their attitude toward the United States, indicating that they thought the other should understand, be curious about, and generally like the United States.

Nonverbal Behaviors

Respondents were very consistent and explicit in identifying nonverbal behaviors. They generally identified the same (rather limited number) nonverbal behaviors for self and other in all communication contexts.

Table 3 presents the nonverbal behaviors identified most frequently by the respondents in describing what they would do in order to create a favorable impression in the four communication contexts (talking with an American, a foreign student, a Japanese, and a German). Table 4 presents the nonverbal behaviors identified by respondents as important for the other person to do in order to create a favorable impression in the same four contexts.

TA

BLE

3

Fre

quen

cies

fo

r N

on

verb

al B

ehav

ior

Ass

oci

ated

wit

h C

om

mu

nic

atio

n C

om

pet

ence

fo

r S

elf

Can

text

Beh

avio

r

Dire

ct E

ye C

onta

ct

List

en C

aref

ully

S

mile

Am

eric

an-A

mer

ican

A

mer

ican

-For

eign

(N

= 1

50)

(N=

176)

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

48

30.7

20

11

.2

43

275

32

17.9

40

25

.6

40

22.4

Am

eric

an-J

apan

ese

(N =

142

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

28

19.7

38

26

.7

24

16.9

Am

eric

a~G

erm

an

(N=

128

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

26

20.3

22

17

.1

28

21.8

(*,

Atte

ntio

n 2

Pay

U

se Q

estu

res

10

6.4

11

6.1

4 2.

8 3

2.3

6 3.

8 8

4.4

a 5.

6 18

14

N

od H

ead

6 3.

8 7

3.9

3 2.

1 3

2.3

Laug

h 5

3.2

2 1.

f 2

1.4

2 1.

5

Ple

asan

t F

acia

l Exp

ress

ion

5 3.

2 7

3.9

3 2.

1 5

3.9

Goo

d P

ostu

re

4 2.

5 1

.f 4

2.8

3 2.

3 A

ppro

pria

te D

ista

nce

2 1.

2 3

1.6

1 .7

1

.7

%ha

ke H

ands

-

Tou

ch

2 V

ocal

Cha

ract

eris

tics

3 aN

ice

Phy

sica

l App

eara

nce

-

‘Men

tione

d on

ly f

or in

terc

ultu

ral

cont

ext.

- 2

1.1

4 2.

8 2

1.5

1.2

1 .7

4

2.8

2 1.

5 1.

9 1

.7

- -

3 2.

3 -

1 .7

1

.7

3 2.

3

TA

BLE

4

Fre

quen

cies

fo

r N

onve

rbal

B

ehav

iors

A

ssoc

iate

d w

ith C

omm

unic

atio

n C

ompe

tenc

e fo

r O

ther

Con

text

Seh

avio

r

Dire

ct E

ye C

onta

ct

List

en C

aref

ully

S

mile

____

____

_ ~_

~.

Am

eric

an-A

mer

ican

(N

= 1

56)

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

53

33.9

44

28

.2

22

14.1

Am

eric

an-F

orei

gn

Am

eric

an-J

apan

ese

(N=

178

) (N

= 1

42)

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

21

11.7

21

14

.7

38

21.3

30

21

.1

27

15.1

13

9.

1

Am

eric

an-G

erm

an

(N=

128

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

17

13.2

28

21

.8

26

15.6

tr

No

d H

ead

9 5.

7 8

4.4

1 .7

4

3.1

z P

ay A

ttent

ion

9 5.

7 6

3.3

IO

7.6

4 3.

1 La

ugh

5 3.

2 -

- -

- 2

1.5

Use

Non

verb

als

3 1.

9 6

3.3

3 2.

1 5

3.9

Goo

d P

ostu

re

App

ropr

iate

Ges

ture

s P

leas

ant

faci

al

Exp

ress

ion

*App

ropr

iate

Dis

tanc

e ‘S

hake

H

ands

*T

ouch

V

ocal

Cha

ract

eris

tics

‘Nic

e P

hysi

cal A

ppea

ranc

e

3 1.

9 2

1.1

1 .7

1

.7

2 1.

2 2

1.1

4 2.

8 4

3.1

2 1.

2 2

1.1

2 1.

4 4

3.1

- -

3 1.

6 2

1.4

2 1.

5 -

- 2

1.4

- -

- -

- 1

- 3

2.3

1 .6

1

5 1

1‘4

1 .7

-

- -

‘7

2 1.

5

aMen

tion~

on

ly f

or in

terc

uttu

ral

cont

ext,

316 J N. Martin and M. R. Hammer

As shown in these tables, the three most frequently mentioned behaviors for all contexts for both self and other were: direct eye contact, listen carefully, and smile. Behaviors mentioned fairly frequently included: use gestures, pay close attention, nod head, and use pleasant facial expres- sions. Behaviors mentioned less frequently were: laugh, good posture, appropriate distance (40% of these said one should stand closer in intercultural contexts), touch other person, appropriate vocal characteristics (good intonation, not talking too loud) and a nice physical appearance.

In the intracultural context, respondents generally identified the same behaviors for self and other as leading to impression of competence (direct eye contact and smile). But in the intercultural contexts, the behavior mentioned most frequently in all contexts was listening. That is, respondents indicated that, in order for them to be perceived as competent when speaking with a person from another culture, the most important behavior may be smiling or direct eye contact, but in order for a person from another culture to be perceived as competent, the most important behavior is listening attentively. Also, in the intercultural contexts, respondents identified shaking hands as important for self, but did not expect the other person to shake hands. Touching and laughing were mentioned infrequently for the other person in the intercultural contexts.

Overall, there were very few differences between behaviors mentioned in the intra- and intercultural contexts. That is, respondents generally identified the same nonverbal behaviors as leading to favorable impressions whether one is talking with another American or to a person from another culture.

Topic/Con tent Behaviors

Tables 5 and 6 present the frequencies for topic/content behaviors associated with communication competence for self and other; that is, what one should talk about in order to be perceived as competent. As these data indicate, the four most frequently mentioned topics for both self and other were: share information about self, talk about topics of mutual interest, and share information about one’s country and compare cultures (for intercultural contexts). The information in these tables demonstrates the wide range of behaviors mentioned in the various contexts. There is less consistency in this particular category than in the nonverbal category.

In the intracultural context (conversing with other Americans), respondents’ descriptions are generally the same for self and other for the most common behaviors. However, respondents were more specific in their descriptions of behaviors that the other person could exhibit to be competent, that is, more categories emerged from descriptions of others’ behavior than from descriptions of what they would talk about as a speaker. For example, behaviors that were identified only for other were:

TA

BLE

5

Fre

quen

cies

fo

r T

opic

/Con

tent

B

ehav

iors

A

ssoc

iate

d w

ith

Com

mun

icat

ion

Com

pete

nce

for

Sel

f

Con

text

Beh

avio

r

Am

eric

an-A

mer

ican

A

mer

ican

-For

eign

A

mer

ican

-Jap

anes

e A

mer

ican

-Ger

man

(N=

156)

(N

=

178)

(N

=

142)

(N

=

128)

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

See

k C

omm

on

Gro

und

See

k T

opic

s of

Mut

ual

Inte

rest

Sha

re

Info

rmat

ion

Abo

ut

Sel

f

aTal

k A

bout

O

wn

Cou

ntry

%om

pare

C

ount

ries/

Cul

ture

s

err

Tal

k A

bout

S

choo

l

: T

alk

Abo

ut

Oth

er’s

In

tere

sts

Intr

oduc

e M

ysel

f

aOffe

r O

pini

ons

Avo

id

Con

trov

ersi

al

Top

ics

Tal

k A

bout

W

hat

I K

now

‘Kno

w

Wha

t I’m

Tal

king

A

bout

Exc

hang

e B

asic

Inf

orm

atio

n

%ha

re

Pos

itive

In

form

atio

n A

bout

S

elf

aGen

eral

T

opic

aTal

k A

bout

O

ther

’s

Cou

ntry

Offe

r F

riend

ship

/Invi

te

The

m

Offe

r to

Hel

p (o

ther

)

“(O

ffer

to)

Sho

w

Aro

und

alnt

rodu

ce

to O

ther

s

29

23

27

- - 12

6 6 -

5 4 - 4 - - - 6 3 - -

18.5

-

14.7

16

17.3

31

- 21

- 21

7.6

4 3.

8 2

3.8

7 -

-

3.2

1 2.

5 -

- 2

2.5

-

- -

- 6

- 6

3.8

IO

1.9

10

- 10

- 2

- -

9.9

16

17.4

24

11.7

7

11.7

16

2.

2 -

1.1

-

3.9

1

- 2

.5

1

- 7

1.1

5

- 3

- 2

3.3

-

3.3

4

5.6

5

5.6

9

5.6

8

1.1

1

- 11.2

16.9

4.9

11.2

- - - 1.

4 .7

4.9

3.5

2.1

1.4

- 2.8

3.5

6.3

5.6 .7

- -

12

9.3

26

20.3

IO

7.8

15

11.7

-

-

4 3.

1 -

-

2 1.

5 -

-

1 .7

- -

1 .7

2 1.

5

9 7.

0 IO

7.

8

9 7.

0

8 6.

2 1

.7

‘Men

tione

d in

int

ercu

ltura

l co

ntex

ts

only

.

TA

BLE

6

Fre

quen

cies

fo

r T

op

ic/C

on

ten

t B

ehav

iors

Ass

oci

ated

wit

h C

om

mu

nlc

atlv

e C

om

pet

ence

fo

r O

ther

Con

text

Beh

avio

r

Am

eric

an-A

mer

ican

A

mer

ican

-For

eign

A

mer

ican

-Jap

anes

e A

mer

ican

-Ger

man

(N

= 1

56)

(N=

175

) (N

= 1

42)

(N=

128

) F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

‘Sha

re

Info

rmat

ion

Abo

ut O

wn

Cou

ntry

-

- S

eek

Top

ic o

f Mut

ual

inte

rest

16

10

.2

Sha

re I

nfor

mat

ion

Abo

ut S

elf

15

9.6

13

7.3

11

7.7

8 6.

2 10

5.

6 6

4.2

7 5.

4 10

5.

6 6

4.2

7 5.

4

6 3.

8 5

3.2

- -

6 3.

8

5.6

- -

1.4

11

8.5

2.1

7 5.

4 1.

4 4

3.1

Exp

ress

Fee

lings

E

xpre

ss T

hem

selv

es

aCom

pare

Cou

ntrie

s/C

ultu

res

b O

ffer

Frie

~shi

p/in

vite

M

e z

Don

’t Ju

st T

alk

Abo

ut S

elf

Kno

w W

hat T

hey

Tal

k A

bout

T

alk

Abo

ut W

hat T

hey

Kno

w

%ha

re

Impr

essi

ons

of U

.S.

Tal

k A

bout

Sch

ool

Avo

id C

ontro

vers

ial

Top

ics

Sha

re P

ositi

ve I

nfo

Abo

ut S

elf

Intr

oduc

e S

elf

Don

’t S

how

Off

Kno

wle

dge

Tel

l Me

if D

on’t

Wan

t to

Tal

k %

hare

P

ositi

ve I

nfor

mat

ion

Abo

ut

Ow

n C

ount

ry

%xc

hang

e S

mal

l Tal

k ‘C

ompl

imen

t M

y C

ount

ry (

U.S

.)

5 2.

8 2

2.8

8 4.

4 6

3.3

5 13

3 - 2 3 2 4 3 3

3.2

8.3

1.9

- 1.2

1.9

1.2

2.5

1.9

1.9

- -

6 4.

2 1

.7

1 .7

-

-

7 4.

9 -

- -

- -

-

- -

- - 7 3 - 2 - 1

- 5.4

2.3

- 1.5

- .7

- -

2.2

2.2 5

4 4 1

- - -

- - 2

- -

- -

- 1.4

- -

3 2.

3

aMen

tione

d in

inte

rcul

tura

l co

ntex

ts o

nly.


express feelings, express themselves, tell me when they don’t want to talk about something, don’t just talk about themselves, don’t show off their personal knowledge, and talk about what they want to talk about. In contrast, only one behavior was listed for self only and not for other: seek common ground.

In the intercultural contexts, respondents also mentioned that the other should express ideas, concerns, and opinions. In addition they identified a number of topics concerning one’s country: share information about country, compare cultures, share positive information about one’s own country. Here, there were several differences in behaviors identified for self and other. For example, respondents reported that to be seen as competent when talking with persons from another country, they would talk about themselves (most frequently) and then about their country (less frequently). However, they indicated that when judging another’s competence, they would expect the other person to talk about their country first (most frequently), and then about themselves. Also, respondents mentioned they would talk positively about the United States more frequently than they expected the other to talk positively about their country.

Conversational Management Behaviors

Tables 7 and 8 present conversational behaviors identified by respondents as leading to impressions of competence. As shown, the most frequently mentioned behaviors are basically the same for both self and other in all communication contexts: Ask questions about self (and country in intercultural contexts), ask questions in general, respond/elaborate on what other person says, give feedback, and speak clearly.

In addition, many of the same behaviors are mentioned for both self and other in intra- and intercultural contexts: using good language form (good grammar, no slang), share/don’t dominate the conversation, don’t interrupt, and contribute to the conversation.

In the intracultural context, respondents generally identified the same behaviors for both self and other, with a few exceptions. Some behaviors were mentioned only for the self: use impressive words and talk a lot. For the other person in the intracultural context, respondents mentioned several behaviors: tell me if they disagree or agree, don’t disagree right away, and give positive feedback.

In the intercultural context, there were few differences between behaviors mentioned for self and other. Behaviors mentioned only for self were: Ask their opinion of the United States and what they know about the United States, use easy to understand words, recognize language problems and try to work them out, ask if they speak English.

There were some differences between behaviors mentioned in the intra-

TA

BLE

7

Fre

quen

cies

fo

r C

on

vers

atio

nal

Man

agem

ent

Beh

avio

rs L

ead

ing

to

Imp

ress

ion

s o

f C

om

pet

ence

fo

r S

elf

Con

text

2 A

mer

ican

-Am

eric

an

Am

eric

an-F

orei

gn

Am

eric

anJa

pane

se

Am

eric

an-G

erm

an

0 (N

=

156)

(N

=

176)

(N

=

142)

(N

-128

) B

ehav

ior

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

‘Ask

Q

uest

ions

A

bout

T

heir

Cou

ntry

Ask

Que

stio

ns

Abo

ut

The

m

Giv

e F

eedb

ack

Spe

ak

Cle

arly

Use

Goo

d G

ram

mar

D

on’t

Dom

inat

e

aTal

k S

low

ly

aAsk

for

Cla

rific

atio

n

- -

45

39

25.0

31

17

10.8

3

19

12.1

19

10

6.4

9 10

6.

4 -

- -

15

- -

8

25.2

40

16

.4

31

1.8

7

10.6

17

5.0

5 -

6 8.

4 7

4.4

6

28.1

32

25

.0

21.8

40

31

.2

4.9

- -

11.9

9

7.0

3.5

6 4.

6

4.2

4 3.

1

4.9

7 5.

4 4.

2 -

-

Ask

Que

stio

ns

9 5.

7 12

6.

7 20

14

.0

15

11.7

Don

’t U

se S

lang

8

5.1

14

7.8

6 4.

2 8

6.2

Joke

/Hav

e S

ense

of

Hum

or

12

7.6

3 1.

6 2

1.4

- -

Don

’t U

se F

oul

Spe

ech

6 3.

8 -

- 2

1.4

- -

aRel

ate

to W

hat O

ther

Say

s D

on’t

Inte

rrup

t A

nsw

er ~

uest

ions

/Res

pond

T

ake

Tur

ns

Pre

sent

Idea

s C

lear

ly

- -

5 2.

8 8

5.6

1 -

5 3.

2 2

1.1

1 .7

2

1.5

4 2.

5 12

6.

7 9

6.3

14

10.9

4

2.5

- -

- -

- -

- 13

7.

3 5

3.5

4 3.

1

“Wor

k O

ut L

angu

age

Pro

blem

s C

hoos

e W

ords

Car

eful

ly

Use

Impr

essi

ve W

ords

T

alk

a Lo

t aM

ake

Sur

e O

ther

Und

erst

ands

‘T

ry t

o U

nder

stan

d T

hem

aU

se E

asy

to U

nder

stan

d W

ords

aT

ry to

Spe

ak O

ther

’s L

angu

age

aAsk

them

Abo

ut U

.S.

2 L.

aAsk

if T

hey

Hav

e Q

uest

ions

- -

3 1.

9 3

1.9

2 1.

2 -

- -

-

- -

- -

10

5.6

2 1.

4 3

2.3

3 1.

6 2

1.4

- -

5.0

1.6 3.9

3.9

5.0

1.1

13

9.1

6 4

2.6

4 8

5.6

5 1

.7

10

16

11.2

11

-

- 2

6.2

3.1

3.9

7.8

8.5

1.5

aF~r

inte

rcul

tura

l co

ntex

ts o

nly,

TA

BL

E 8

F

req

uen

cies

for

Co

nve

r~ti

on

al

Man

agem

ent

Beh

avio

rs A

sso

ciat

ed w

ith

C#m

mu

ni~

t~o

n C

om

pet

ence

8 fo

r O

ther

ti C

onte

xt

hi

Am

eric

an-A

mer

ican

A

mer

ican

-For

eign

A

mer

ican

Jap

anes

e A

mer

ican

-Ger

man

(N

=W

) (N

= 1

78)

(N=

142

) (N

f128

) B

ehav

ior

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

F

requ

ency

P

erce

nt

aAsk

Que

stio

ns

aAsk

Que

stio

ns A

bout

My

Cou

ntry

A

sk Q

uest

ions

Abo

ut M

e R

espo

nd/E

labo

rate

Con

trib

ute

to th

e C

onve

rsat

ion

aQon

’t M

ono~

lize

the

Con

vers

atio

n aE

xpla

in C

aref

ully

, ~o

mpl

etei

y/E

xpan

d G

ive

Fee

dbac

k A

nsw

er Q

uest

ions

(ho

nest

ly)

18

10.2

33

17

.4

20

14.0

20

5.

6 -

- 23

12

.1

14

9.8

13

10.1

23

14

.7

13

8.8

13

9.1

13

10.1

16

10

.2

9 4.

7 6

4.2

- -

21

13.4

-

9 6.

3 8

6.2

- -

6 3.

1 4

2.8

2 1.

5 -

- 3

1.5

4 2.

8 4

3.1

10

6.4

8 4.

2 12

8.

4 12

9.

3 -

- -

- 7

4.9

5 3.

9

“(fr

y to

) S

peak

Eng

lish

- -

13

6.8

6 4.

2 13

10

.1

Try

to

Und

erst

and

Me

Use

Goo

d G

ram

mar

Spe

ak

Cle

arly

Use

No

Fou

l La

ngua

ge

Use

No

Sla

ng

‘Spe

ak

Slo

wly

Hav

e a

Sen

se

of H

umor

Tel

l M

e if

The

y D

isag

ree

Hav

e a

Goo

d C

hoic

e of

Wo

rds

Don

’t In

terr

upt

Giv

e P

ositi

ve

Fee

dbac

k

Don

’t D

isag

ree

Rig

ht

Aw

ay

Don

’t A

gree

T

otal

ly

Stic

k to

the

Top

ic

Agr

ee

with

M

e

%

aAsk

Que

stio

ns

for

Cla

rific

atio

n

aMak

e S

ure

I U

nder

stan

d

- -

8 5.

1 13

8.

3 7

4.4

7 4.

4 -

-

5 3.

8

8 3.

8 10

6.

4 4

2.5

4 2.

5 4

2.5

4 2.

5

3 1.

9 4

2.5

- - - -

7 4 15

- 4 6 2 -

2 2 - - - - - 8 8

3.7

2.1

7.9

- 2.1

3.1

1.0

- 1 .o

1 .o

- - - - - 4.

2

7 2 10

- 2 4 1 - - - - - 1 1 - 8 11

4.9

1.4

7.0

- 1.4

2.8 .7

- - - - -

.7

.7

- 5.6

7.7

7 3 7 1 3 5 -

1 - 6 -

5.4

2.3

5.4

2.3

3.9

-

.7

- 4.6

- -

5 3.

9

3 2.

3 -

-

2 1.

5 7

5.4

?nte

rcul

tura

l co

ntex

ts

only

.

324 J. N. Martin and M. R. Hammer

and intercultural context. In addition to the competencies listed for both contexts, there was a set of behaviors associated with language and un- derstanding that were identified for the intercultural context only (e.g., ask about the other’s home country, talk slowly, ask for clarification, make sure the other person understands, try to understand the other person, speak the other’s language, use easy to understand words).

Overall Profile

Table 9 presents the most frequently mentioned (at least 10 times) behaviors in these four categories across all communication contexts, representing an overall profile of those skills most commonly associated with communication competence in both intra- and intercultural contexts.

As discussed earlier, several behaviors were identified only for the inter-

TABLE 9

Overall Communicative Competence Profile: The Most Frequently Mentioned Behaviors Leading to Impressions of Competence for Self and Other in lntra and Intercultural Communication Contexts (602 respondents)

Nonverbal Behaviors 1. Listen carefully 2. Direct Eye Contact 3. Smile

4. Pay Close Attention 5. Use gestures

6. Nod Head 7. Pleasant facial expression 8. Laugh 9. Good Posture

10. Appropriate Distance 11. Touch other person 12. Appropriate vocal characteristics

Verbal (Topic/Content) Behaviors

1. Share information about self 2. Seek topics of mutual interest

‘3. Share informatio? about own country/culture ‘4. Compare countries/cultures 5. Offer friendship/extend invitation

‘8. Offer to help (other)

Frequencies 275 233 214

57 53 41

30 19 19

13 11 11

144 105 70 70 49 29

7. Talk about what yob know 27

8. Know what you talk about 27

c9. (Offer to) Show other around 26

a10. Share positive info. about own country 24

all. Talk about other’s country 21

12. Introduce yourself 21

(continued)

TABLE 9 Continued

Verbal (Topic/Content) Behaviors Frequencies

13. No controversial/personal topics 19

14. Talk about school/majors 16

15. Talk about what the other person wants to 14

16. Exchange basic info/small talk 11

Conversational Management Behaviors 1. Ask questions about other person

a2. Ask questions about other’s country

3. Ask questions

4. Speak clearly 5. Answer questions 6. Give Feedback 7. Use good grammar 8. Don’t use slang

a9. Make sure other understands

a10. Try to Speak other’s language

‘11. Speak slowly 12. Relate to what other says

b13. Contribute to the conversation

a14. Explain things carefully -Y5. Try to understand other person

a1 6. Ask for clarification 17. Don’t Dominate Conversation

18. Don’t interrupt 19. Have sense of humor (appropriate) 20. Use no foul language (swearing)

21. Choose words carefully

203 167

145

109 88 69

57 52 56

50 45 44

40

33 32

32 30 22 19 16 15

Communicative functions Show interest (in other, in what they say)

Be friendly 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Y7. 18. bl9.

Be polite

Do same things I do Make other feel comfortable Be yourself/act natural Be honest

Be open Treat other as equal (don’t be superior/condescending)

Be attentive Act knowledgeable/intelligent Show respect for other and their opinions

Be relaxed/at ease Be pleasant/happy Don’t judge other person

Be nice Be courteous

Be openminded Positive regard for the United States

325 167

75 70

67 64 50 47 41

36

28 28 27

27 24

23 21 20 18

aMentioned only in intercultural contexts. bMentioned only for other in intercultural contexts. ‘Mentioned only for self in intercultural contexts.

325


cultural context (e.g., share information about one’s country, ask questions about the other’s country, offer to help the other person). However, most behaviors were identified as important in both intra- and intercultural contexts. There were also behaviors identified as important only for self or only for the other person.

DISCUSSION

Behavioral Categories of Communication Competence

The present study represents a preliminary effort at identifying behaviors associated with impressions of communication competence for self and other in intercultural and intracultural communication contexts grounded in the perceptions of everyday communicators. Results from the study reveal that everyday communicators identify three specific categories: nonverbal behaviors, verbal (topic/content) behaviors, and conversational management behaviors, and one communicative function dimension associated with impressions of communicative competence. These categories appear to be fairly stable across both self and other judgments of competence and in both intracultural and intercultural contexts. These findings further suggest that there are specific behaviors which are consistently identified by respondents in the latter three categories. The important nonverbal behaviors are: listening carefully, direct eye contact, and smiling. The important behaviors concerning topics are: sharing information about self and seeking topics of mutual interest; and the important behaviors in managing the conversation are: asking questions about the other, asking questions in general, and speaking clearly.

The two conceptually different areas of competence (behaviors and functions) identified by respondents represent an important distinction that needs to be considered in future research. As indicated earlier, the communicative function dimension seems to be more related to compe- tences identified in previous research (e.g., empathy, flexibility, display of respect). This suggests that it might be theoretically profitable to more explicitly differentiate between the higher-order, abstract impressions and functions of competence and the more specific behaviors that serve to functionally create these impressions. That is, researchers need to discov- er the relationship among these various functions, and to describe more precisely the relationship between specific behaviors and the general functions they serve to fill, that is, what are the specific behaviors that lead to impressions of “being friendly ?” The difficulty in differentiating these two areas however, is that the same communicative behavior may serve multiple functions (e.g., a handshake may demonstrate simultane- ously positive regard, being friendly, and being polite) as scholars have noted (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984).


While respondents listed similar behaviors in each category, there were some behaviors identified for self that were not identified for other, and vice versa. In the intercultural contexts, behaviors identified for self only concerned helping the international: offering to help, introducing to others, showing them around, and taking the initiative nonverbally (shaking hands). Behaviors mentioned for the other only concerned their positive attitude toward the United States (positive regard for the United States, complimenting the United States). In the intracultural situations, behaviors identified for self only seemed to involve making a good impression by being assertive (use impressive words, talking a lot), while behaviors expected from the other reflected a more passive stance (don’t just talk about self, don’t show off knowledge, don’t disagree right away, and agree with me). These findings suggest that respondents may have different perceptions of what they would do themselves compared to what they expect the other person to do to create a communicatively competent impression. Therefore, future research should consider the possibility that various social skills may be differentially associated with self and other communicative competence. Competence research needs to ac- count for this differentiation, and reflect the complexity introduced by these results.

While a number of behaviors identified by respondents for both intracultural and intercultural contexts were similar, nevertheless, a specific set of additional behaviors were frequently cited by respondents in the intercultural context. These additional behaviors involve, not surprisingly: dealing with language difficulties (speaking slower, more clearly, making sure one understands) and topic differences (one should talk about cultural topics in an intercultural situation). It would appear that what one talks about and how one talks about it may be particularly important in creating communicatively competent impressions with people from another culture.

In spite of the additional behaviors identified in the intercultural context, it is important to note that in general, these results suggest that the interculturally naive person does not make significant differentiation between behaviors required for competence in intra- and intercultural contexts nor between behaviors required in culture-specific contexts. As noted, the respondents in this study lacked (a) extensive experience in general in other cultures, and (b) specific experience in the “target” cultures (e.g., Japan, Germany), therefore representing an interculturally naive popula- tion. The results of this study seem to suggest that the majority of social skills leading to impressions of competence in an intercultural context are perhaps perceived as applicable and generalizable to a variety of culture- specific interactions among interculturally naive subjects. This finding intuitively makes sense given the lack of specific culture knowledge (Ger- man, Japanese) and the communication skills repertoire of an inter-

328 .l N. Martin and M. R. Hammer

culturally naive individual. It is possible that a more interculturally so- phisticated individual may well identify other behaviors that are requisite for impressions of competence in specific intercultural contexts since contact with other cultures appears to affect our perceptions/stereotypes of members of those cultures (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Koester, 1985, 1987; Vassilou, Triandis, Vassilou, & McGuire, 1972) and our communication behavior based on those perceptions and stereotypes (Martin, 1987). It is important therefore for the competency literature to incorpo- rate and explain these possible differentiations in perceptual competency models.

Applications for Training

These findings have a number of applications for cross-cultural training. First, the results suggest that interculturally naive persons make few distinctions between general competencies needed in intercultural contexts, and competencies required in specific intercultural contexts. On the basis of these findings, a trainer may be able to more clearly identify what additional competencies a “naive” trainee would need in order to function effectively in a specific cross-cultural context. Furnham and Bochner (1986) describe such a program for sojourners which they term Social Skills Training (SST). SST is based on the assumption that “interpersonal difficulties across cultural boundaries stem from the partici- pants not possessing the requisite social skills” (p. 241). First, the individual’s pre-training communication competence is assessed and then additional skills needed in the specific target cultural situation are identified. The training program is then developed to assist the sojourner to acquire the requisite skills.

It would also be useful to administer this inventory of communication behaviors and functions in a variety of cultures, to develop a systematic framework for contrasting communication competence constructs in various cultures. In addition, one could also determine behaviors/functions that tend to be more universally based and those that vary across cultures. For instance, it is possible that “showing interest” is a function that universally reflects competence whereas “direct eye contact” is a behavior that may vary from culture to culture as an important indicator of such competence. Such a set of communication competence inventories could be useful as a training tool in demonstrating the specific functions and behaviors needed in various intercultural contexts.

Finally, the overall profile of communication skills described in this study (Table 9) may be useful in training international visitors in this country. One could present this profile as behaviors that a majority of (interculturally naive) individuals in the United States perceive as representing competent communication behavior for self and other. This may


assist the visitor in attributing accurate meaning to Americans’ behavior and also may be helpful in developing their own competence in this cultural context.

REFERENCES

BARNA, L. M. (1985) Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (4th ed.) (pp. 241-245). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

BENSON, P. G. (1978). Measuring cross-cultural adjustment: The problem of criteria. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2(l), 21-37.

BOSTROM, R. N. (Ed.). (1984). Competence in communication. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage. BREIN, M., & DAVID, K. (1971). Intercultural communication and the adjust-

ment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 215-230. BRISLIN, R. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face interaction. New

York: Pergamon. CHURCH, A. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540-

572. COLLIER, M. J., & THOMAS, M. J. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive

perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

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, 364-379.

DIEZ, M. E. (1984). Communicative competence: An interactive approach. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (pp. 56-79). Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage. DINGES, N. (1983). Intercultural competence. In D. Landis & R. Brislin (Eds.),

Handbook of intercultural training Vol. I: Issues in theory and design (pp. 176-202). New York: Pergamon.

FURNHAM, A., & BOCHNER, S. (1986). Culture shock: Psychological reac- tions to unfamiliar environments. New York: Methuen.

GARDNER, G. H. (1962). Cross-cultural communication. Journal of Social Psy- chology, 58, 241-256.

GUDYKUNST, W. B. (1977). The effects of an intercultural communication workshop on cross-cultural attitudes and interaction. Ph.D dissertation, Uni- versity of Minnesota.

GUDYKUNST, W. B., & KIM, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: Random House.

GUTHRIE, G. M., & ZEKTICK, I. N. (1976). Predicting performance in the Peace Corps. Journal of Social Psychology, 71, 1 l-2 1.

HAMMER, M. R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: A replication and extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 65-88.

HAMMER, M. R. (1989). Intercultural communication competence. In M. K.

330 A N. Martin and M. R. Hammer

Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

HAMMER, M. R., GUDYKUNST, W. B., & WISEMAN, R. L. (1978). Dimen- sions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382-392.

HAWES, F., & KEALEY, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 239-258.

HAWES, F., & KEALEY, D. J. (1979). Canadians in development: An empirical study of adaptation and effectiveness on overseas assignment. Communication Branch Briefing Center, Canadian International Development Agency.

HOLSTI, 0. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

HOSELITZ, B. F. (1954). Problems of adapting and communicating modern techniques to less developed areas. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 2,249-268.

KOESTER, J. (1985). A profile of the US. student abroad. New York: Council on International Educational Exchange.

KOESTER, J. (1987). A profile of the US. student abroad- 1984 and 1985. New York: Council on International Educational Exchange.

KRIPPENDORF, K. (1980). Content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. LANDIS, D., & BRISLIN, R. W. (Eds.). (1983a). Handbook of intercultural

training Vol. I: Issues in theory and design. New York: Pergamon. LANDIS, D., & BRISLIN, R. W. (Eds.). (1983b). Handbook of intercultural

training Vol. 2: Issues in training methodology. New York: Pergamon. LANDIS, D., & BRISLIN, R. W. (Eds.). (1983c). Handbook of intercultural

training Vol. 3: Area studies in intercultural training. New York: Pergamon. LARSON, C., BACKLUND, P., REDMOND, M., & BARBOUR, A. (1978).

Assessing functional communication. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communica- tion Association, ERIC.

MARTIN, J. N. (1987). The relationship between student sojourner perceptions of intercultural competencies and previous sojourn experience. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 337-356.

NISHIDA, H. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross- cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultuml Relations, 9, 247-269.

PAIGE, R. M., & MARTIN, J. N. (1983). Ethical issues and ethics in cross- cultural training. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training Vol. 1 (pp. 36-71). New York: Pergamon.

PARKS, M. R. (1985). Interpersonal communication and the quest for personal competence. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 171-204). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

PORTER, R. E., & SAMOVAR, L. A. (1988). Approaching intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (5th ed.) (pp. 14-30). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

RUBEN, B. D., ASKLING. L. R., & KEALEY, D. J. (1977). Cross-cultural effectiveness. In D. S. Hoopes, P. B. Pedersen, & G. W. Renwick (Eds.), Overview of intercultural education, training and research Vol 1: Theory (pp. 92-105). Washington, DC: Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research.


RUBEN, B. D., & KEALEY, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Zntercultural Relations, 3, 15-G.

SPITZBERG, B. H., & CUPACH, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

STENING, B. W. (1979). Problems in cross-cultural contact: A literature review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 269-3 13.

VASSILOU, V., TRIANDIS, H., VASSILQU, G.. & McGUIRE, H. (1972). Inter- personal contact and stereotyping. In H. Triandis (Ed.), The analysis ofsubjec- tive culture. New York: Wiley.

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS

Ce ppier examine le &veloppnent a'uI iluentoire a Ixse du arnpxtement &s hahilids sodales qui a rawrt avec les imlxessions ds la aan&enoe da la amunticsticn, i;on&es cans les perceptions des parleurs mcyens. L'&xoa a elanin ckux variables (1) le aontexte culturel (inter aontre intra) et (2) le locus de la amnmni~tion (parleur oontre autre). 602 pxrannx sent deman&es d’imaqiner qu’fis venaient Cr oanpleter me interaction double dans un de quatre contextes culturels avec (1) un autre BnQicain (2) un e?cudiant international--rationalit non sp&ifiC, (3) un e'tudiant japnais, ou (4) un Gtudiant allenand). Ensuite, ils ont Ate &man&s da Skrire cc au'ils faisaient et (2) ce qua l’autre parsonne faisait pxir or&r me imwessicn favorable, pour se pxoavoir csx0me m prleur ax&tent.

Leurs oescri-&ions ont f&6 examinehs en utilisant les proo&% d’armlyse de contenu mod&e, et quatre dimensions qerxxales &ergant: une dimension ck la fonotion -micerive et trois dimensions spe’cifiquas ciu oanpxtenent (nonverhel, oxrtenu/rratiere et maniement de la axwersation). Les parsonnas sond&es ont identifie’ 1 peu p&s 20-30 canportmnents &ns dlactmc ce ces quatre dimensions, qui i5taient suffisament uiiformes pxx l’m et l’autre locars (parleur, autre). Plus imprtant i&it la distinction axxe*uale faire entre la dimension ck la fonction qui osntient rks dklarations ge'ne'rales d'imwessions (p. ex. sayer sppthiqlle soper pli, montrez ck l'int&&) et l’autres dimensionsqui contiennent cks 0xnSprtaments s&ifiques (souriez, parlee de sujets d'int&etmutual, ckmandaz des questions etc.). Cette Gistinction aide a notre inter@kion &s fr$uament divers r&ultats dansla recherche anterieur &IS laiwestigacion &la crrnp&enua dala axnmunication interculturelle. Dauxi&xrnent, les r&ltats popxentque me suite ackiitionelle de cxxnpStena?s semblc se faloir pur les interactions interculturellesqui traitent les difficult& & lanque etles diffCenoes &I thhe. Des autres resultats sont examine’s par rapprt avec des recherches ant&xkntes aussi bien queleursapplications pur reherche et&iucation dal'wenir. (author-s@ied abstract).

Este articulo examirba el dxiarrollo ds u1 iwentorio de haSilida&s a base & amnl;ortamiento con relaci& a Ins impesiones da la arnpatencia aantniativa, hasado en las percepoiones de hahlantes m&os. El estuoio examino &s


variables: (1) el mntejrto cultural (inter contra intra) y (2) el siti c% la axunicacion (hablante axtra otro).

602 cespnoientes fueron piciiax de imagimr qw euos aabaran& acabar unainteraccidn di&ia (&Ale) en ~plo & cuatro contextos: con (1) otro estacixmi~nse, (2) un cstudiante interrxional-mcionali&dno espciiica~, (3) un estudiante japnk, 0 (4) un estudiante alen&. Entonces fwron pa&&s & ckscribir (1) gue harcany (2) que la otra prsona harl'a pra crear tma impesibnfavorable pxa pxcrbirse aax0 un nablante axnptentc.

Sus ckscxipores se araltiaron pr usar yocedimientos estandar ck adisis ck antenicb. De estas cuatro dimensiones gerxxales sur~*eron:UM dimensidr. axunicativak lunci&y tres espza'ficas dimensiones amprtamentistas (no verbal, cnntenick&ana, y iwnejo & axwersacio~). Los prticipntes identificaron agxoxima&nente 20-30 tips de cunprtamiento en cxk~ de estas cuatro dimensions, 10s wales eran txstante aonsistentes pra antes sitios (nablante, otro).

Kkimprtante fue la distinci& concepxual he&a entsela dimensi& & fur&&la cual axnpenida ckclaraciories gererales & imwesiones: (sea dnable, sea axtez, muestre inter&) y las otras dimensiones las cwles axnpendian aznprtamientos especificos (son&a, hable & temas ck inter& mutw, hz&nse peguntas etc.). Esta distinci& ~ntibuye praque pdxnos interpetar 10s frequzntemente diversos ckscubrimientos en irwestigaci&npevia eniruestigarla oxnptenciainterculteral ck oxnmicacio;~. Seegun&, 10s resulta&sindi~rcnquz u7 jwp adicional de aznptencias paraca requzrirse pra interaccicnes interculteralesque se tratan de las dificulckdeslinguisticasy diferencias de &ma. Otros &scubrimientos se examimn en relad6Lalasirwestigaciones peviasy a sua~icxidn pra iwestigacionesfuturas. (author-supplied abstract).

behavioral categories of intercultural communication competence: everyday communicators'...

Documents