ebook

THE GUILFORD PRESS

COMMUNICATING ACROSS CULTURES
Communicating
Across Cultures
SECOND EDITION

Stella Ting-Toomey
Tenzin Dorjee

THE GUILFORD PRESS

New York  London
Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10001
www.guilford.com

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the publisher.

ISBN 978-1-4625-3647-4 (paperback)

ISBN 978-1-4625-3648-1 (hardcover)
Preface

We have written this book for use as an intermediate text for undergraduate courses
and complementary reading for a graduate seminar in intercultural communication.
This book is for students, teachers, and practitioners who would like to integrate knowl-
edge and skills in practicing mindful intercultural communication. Mindfulness means
being particularly aware of our own assumptions, viewpoints, and ethnocentric tenden-
cies in entering any unfamiliar situation. Concomitantly, mindfulness means paying
focused attention to the perspectives and interpretive lenses of dissimilar others in
viewing a problematic intercultural or intergroup interaction encounter.
The second edition of this book presents a new framework—the integrative identity
negotiation theory (IINT)—and draws from both the scholarly works of intercultural
and intergroup communication and diverse disciplines such as cross-cultural psychol-
ogy, social psychology, ethnic studies, anthropology, sociolinguistics, sociology, mul-
ticultural counseling, international management, and international education. IINT
attempts to explain why we experience emotional vulnerability in communicating with
dissimilar others due to identity complexity and intergroup boundary-regulation issues.
Our sociocultural membership identities (e.g., cultural and ethnic identity or religious
identity), sociorelational role identities (e.g., intimate and professional role identities),
and person-based identity attributes (e.g., personality traits) influence our particular
ways of perceiving, thinking, and behaving in our everyday cultural milieu. However,
our habitual ways of seeing and thinking are often thrown into disequilibrium with
dissimilar others.
As cultural beings, we are like fish in an aquarium who can live comfortably inside
their aquatic milieu without realizing the importance of the water or the tank that
surrounds them. While communicating with culturally dissimilar others, their dissimi-
lar ways of thinking and behaving challenge our fundamental ways of experiencing.
Thus, our identities experience turmoil and transformation. With external and internal
tugs-and-pulls and turbulent pressures, emotional vulnerability is part of an inevitable

v
vi Preface

identity change process, especially for outsiders entering a cultural community and for
host members who perceive the influx of changes around them.
The key for all of us intercultural learners, however, is to prepare ourselves mind-
fully by developing culture-sensitive and identity-sensitive knowledge, a flexible mind-
set and resonating heartstring, and competent interaction practices so that we can enjoy
the intercultural learning journey together and, simultaneously, marvel at the mystery
of human diversity. This book offers you the essential intercultural and intergroup com-
munication knowledge blocks and skills that will enable you to travel effectively across
a diverse range of intercultural situations. Through the framework of IINT and the
theme of mindfulness, we put a map and a GPS in your backpack to guide you through
your different intercultural and intergroup encounter excursions.
This book uses ample examples from many different cultures to illustrate or clarify
various concepts. Since many of you will be engaged in different types of intercul-
tural excursions, this knowledge-packed guide book will prepare you to cross diverse
cultural boundaries flexibly and adaptively. The ideas presented here are drawn from
our years of diligent intercultural and intergroup communication research and were
inspired by the work of renowned scholars in the intercultural and intergroup commu-
nication disciplines. They are also reflective of some of our combined 50-plus years of
lived experiences in different countries and different parts of the United States and our
informal “ethnographic” observations of people and behaviors in many intercultural–
intergroup encounter scenes.
Our own research and that of other distinguished theorists led us to this one obser-
vation: In order to communicate competently across cultures, we have to be mindful
of our own identity issues and the identity issues of others. We have to learn to under-
stand and respect identity-based issues in any communication process—whether it is
within culture or across cultures. Identity-based issues (whether they are sociocultural
membership, sociorelational roles, and/or personal identity attributes)—constitute the
substance of “who we are” and act as the focal points that guide our verbal and nonver-
bal actions. Identity-based issues are influenced by our cultural and group membership
beliefs, values, norms, expectancies, interaction scripts, and constructed meanings—all
of which we use to interpret our own and others’ behaviors.
The book is organized in three parts. Part I, Conceptual Foundations and Con-
textual Settings, includes four chapters. Chapter 1 offers the reasons why we should
pay close attention to intercultural communication and examines the urgent need to
study the subject in depth. It also addresses the prime questions of what is culture
and what is intercultural communication. In Chapter 2, we open with the discussion
of the three paradigms (i.e., the functional, the interpretive, and the critical paradigm)
that shape the contemporary field of intercultural–intergroup communication research
studies. Following a detailed discussion of each paradigm, the pros and cons of each
paradigm are also assessed. In the second part of Chapter 2, the key assumptions of
IINT, along with IINT-based updated research studies, are showcased. The chapter
also describes how the various core identity sets (e.g., stigmatized identity and gener-
ational-based identity sets) may create potential intergroup misunderstandings if we
 Preface vii

continue to communicate in a habitually mindless fashion. This chapter is longer than

other chapters because it lays a strong theoretical foundation and blueprint (i.e., IINT)
that will help you, the reader, to gain a holistic picture of the book’s content, design, and
rhythm. Chapter 3 tracks and reviews the contextual setting of sojourners (e.g., interna-
tional students, U.S. students studying abroad, international employees, or Peace Corps
volunteers) and their anxiety-prone relocation experiences. The underlying factors and
the developmental patterns of the W-shaped cultural adjustment model are presented
and illustrated. Furthermore, the phenomenon of reentry culture shock is discussed,
and the question of “Where is home?” is raised for many global citizens. In Chapter
4, in the context of discussing immigrants’ and refugees’ acculturation processes, an
updated systems-process model covering the systems-level and individual-level factors,
intergroup contact and adaptation process strategies, and acculturation outcome factors
are systematically laid out. Cultural and ethnic identity issues affecting immigrants and
co-culture members’ ethnic identity evolvement and transformation are also addressed.
Also investigated are various intergroup membership adaptive strategies, such as social
mobility and social creativity to change one’s status or role strategically in a new society
or in an intergroup encounter setting.
Part II, Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication with Mindful-
ness, consists of four chapters that explicate the essential concepts of developing a
mindfulness lens in communicating verbally and nonverbally with culturally dissimi-
lar others. This section also emphasizes the importance of understanding cultural and
personal value dimensions that shape our operational behaviors, such as the use of
particular language codes, verbal interaction styles, and nonverbal nuances and subtle-
ties. Thus, Chapter 5 echoes and extends some of the key motifs in Chapter 2 (i.e., IINT,
the book’s blueprint). It lays out the major criteria and components of intercultural
and intergroup communication competence. The chapter emphasizes that in order to
cultivate intercultural and intergroup competencies, communicators need to acquire
culture-sensitive and identity-sensitive knowledge, develop a flexible mind-set and
heart-set, and also connect their astute knowledge and ethnorelative attitudes with
skilled communication practices. Mindfulness is the key hook that connects all of these
competence components. To be a mindful communicator, one needs to attend to the
present interactional moment fully and without reactive judgment, attune to one’s aris-
ing and anxious emotions, and practice metacognitive “thinking about thinking.” One
also needs to engage in self-monitoring reflexivity and other-attuning reflectivity, and
preplan intentionally to express our bewildered ideas and anxious emotions with mind-
ful words and heedful nonverbal actions. Chapter 6 highlights the importance of under-
standing cultural values as a starting point in practicing mindful intercultural commu-
nication. Cultural values such as individualism–collectivism and power distance shape
our various identities, which in turn sculpt the way we communicate. Beyond culture-
level value dimensions, the chapter also emphasizes the importance of individual per-
sonality attributes and situational landscapes in framing our views and interpretations
of the social worlds around us. In Chapter 7, the importance of knowing the features
and functions (e.g., multilayered rules and pragmatic rules; group identity function and
viii Preface

social evaluative function) of language is discussed. It presents bountiful intercultural

examples to compare and contrast low-context (i.e., direct and to-the-point) and high-
context (i.e., indirect and spiral) verbal style differences. It also draws out implications
for how different cross-cultural verbal styles can create communication bumps, fric-
tions, and head-on clashes. In Chapter 8, we address the complex system of nonverbal
communication. While language is the key to the heart of a culture, nonverbal commu-
nication is the heartbeat of a culture. The chapter highlights the multiple perspectives
on the contemporary study of nonverbal communication across cultures: bioevolution-
ary, sociocultural, and neuroculture theory perspectives. In addition, different func-
tions (e.g., reflecting identities and expressing emotions) of cross-cultural nonverbal
communication are reviewed. The spatial boundary regulation function of proxemics,
and the temporal regulation of time or the study of chronemics are probed. Topics
such as interpersonal interactive synchrony versus nonverbal deception and deviance
are juxtaposed and analyzed. A set of cautionary guidelines in analyzing cross-cultural
nonverbal communication judiciously and with situational sensitivity is also proffered.
Part III, Boundary Regulation and Intercultural–Intergroup Relationship Devel-
opment Processes, includes four chapters. Chapter 9 utilizes social identity theory
as a guiding framework and reviews the key concepts of social identity theory, social
categorization, and intergroup social comparison and attribution processes. Essential
constructs such as ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism, together with mindless versus
mindful stereotypes, are explained. Drawing from these baseline concepts, the chapter
extends forward and addresses the question of why individuals engage in ingroup favor-
itism and outgroup biases and why they tend to commit intergroup attribution biases
such as blaming outgroup members’ negative racial/or personality traits for their faulty
conduct. The chapter concludes with discussion of a host of “P” factors such as preju-
dice, power, and privilege in intergroup relationship development and also includes
some contemporary research studies on the role of “microaggressions” in co-culture
members’ lived experiences. Chapter 10 discusses intercultural and intergroup conflict.
This chapter is more extensive and distinctive from other chapters in two ways: (1) It
notches up the theoretical ladder of writing, elucidating the key assumptions, condi-
tions, essential constructs, and research findings of the conflict face negotiation theory
from its conceptualization in 1985 to the present; and (2) it includes a proposed culture-
based situational conflict model and discusses research insights gleaned from various
conflict communication styles. New directions for future research in the arena of inter-
cultural and intergroup conflict are also proposed. Chapter 11 maps out an updated
model of sociocultural membership factors and their associated attraction and challeng-
ing topographies. Intercultural–intimate communication research studies are used to
highlight some of the diverse expectations that can complicate matters in dealing with
intimate–intercultural relationships. Included are concepts such as cross-cultural self-
disclosure, developmental stages in intercultural–interracial romantic relationships,
ways to counter racism and prejudice, and the rearing of secure bicultural children.
Lastly, in Chapter 12, contemporary issues about making mindful intercultural ethical
choices are tackled. Three ethical positions—ethical absolutism, ethical relativism, and
 Preface ix

ethical universalism—are reviewed and assessed. A useful framework of meta-ethics

contextualism, and some specific reflective step-by-step choice-making questions, are
offered. Furthermore, ethical considerations that concern conducting intercultural
communication research and also intercultural training are addressed. The chapter
concludes with the importance of promoting global social justice and peace-building as
a lifelong learning process for all intercultural–intergroup scholars, students, and prac-
titioners. It also presents a review of several applied and constructive intercultural–
intergroup communication practices that have been discussed throughout the book.
Within each chapter, a chapter summary of the key issues discussed and a set of
mindful and doable guidelines are presented for everyday contemplation and applica-
tion. This book seeks to fill the need for an upper-division intercultural communication
text that is based on a solid theory–research foundation and that is also accessible and
practical in everyday application.

This book has seven distinctive features:

1. It is guided by a practical theme, namely, mindfulness. Through mindful think-

ing, experiencing, expressing, relating, and meaningfully engaging, individuals
can make a qualitative difference in their own lives and the lives of dissimilar
others in different cultural terrains.
2. It is multidisciplinary. It draws from diverse research sources such as work
in cross-cultural psychology, social psychology, ethnography, sociolinguistics,
language, multicultural counseling, international management, international
education, and intercultural and intergroup communication, among others.
3. Within the human communications studies field, research insights from distin-
guished scholars in the areas of interpersonal communication, organizational
communication, conflict communication, rhetorical communication, nonverbal
communication, and social media have been drawn and utilized.
4. Across the book, as a “big-picture” explanatory framework, IINT has been
employed, emphasizing the importance of integrating identity-sensitive knowl-
edge, flexible mind-set and heart-set, and adaptive communication skills in pro-
moting intercultural–intergroup interaction competencies.
5. It is practical in orientation, strongly emphasizing the systematic practice
for adaptive intercultural and intergroup interactional competencies along a
range of essential intercultural–intergroup relationship development topics—
for example, from workplace to community-building to development of roman-
tic relationship competencies. These applied ideas are also clearly reflected at
the end of each chapter as doable “mindful guidelines.”
6. It contains tables and figures that capture key ideas and concepts concisely.
While some of the figures presented are for easy-to-grasp visual mapping pur-
poses, other figures (e.g., the systems-process acculturation model in Chapter
x Preface

4) offer explanatory values of the antecedent, process, and outcome factors of

major intercultural or intergroup topics that can be tested by researchers in
multiple disciplines.
7. While the book is theoretically directed, the accessible writing style should
appeal to students, teachers, and practitioners who want to learn more about
and also cultivate mindful and competent intercultural–intergroup communi-
cation practices.

This new edition significantly differs from the first edition in several ways. The
first edition of Communicating Across Cultures was published in 1999. With a time
lapse of almost 20 years, it is indeed time to give birth to the second edition of this
intermediate-level intercultural text to reflect the changing nature of the field. The
most important change in this book is the addition of a coauthor, Tenzin Dorjee. Dr.
Dorjee’s scholarly work has emphasized the importance of an intergroup communica-
tion perspective and also immigrants’ and refugees’ diaspora lived experiences. He also
has a lifelong interest in writing and practicing a nonviolent approach to peace-building
and conflict management through a spiritual lens. In pairing up with Dr. Dorjee and
focusing on the theme of mindfulness, we have the amazing opportunity to conduct a
more in-depth dialogue about the current status of the intercultural–intergroup com-
munication field. This dialogue also enhances our hopes and dreams for the future of
the human communication studies discipline.
While we have retained some of the classic perspectives, ideas, and insights from
the first edition text, all of which have been endorsed by a wide range of teachers and
practitioners, this second edition has made five substantive changes:

1. It presents an updated new framework, namely, IINT, and draws on a contem-

porary body of intercultural and intergroup studies and research findings prob-
ing the theme of sociocultural identity complexity and adaptive communication
patterns. Beyond the discussion of ethnic/cultural identity change processes, an
inclusive–intersecting identity viewpoint (e.g., on stigmatized group member-
ship identity and intergenerational identity) is developed throughout the book.
2. Two new chapters early in the book (Chapter 3 on intercultural adjustment and
Chapter 4 on immigrants’ acculturation) serve as the foundational contexts or
settings for developing mindful intercultural–intergroup practices. These two
new chapters were developed from Chapter 9 of the first edition. We believe
the topics of sojourners’ short-term and medium-term adjustment process and
immigrants’ long-term acculturation process should be treated as separate top-
ics in their own right (albeit both groups experienced various “culture shock”
factors), as shown by numerous research studies on these two fascinating
boundary-crossing contexts.
3. We also separate out the discussion of “mindfulness” and “intercultural–­
intergroup communication competence” (in the first edition, the “mindfulness”
 Preface xi

motif appeared in Chapter 2 together with the “identity negotiation perspec-

tive” heading). We develop these twin concepts more fully as a picture frame
(Chapter 5) in order to stress the importance of mindful attention to under-
standing various underlying cultural/personal value dimensions (Chapter 6)
and developing the capacity to be a mindful verbal (Chapter 7) and nonverbal
(Chapter 8) communicator.
4. Since both authors have had extensive research training and are fully engaged
in the topic of intercultural–intergroup conflict competencies, the “percep-
tual filters and intergroup biases” chapter (Chapter 9) and the conflict chapter
(Chapter 10) present many updated contemporary ideas on “prejudice, power,
privilege, and microaggression” and the “intercultural–intergroup face negotia-
tion process and outcome” issues.
5. Freshly added to this second edition are three unique features: (a) an opening
story in each chapter that provides an applied context for intercultural learn-
ers to be more intentional in their learning process in reflecting on the essen-
tial applicable ideas in each chapter; (b) a final section, “Chapter Summary
and Mindful Guidelines,” that reinforces the “lessons imparted” in each chap-
ter and some behavioral doables for intercultural learners to internalize and
practice competent intercultural–intergroup communication skills; and (c) an
end-point section, “Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions,”
that prompts teachers, practitioners, and their students or trainees to engage in
deeper dialogue about the multidimensional issues presented in each chapter.

All in all, this second edition reflects new and substantive material, fresh insights,
new experiences, up-to-date research, and practical application guidelines based on
our integrative intercultural–intergroup perspectives and many years of teaching,
along with collaborative theorizing and research efforts. We hope that by reading this
book, some of the identity-based competence concepts and skills will resonate with
you and that you are able to translate facets of the knowledge and skills into mindful
­intercultural–intergroup communication practice.
Acknowledgments

Writing a book of this nature is a major undertaking. It is an immense commitment

of time and energy, and its evolution involves the lives of many others. This book has
been several years in the making, and during the course of writing it we have benefited
greatly from the useful comments and steadfast support of many individuals. First of
all, we want to acknowledge the “voices” of many undergraduate students, graduate
students, and participants in our past intercultural and intergroup courses and training
workshops. Their “voices” and questions enabled us to clarify our own thinking over
many ideas presented in this book. We want to thank them for their inquiring minds
and supportive hearts concerning all things “intercultural–intergroup.”
We also want to thank our reviewers, who provided us with detailed feedback
on a draft of this second edition. We believe their specific and concrete suggestions
vastly improved the content and design flow of the book. In this regard, we would
like to acknowledge them with immense gratitude: Benjamin Broome, Communica-
tions, Arizona State University; Sarah Amira de la Garza, Communications, Arizona
State University; Sally Hastings, Communications, University of Central Florida; Rita
Takahashi, Social Work, San Francisco State University; and Michael J. Woeste, Com-
munication, University of Cincinnati.
Furthermore, we want to thank C. Deborah Laughton, Senior Editor of The Guil-
ford Press, for her enormous patience, faith, and timely support in shepherding us
through the preparation, writing, and publication of this book. We also want to extend
our appreciation to Editorial Assistant Katherine Sommer for assisting us in every
phase of the publication journey. Hearty thanks also go to Jeannie Tang, Alicia Power,
Paul Gordon, Robert Sebastiano, and Oliver Sharpe at The Guilford Press for their
meticulous and professional help in the production of this volume. Our deep apprecia-
tion also goes to our copyeditor, Betty Pessagno, for her perceptive eye in editing and
polishing the manuscript with professional excellence.
Together, we also want to thank Jean Hotta, Peter Lee, Ariana Cravalho, and
­Arielle Leonard for their dedicated professional help in the preparation of this project.

xiii
xiv Acknowledgments

To Jean: Thank you for providing us with such astute feedback on some of the chapters;
we have no doubt that your thoughtful review comments helped to improve the clar-
ity of the ideas presented. To Peter: Thank you for your support once again for com-
ing through to prepare the needed figures and tables. To Ariana: Thank you for the
aesthetic touches on the figures. To Arielle: Thank you for your attention to details and
your incredible help in preparing the references and your background research support
on intercultural social media studies.
To our own colleagues and staff in the Department of Human Communication
Studies of the California State University, Fullerton: Thank you for providing us with
a nurturing and comfortable space in which to conduct our scholarly work. Special
appreciation and cheers go to Annette Bow, K. Jeanine Congalton, and Gary Ruud for
their everyday interpersonal kindness and grace in lighting the way. We treasure your
sustained and warm friendship and daily good chats. We also want to thank Dr. Janet
Bennet, Director of the Summer Institute of Intercultural Communication–Portland,
and all the summer institute faculty and staff for providing us with a magical environ-
ment to dialogue, to teach, and to learn about the latest intercultural trends as well as
engage in lively interaction with participants around the globe.
We would also like to take this opportunity to thank many of our special family
members and friends who supported our professional and writing journey.

From Stella: I am indebted to two special individuals who recruited me to serve

as a faculty member at CSUF: the late Professors Dr. William “Bill” Gudykunst and
Dr. Richard Wiseman. Although both passed away in their prime years, I feel con-
tinuously indebted to them for building a solid foundation in intercultural communica-
tion studies within the department that I can call my “final homestay.” Bill provided
insightful and detailed comments on the “big picture” of the book 20 years ago, and his
discerning ideas continue to ring true and fresh in this second edition. Rich offered
me an immense collegial welcome for my intercultural teaching and research work;
his self-deprecating humor will stay with me for a long time. Through Bill, I also met
Dr. Young Yun Kim, whom I want to acknowledge for her lifetime dedication to the
intercultural communication field and for her pioneering contribution to the field of
immigrant acculturation and communication studies.
On another academic front, I want to thank my co-researchers who enriched my
academic journey in our collaborative writing together: Dr. Tenzin Dorjee, Dr. Felipe
Korzenny, Dr. Ge Gao, Dr. John Oetzel, Dr. Lea Stewart, Dr. Jiro Takai, and Dr. Qin
Zhang. I also want to give a “shout out” to some of my past graduate students and cur-
rent empathetic friends whose heartfelt caring for me sustained me during my writing:
Susy Amador, Noorie Baig, Maria Chan-Sew, Leeva Chung, Alex Flecky, Angela Hoppe-
Nagao, Jean Hotta, Sasha Kasymova, Carrie Kwok, Atsuko Kurogi, Hiromi Ladino, Peter
Lee, Lucy Ma, Annie Mak, Laura Martinez, Shari Selnick, Miki Yamashita, Ena Yuen,
and Ruifang Zhang. Thank you for your friendships and affectionate–connective rhythms.
In particular, I also want to express my heartfelt gratitude to my amazing friend
and coauthor, Tenzin Dorjee—Thugje Che—thank you! It has truly been a joyous
 Acknowledgments xv

journey of collaboration and creation, as well as an intellectual adventure, in work-

ing with you on the second edition of Communicating Across Cultures. Your sharp
intellect, composed warmth, and adroit time management in triangulating teaching,
research writing, and community service work are a marvel. In all these endeavors,
you also extended your compassionate heart and sensitive attention to all your students,
friends, and their extended families. Indeed, you are truly a role model in practicing
mindful intercultural communication. I value your friendship, and I always look for-
ward to our everyday conversations. You are truly one of my special life blessings.
I also want to thank my Ting family members in Hong Kong and Vancouver: my
90-year-old mom, Ting-Wang Shu Chin, and my three brothers, Tom, Henry, and Vic-
tor. To my mom: you are the most beautiful, resilient, and graceful woman warrior in
my life, and your tenacious spirit continues to guide me through some frenzied times.
In addition, I know that my late dad, Ting Chun Yen, continues to watch over me and
protect me from high above. To my three brothers: I value your unswerving support,
affective watchfulness, and constant text messaging on all things big and small, espe-
cially revolving around our mom’s well-being.
Last, but not least, I want to thank my two precious U.S. family members—Charles
and Adrian—for their enduring patience and remarkable acceptance and validation of
my lifelong professorial journey in teaching, researching, mentoring, and servicing. To
my husband, Charles: I appreciate your always gentle-loving, caring heart and your
authentic being. To my son, Adrian: I understand your endeavor as a bicultural kid, and
I am so very proud of your devotion to the human communication studies discipline.
You have become an incredibly attuned college instructor, teaching your favorite course
topics on intercultural and interpersonal communication. To both Charles and Adrian:
For your profoundly caring and responsive hearts, I dedicate this special book to you.
You are both indeed the “wind under my wings” helping me to soar higher and to be
unencumbered in my professional life.

From Tenzin: I am indebted to a wide community of teachers, family members,

friends, colleagues, and students for making me a better human being with a caring
heart and for helping me become an intercultural–intergroup communication teacher–
scholar–practitioner.
I would like to dedicate this book to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, global peace
and justice, Tibet, and my families. To the 17 most outstanding professors of the
Nalanda tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and all my spiri-
tual teachers: I am forever grateful to you for your blessing and for teaching me about
integrating wisdom and compassion for all sentient beings in this life and beyond. I
would also like to thank all my school and university teachers for the great education I
received from them.
In particular, I thank Dr. Howard Giles (Howie): Thank you for being the superior,
gentle mentor who taught me about intergroup communication, communication accom-
modation theory, research publication, and more. You are a “blessed living ­treasure”—
you are a “Good Man.” To Dr. Aaron Cargile (Aaron): Thank you for teaching me about
xvi Acknowledgments

intercultural communication and more; you have been a great blessing in my life. I con-
sider both of you my best friends or, as one would express it culturally as an American,
you are my “close buddies.”
To Stella: Xie Xie (thank you) for inviting me to join you as coauthor and for guid-
ing me through the book-writing journey. You are indeed a superb faculty mentor with
a mighty caring heart. You have been an amazing friend and supportive colleague
throughout all these years—starting from the recruitment process 10 years ago to this
present-day writing excursion together. I have greatly enjoyed and learned so much
from our years of collaborative teaching, conversations, and publication efforts, espe-
cially while working on this book project. As intercultural communication scholars, we
have indeed walked the talks—our coordinated “no ego” mind-set and intercultural
operational skills enabled us to team up as a Chinese and a Tibetan for peace and
global justice—transcending macro Sino-Tibetan conflict issues. China and Tibet can
learn constructive lessons from our genuine two-way friendship and synchronized pro-
ductive efforts. Along with our department colleagues and staff, I also want to thank
my commissioner colleagues and staff at the United States Commission on Interna-
tional Religious Freedom for their collegiality and support of my efforts to elevate and
advance freedom of religion or belief across the globe. To all my undergraduate and
graduate students: Thank you for making me a better and wiser teacher.
Last, but not least, I want to thank my families and friends for their love, support,
and sacrifices. Without their care and support, I could not be who I am now. Thank
you to my late parents, Phuntsok Dhondup and Migyur Lekkyi; late brother, Tenzin
Losel; sister, Tenzin Dolkar; niece, Tenzin Dhadon; and nephew, Tenzin Tsega; Mamie
McGee and Merle McGee; Hy Pham and Pham family; Mom Nha Ca and family; Stella
Levy and Brendan Connell; Ann Kanter and family; Judy Harris and Susan Harris. To
all good friends across the globe: Thank you.

Rejoining Voices: To all our teachers, students, families, friends, colleagues, and
intercultural scholars and practitioners: You are the reasons why we have passionately
pursued teaching, theorizing and researching, and writing in the field of intercultural
and intergroup communication. We cast off this book with exhilaration and pride, and
we hope our synergistic ideas serve your interests and needs in your further pursuit of
practicing mindful intercultural communication competencies.
We wish our readers a lifelong journey of intercultural discovery. May you navi-
gate this journey with infinite curiosity, creative imagination, and social activism. We
urge all our students, teachers, colleagues, intercultural theorists, and practitioners to
continue to express their diverse voices in building an inclusive and ethically just social
world, moving forward in interlocked steps via collaborative empowerment, hope, and
heart-to-heart humanistic connections.
Brief Contents

PART I Conceptual Foundations and Contextual Settings

CHAPTER 1 Intercultural Communication: An Introduction 3

CHAPTER 2 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement: 33

An Integrative Identity Negotiation Theory Framework

CHAPTER 3 Sojourners’ Culture Shock and Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 72

CHAPTER 4 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process and Intergroup Contacts 101

PART II Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

with Mindfulness
CHAPTER 5 Developing Intercultural and Intergroup 135
Communication Competence: A Mindfulness Lens

CHAPTER 6 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 161

CHAPTER 7 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 198

CHAPTER 8 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 232

xvii
xviii Brief Contents

PART III Boundary Regulation and Intercultural–Intergroup

Relationship Development Processes
CHAPTER 9 Understanding Intergroup Perceptual Filters, Biases, 267
and Communicative Distance

CHAPTER 10 Attending to Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 302

CHAPTER 11 Attuning to Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 340

CHAPTER 12 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 370

and Improving Communication Practices

APPENDIX A Researching Intercultural and Intergroup Communication: 395

Three Paradigms and Conflict Studies Examples

APPENDIX B “Be Surprised and Also Holding On!”: 397

Honors Convocation Keynote Speech, May 22, 2009
Stella Ting‑Toomey

APPENDIX C “Never Give Up!”: Commencement Speech, May 21, 2017 399
Tenzin Dorjee

References 403

Author Index 441

Subject Index 449

About the Authors 464

Extended Contents

PART I Conceptual Foundations and Contextual Settings

CHAPTER 1 Intercultural Communication: An Introduction 3
„„Introduction 3
„„Why Study Intercultural Communication? 4
††Global Boundary‑Crossing Trends 4
††Domestic Diversity Trends 5
††New Media Trends in Intercultural Communication 7
††Intergroup–Interpersonal Discovery Opportunities 10
††Cultivating Mindful Communication Practice 11
„„What Is Intercultural Communication? 13
††Conceptualization of Culture 14
††Conceptualization of Intercultural Communication 20
„„Five Core Assumptions of Intercultural Communication 28
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 30
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 32

CHAPTER 2 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement: 33

An Integrative Identity Negotiation Theory Framework
AN INTERCULTURAL JOURNEY: A CASE STORY 33
„„Introduction 35
„„Theorizing and Researching Intercultural–Intergroup Communication 36
††Functional/Social Scientific Paradigm 37
††Interpretive Paradigm 41
††Critical/Cultural Studies Paradigm 45
„„An Integrative Identity Negotiation Theory Framework 50
††Identity Negotiation Theory: Key Backdrop Ideas 51
††Identity Negotiation Theory: Key Assumptions 54
„„Understanding Core Composite Identity Domains 58
††Sociocultural Membership: Cultural Identity and Ethnic Identity 59
††Religious/Spiritual Identity 60
††Gender Identity 62
††Stigmatized Group‑Based Identities 62
††Sociorelational Role Identities: Family Role and Generational Role Identities 63
††Relational Role and Professional Role Identities 65

xix
xx Extended Contents

††PersonalIdentity Attributes 66
††Symbolic Interaction Identities 67
††Complex Sociocultural Identity Intersection: A Summary 69
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 69
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 71

CHAPTER 3 Sojourners’ Culture Shock and Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 72

CULTURE SHOCK: A CUP OF TEA INTERVIEW CASE STORY 72
„„Introduction 73
„„Different Types of Sojourners: Motivations and Expectations 74
††Adjustment Motivations and Expectations 75
††InternationalStudents and Cultural Exchange Student Sojourners 76
††Global Workplace Transferees and Global Mobility Families 77
††Third‑Culture Kids/Global Nomads 78
††Tourists as Short‑Term Sojourners 78
„„Culture Shock: Conceptualization and Implications 79
††CultureShock: An ABC Model 80
††The Pros and Cons of Culture Shock: Implications 81
„„Navigating Intercultural Adjustment: Underlying Factors and Models 81
††Underlying Factors 82
††Intercultural Adjustment Models: Developmental Patterns 86
„„Reentry Culture Shock: Surprises and Resocialization 95
††SurprisingElements 95
††Resocialization: Profiles of Different Returnees 96
††Where Is Home? 97
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 98
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 99

CHAPTER 4 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process and Intergroup Contacts 101

AN INTERCULTURAL DATING DILEMMA: IMMIGRANTS’ INTERGENERATIONAL CLASH
CASE STORY 101
„„Introduction 102
„„Intercultural Acculturation: Antecedent Factors 104
††Systems‑Level Factors 105
††Individual‑LevelFactors 109
††Interpersonal‑Level Factors 111
„„Intergroup Contacts and Adaptation Strategies 115
††IdentityChange Models for Immigrants and Minority Members 115
††Intergroup Social Identity Complexity 120
††Intergroup Communication Challenges and Adaptation 121
††Intergroup Interaction Strategies: Strategic Adaptation 125
„„Immigrants’ Acculturation Outcomes 127
††Systems‑Level and Interpersonal‑Level Outcomes 128
††Personal Identity Change Outcomes 129
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 130
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 132

PART II Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

with Mindfulness
CHAPTER 5 Developing Intercultural and Intergroup 135
Communication Competence: A Mindfulness Lens
FRIENDLY TEASING OR VERBAL HARASSMENT?: A CASE STORY 135
 Extended Contents xxi

„„Introduction 136
„„Integrative Identity Negotiation Competence: Criteria 138
††Intercultural
Competence Criteria: Interaction Yardsticks 138
††Intergroup Competence Criteria: Interaction Yardsticks 140
„„Culture‑Sensitive Competence Components 144
††Acquiring the Culture‑Sensitive and Identity‑Sensitive Knowledge Component 145
††Developing the Flexible Mind-Set and Open‑Hearted Attitudes Component 146
††Sharpening Intercultural–Intergroup Communication Capacities
and the Skillsets Component 149
††Intercultural–Intergroup Desired Outcomes: Transformative Movements 152
„„Mindfulness: Linking Criteria, Components, and Outcomes 154
††The Connective Hook 154
††The Threefold Facets 155
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 158
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 159

CHAPTER 6 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 161

RESPECTFUL GESTURES AND VALUE PROBES: A CASE STORY 162
„„Introduction 162
„„The Cultural Value Variability Framework: Culture‑Level
Systems Analysis 164
††Functions of Cultural and Personal Value Assumptions 165
††Individualism–Collectivism Value Spectrum: The Core Value Dimension 170
††The Power Distance Value Variability Dimension 173
††The Uncertainty Avoidance Value Variability Dimension 175
††The Masculinity–Femininity Value Variability Dimension 176
††Additional Cultural Value Variability Dimensions 178
„„Self‑Conceptions, Personal Dispositions, and Situational Considerations 180
††Independent Self‑Construal versus Interdependent/Relational Self‑Construal 182
††Horizontal versus Vertical Personality Attributes 183
††Uncertainty‑Oriented versus Certainty‑Oriented Personality Type 184
††Androgynous Gender Identity versus Traditional Sex Role Identity 185
††Culture × Personality × Situational Condition Considerations 186
„„Classical Value Orientations and Intercultural–Intergroup Encounters 187
††Classical Value Orientations and Basic Assumptions 188
††People–Nature Value Orientation 189
††Temporal Orientation 191
††Human Nature Orientation 193
††Activity Orientation 193
††Relational Orientation 194
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 195
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 196

CHAPTER 7 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 198

INTERCULTURAL VERBAL MISUNDERSTANDING OR CONFLICT CLASH?: A CASE STORY 199
„„Introduction 199
„„Human Language: A Coherent System 200
††Arbitrariness 201
††Multilayered
Rules 201
††Pragmatic Rules and Speech Community 205
„„Languages across Cultures: Diverse Functions 207
††The Group Identity Function 208
††The Ethnolinguistic Vitality Function 209
††The Perceptual Filtering Function 210
††The Cognitive Reasoning Function 211
††The Relational Status and Intimacy Function 213
††The Social Evaluation Function 214
††The Creativity Function 215
xxii Extended Contents

„„Cross‑Cultural Verbal Communication Styles 217

††Low‑Context and High‑Context Communication 217
††Direct and Indirect Verbal Interaction Styles 221
††Person‑Oriented and Status‑Oriented Verbal Styles 224
††Self‑Enhancement and Self‑Effacement Verbal Styles 225
††Beliefs Expressed in Talk and Silence 227
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 229
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 231

CHAPTER 8 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 232

CULTURAL PRIDE OR CULTURAL EMBARRASSMENT?: A CASE STORY 233
„„Introduction 233
„„Multiple Perspectives on Nonverbal Communication 234
††The Bioevolutionary Perspective 235
††The Sociocultural Perspective 236
††The Neuroculture Theory Perspective 236
„„Nonverbal Communication: Specific Functions and Patterns 238
††Reflectionand Management of Identities 238
††Expression of Emotions and Attitudes 241
††Conversational Management 245
††Impression Formation and Attraction 248
„„Space and Time Across Cultures 249
††Interpersonal
Spatial Boundary Regulation 249
††EnvironmentalBoundary Regulation 252
††Temporal Regulation 254
„„InterpersonalSynchrony, Deception and Deviance,
and Nonverbal Cautions 257
††Interpersonal
Interactive Synchrony 257
††Deception and Deviance 258
††Nonverbal Cautions 260
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 261
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 263

PART III Boundary Regulation and Intercultural–Intergroup

Relationship Development Processes
CHAPTER 9 Understanding Intergroup Perceptual Filters, Biases, 267
and Communicative Distance
A SIMPLE MISUNDERSTANDING OR RACISM?: A CASE STORY 267
„„Introduction 268
„„Social Identity Theory and Its Associated Constructs:
A Boundary‑Regulation Approach 270
††Intergroup Perception 271
††Social Identity Theory 272
††Social Categorization 274
††Social Comparison 275
††Ethnocentrism and Communication 277
††Stereotypes and Communication 280
„„Intergroup Attribution: A Sense‑Making Process 283
††Attribution Theory 284
††Intergroup Attribution Theory 285
„„Mind‑Sets and Communication: Affective and Cognitive Filters 286
††Perceived Intergroup Threat and Intergroup Biases 286
††Prejudice and Communication 287
 Extended Contents xxiii

††Power and Privilege: Discriminatory Practices and Microaggressions 289

††Reduction of Prejudice and Discrimination 296
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 298
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 301

CHAPTER 10 Attending to Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 302

A MOTIVATIONAL OR DEMOTIVATIONAL SPEECH?: A CASE STORY 303
„„Introduction 304
„„Intercultural Conflict Competence: Criteria and Components 305
††Intercultural Conflict Competence: Criteria 306
††Intercultural Conflict Competence: Components 307
„„A Culture‑Based Situational Conflict Model 309
††Cultural and Individual Socialization Value Patterns 310
††Situational Role and Relational Distance Parameters 315
„„Identity‑Based Threats and Face‑Threatening Process 317
††Integrated Threat Theory 317
††Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: A Brief History 319
„„ConflictFace Negotiation Theory: Core Assumptions, Key Conditions,
and Research Findings 320
††Core Assumptions 320
††Key Conditions 322
††Essential Constructs and Related Research Findings 322
††Cultural and Individual Variability and Facework Strategies 327
„„Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: Recent Research Trends 329
††Cross‑Cultural Face‑Sensitive Emotions 329
††Cross‑Cultural Conflict Forgiveness 329
††Intergenerational Face and the Dark Side of Face 331
††Researching Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: Future Directions 332
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 336
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 338

CHAPTER 11 Attuning to Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 340

KEN AND KIM’S MARITAL CRISIS: ARRIVAL OF THE IN-LAWS CASE STORY 340
„„Introduction 341
„„Developing Intercultural–Intimate Relationships:
Sociocultural Membership Identity Factors 343
††Cultural–Ethnic Membership Values 343
††Anxiety/Uncertainty Interaction Management 346
††Love Attitudes and Expectations 348
††Personal Commitment and Structural Commitment 350
„„Attuning to Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Attraction:
Interpersonal Facilitating Factors 351
††Perceived Physical Attractiveness 351
††Perceived Attitudinal Similarity 352
††Cross‑Cultural Self‑Disclosure Comparisons 353
††Online Disclosure of Affection 355
„„Intercultural–Intimate Conflict: Stumbling Blocks 357
††Intercultural–Interracial
Romantic Relationship Development Stages 357
††The Encounter: Prejudice and Racism 359
††Countering Racism and Prejudice: Coping Strategies 362
††Relational Transgressions and Cross‑Cultural Responses 364
††Raising Secure Bicultural Children 365
††Developing an Identity Plan and Relationship Satisfaction 366
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 367
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 369
xxiv Extended Contents

CHAPTER 12 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 370

and Improving Communication Practices
MICHIGAN DOCTORS CHARGED: RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OR CHILD ABUSE? A CASE STORY 370
„„Introduction 371
„„Contemporary Issues Revolving Around Ethical Choice Making 372
††Global Standard Procedures and Local Justice Issues 372
††Corporate Responsibility and Local Customary Practice 374
††Cultural Value Clash and Communication Emphasis 376
„„Understanding Existing Intercultural Ethical Positions 376
††The Ethical Absolutism Position versus the Ethical Relativism Position 377
††The Meta‑Ethics Contextualism Framework: Macro- and Micro‑Level Analysis 379
††The Meta‑Ethics Contextualism Direction: Procedures and Reflexive Questions 380
„„Cultivating Ethical Intercultural Research and Training Practices 382
††Intercultural Communication Research: Specific Ethical Issues 382
††Intercultural Communication Training: Specific Ethical Issues 383
„„Promoting Global Social Justice and Peace‑Building Processes:
A Lifelong Journey 384
††Secular Ethics: Intergroup Social Justice and Global Peace Building 385
††Improving Ethical Transcultural Communication Practices 388
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines 392
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions 393

APPENDIX A Researching Intercultural and Intergroup Communication: 395

Three Paradigms and Conflict Studies Examples

APPENDIX B “Be Surprised and Also Holding On!”: 397

Honors Convocation Keynote Speech, May 22, 2009
Stella Ting‑Toomey

APPENDIX C “Never Give Up!”: Commencement Speech, May 21, 2017 399
Tenzin Dorjee

References 403

Author Index 441

Subject Index 449

About the Authors 464

PA R T I

Conceptual Foundations
and Contextual Settings
 C H A P TE R 1

Intercultural Communication
An Introduction

„„Introduction
„„Why Study Intercultural Communication?
††Global Boundary-­Crossing Trends
††Domestic Diversity Trends
††New Media Trends in Intercultural Communication
††Intergroup–­Interpersonal Discovery Opportunities
††Cultivating Mindful Communication Practice
„„What Is Intercultural Communication?
††Conceptualization of Culture
††Conceptualization of Intercultural Communication
„„Five Core Assumptions of Intercultural Communication
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

Introduction

Today we live in an unprecedentedly dynamic global world. Globalization has intensi-

fied our interdependence, and new media engagement has enhanced our interconnect-
edness. As individuals coming from diverse sociocultural identity backgrounds, we are
constantly communicating with each other via face-to-face interactions and many social
media connections. In this 21st-­century global era, avoiding intercultural interaction or
diversity interaction is almost unimaginable. There is also a growing sense of urgency
that we develop and enhance intercultural and intergroup communication competence.
With rapid changes in the global economy, technology, transportation, and
immigration policies, we find ourselves in increased contact with people who are

3
4 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

s­ ocio­culturally different from us in various contexts. From interpersonal relationship

to workplace heterogeneity, different cultural beliefs, values, and communication styles
are here to stay. In order to communicate appropriately and effectively, we have to
learn to manage diverse sociocultural identity memberships adaptively. Intercultural
and intergroup communication competence involves optimal integration of the nec-
essary identity-­sensitive knowledge, ethnorelative attitudes, and adaptive interaction
skills. Ethnorelativism means seeing things from the other person’s cultural perspec-
tive, lens, or identity, or at least giving another’s perspective courteous consideration as
an alternative explanatory option.
The study of intercultural–­intergroup communication focuses on learning about
both similarities and differences within and between cultures, as well as acquiring the
conceptual tools and skillsets needed to manage such differences adroitly. This chapter
has three aims: (1) to outline some of the pertinent reasons why intercultural communi-
cation matters and why we should mindfully attend to them; (2) to explain what inter-
cultural communication is and to describe its essential characteristics; and (3) to pres-
ent a summary of the five core assumptions concerning intercultural and intergroup
communication. The chapter ends with summary highlights and mindful guidelines
to direct your attention to understanding complex, multilayered identity issues within
and across cultures.

Why Study Intercultural Communication?

There are many practical reasons for studying intercultural communication; we offer
five reasons here: global boundary-­crossing trends, domestic diversity trends, new
media trends in intercultural communication, intergroup–­ interpersonal discovery
opportunities, and cultivation of mindful communication practice.

Global Boundary‑Crossing Trends

Millions of people cross national boundaries to seek pleasure, to fulfill magical dreams,
and to find job opportunities. Multinational corporations spend billions of U.S. dollars
sending managers overseas and training their employees from diverse sociocultural
backgrounds for international relocation assignments. For example, U.S. corporations
are estimated to spend approximately $25 billion annually for corporate relocation
assignments (Global Trends Relocation Survey, 2010). Global workplace heterogeneity
presents both challenges and opportunities to individuals and organizations (Moos-
muller, 2017).
While U.S. global employees have the technical competence to do their jobs, they
often lack intercultural communication skills to adjust and succeed in their new envi-
ronment (Moran, Youngdahl, & Moran, 2009). A considerable percentage (about 20%)
of U.S. employees fails in their overseas assignments and returns home prematurely
(Global Mobility Effectiveness Survey, 2009). Thus, individuals and organizations in
 Intercultural Communication 5

the forefront of workplace diversity must rise to the challenge of developing profes-
sional savviness and sociocultural adjustment in dealing with their culturally dissimilar
others.
Adler and Gundersen (2008) suggest that global leaders in today’s world need to
work on five cross-­cultural competencies: (1) understanding the worldwide political,
cultural, and business environment from a global perspective; (2) developing multiple
cultural perspectives and approaches to conducting business; (3) being skillful in work-
ing with people from many cultures simultaneously; (4) adapting comfortably to liv-
ing in different cultures; and (5) learning to interact with international colleagues as
equals, rather than from a superior–­inferior stance. More recently, studies have shown
that global managers and employees in international human resource development,
global marketing, and global customer service can gain tremendous cross-­cultural cre-
ative problem-­solving skills via the astute application of intercultural communication
competencies (Gupta, 2009).
In this 21st-­century mobile world, the need to master intercultural communication
competence is even more pressing. Corporate global managers and employees, as well
as persons working in overseas assignments such as government service, humanitarian
service, peace corps context, and international education, need to succeed in fulfilling
their tasks and goals and, simultaneously, building trust in intercultural–­intergroup
relationships. To communicate competently with diverse cultural strangers, every 21st-­
century citizen needs to master the foundational concepts and operational skills of
mindful intercultural communication. Intercultural communication knowledge and
skills are pertinent to effectively solving problems, managing conflicts, developing posi-
tive relationship rapport, and forging creative global visions. Beyond the importance
of applying adaptive intercultural communication knowledge and skills in the interna-
tional arena, these are equally important to the U.S. domestic diversity scene.

Domestic Diversity Trends

The study of intercultural communication on the U.S. domestic front is especially criti-
cal for several reasons. First, according to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, we are now a
nation with increased multicultural complexities and nuances. Of the nation’s approxi-
mately 307 million people, 65% are Whites/non-­Hispanics, 16% are Latinos/Hispanics,
13% are African Americans/Blacks, 4.5% are Asian Americans, 1 percent reported as
American Indians/Alaskan Natives, and 0.2% identified themselves as Native Hawai-
ians and Pacific Islanders. Note also that 1.7% of the population chose to identify them-
selves as two or more races.
The most sweeping demographic change in the United States is occurring in the
Latino/a population. It is projected that in the year 2050, the Latino/a population in the
United States will more than double in size (to approximately 30% of the total U.S. pop-
ulation), followed closely by an increase in the Asian American population (to approxi-
mately 9%). The African American population will remain stable (estimated at 15%),
while the non-­Hispanic White population will decline significantly (to approximately
6 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

46%) on the national level (Passel & Cohn, 2008). Hawaii, California, and New Mexico
are the three most racially diverse states in the United States. Conversely, Vermont,
Maine, and West Virginia are listed as the three most homogeneous states, with the
highest percentage being non-­Hispanic White residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).
Second, the number of foreign born in the nation is increasing at an accelerated
pace. According to U.S. census data for 2010, 36.7 million people representing 12% of
the total U.S. population are foreign-­born nationals. Another 33 million (i.e., 11%) are
native-­born with at least one foreign-­born parent, which means that more than one in
five people in the population is either a first- or second-­generation U.S. resident or citi-
zen. Among the foreign born, more than half were born in Latin America, and almost
one-third were born in Mexico. Other foreign born were either from Asia or Europe,
and the remaining small percentages were born in other regions of the world. Basically,
current and future generations in the United States include many individuals whose
parents or grandparents were born in a Latin American, Asian, or European region.
Thus, the influence of multicultural and diverse customers is expanding in every indus-
try. The housing industry, automaking, retail, banking, and media and entertainment
industries must learn to reach out to these multiethnic customers with customized nim-
bleness. Meanwhile, teachers must also learn to use culturally sensitive engagement
skills when dealing with the increased identity diversity in their classrooms. Social
service and health care providers must also learn to communicate responsively with
their foreign-­born clients and their 1.5 generations (i.e., immigrants who arrived at a
new country as children or adolescents).
Third, highly educated and skilled immigrants, especially in the areas of computer
science (e.g., Silicon Valley, California), medical, and engineering service industries,
play a critical role in advancing U.S. technological-­related industries. The payrolls of
leading information technology (IT) companies such as Apple and Microsoft include
many highly skilled and foreign-­born employees. Many U.S. immigrants have also con-
tributed positively to the dynamic social and economic development of the nation. The
richness of cultural diversity in U.S. society has led to dramatic breakthroughs in the
fields of physics, medicine, science, and technology. U.S. immigrants are innovative
business entrepreneurs, tenacious problem solvers, vibrant job creators, responsible
taxpayers, and active consumers who contribute trillions of dollars to the U.S. gross
domestic product (GDP; Center for American Progress, 2017). Even if we decide not to
step outside U.S. borders, we will inevitably encounter coworkers or classmates from
a wide range of socioculturally diverse elements in our own backyard. Learning to
understand and relate to different aspects of such diversity will serve as a major step
toward building a more inclusive, multicultural society.
In one sense, domestic diversity can be framed as a rich spectrum of human iden-
tity variations in response to internal and external conditions. The term “diversity”
can consist of primary dimensions and secondary dimensions. The primary dimen-
sions refer to those “human differences that are inborn and/or that exert an important
impact on our early socialization and an ongoing impact throughout our lives” (Loden &
Rosener, 1991, p. 18), for example, race/ethnicity, sex/gender, age, social class, physical
 Intercultural Communication 7

abilities, and sexual orientation. Comparatively, the secondary dimensions of diver-

sity refer to conditions that can be changed more easily than the primary dimensions,
including “mutable differences that we acquire, discard, and/or modify throughout our
lives, [most of which] are less salient than those of the core” (Loden & Rosener, 1991,
p. 19), for example, socioeconomic status, including educational level, work experience,
and income level. From an intergroup perspective, these social group memberships
may influence the identity perceptions of self and others, including stereotypical image
formations and associated communicative behaviors in an interpersonal or workplace
context. Mastering intergroup membership communication knowledge and skillsets
(e.g., intergenerational age-based identity communication) can ease any awkwardness
in intergroup interaction and increase communicative confidence and enjoyment in
diverse workplace and relational development settings.
Of course, it is critical to remember here that “valuing diversity” does not equate
with “practicing inclusion,” and vice versa. We can have a diverse workplace in a cor-
poration, with multiple faces culled from diverse racial and ethnic or age backgrounds.
However, if we do not learn from such diverse identity individuals, diversity will be just
statistics with individuals representing diverse identity quotas or rosters. To practice
inclusive diversity, we need to engage in responsive identity negotiation communica-
tive work. Culture-­sensitive knowledge, ethnorelative respectful attitude, and opera-
tional skills that are necessary in engaging in competent identity negotiation work are
explained more fully in Chapters 2 and 5, and are also offered as mindful guidelines at
the end of each chapter.
The basic premise of this book is that all human beings want to be understood,
respected, and affirmatively valued. However, understanding the other, respecting the
other, and affirming the other’s salient sociocultural membership and personal identi-
ties require mindful effort, astute observational ability, and pliant verbal and nonverbal
interactional skills. Exquisite attention to inclusive diversity issues bolsters employee
morale, creates an inclusive climate in the workplace, fosters intergroup–­interpersonal
rapport and trust, and sparks dynamic innovation and positive societal change.

New Media Trends in Intercultural Communication

Our world has become dynamically interconnected and intertwined owing to global-
ization and technological advancement. According to World Internet Users Statistics
(2017), over 3.7 billion people—­almost half of our global population—­are Internet
users, and the top regional users are found in Asia. Chen (2012) contends that “[w]ith
its distinctive and unique nature, new media has brought human interaction and soci-
ety to a highly interconnected and complex level” (p. 2). According to Chen (2012,
pp. 2–3), the term “new media” has five distinctive features: digitality, convergency,
interactivity, hypertextuality, and virtuality. Digitality refers to the idea that large data
sets can be stored, retrieved, and manipulated in a very limited digital space based
on mathematical operations. Convergency refers to the coming together of both the
forms and functions of information, media, electronic communication, and electronic
8 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

computing (e.g., via the Internet). Interactivity refers to the active flow of informa-
tion resources between users and various connective network operations (e.g., eBooks,
Netflix). Hypertextuality refers to how fields of information can be linked together
and mass distributed via different connective nodes in the digital network and hold
low production and distribution costs (e.g., Wikipedia, YouTube links). Lastly, virtual-
ity refers to how individuals can experience virtual reality in the invisible cyberspace
via text messages, images, sounds, and avatars (e.g., online games such as League of
Legends, World of Warcraft, Second Life). “Social media” (e.g., Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter, Snapchat, LinkedIn, Weibo) is a subset of new media that emphasizes the
importance of connective interactions among individuals who generate, share, discuss,
and exchange information through virtual communities or segmented networks and
communicate via mobile and web-based technologies (Chen, 2012).
While there are indeed digital divides between the “haves” and the “have nots,”
digital technologies are becoming more available across the globe, enabling people to
live in the age of hyperconnectivity. Indeed, Shuter (2017) discusses the important role
of new media and its implications for immigrants’ acculturation process and the code-
velopment of adaptive intercultural competencies in both immigrant and host national
groups. New media also reshuffle how individuals in different cultural groups and
diverse identity groups want to be perceived and offer them an opportunity to recon-
struct their projected personas or profiles. New media, especially through social media
connections, allow diverse individuals to reconstruct their primary identity dimensions
into more fluid and situational-­based identities—­depending on the particular social
media platform they are employing and with which set of segmented audience. Mil-
lions of people are crossing intercultural boundaries daily via digital/new media/social
media, communicating both asynchronously (e.g., emails and Facebook) and synchro-
nously (e.g., instant messaging, skyping, and live casting). In this regard, competent
mediated intercultural communication requires the adroit management of at least three
types of dialectics: local identity–­global identity dialectics, hybrid identity dialectics,
and cultural values versus social media values dialectics (Ting-­Toomey & Chung, 2012).
Dialectics are defined here as confronting paradoxes or contradictions due to the coex-
istence of two oppositional push and pull forces—­or yin and yang factors—­interfaced
with social media.
First, new media users and social media communicators face the challenge of man-
aging the dialectics of local identity and global identity. On the one hand, local identity
is made up of the emotional attachment to, and strength of, their identification with the
local ethnic culture and concomitant practices that provide a distinctive ethnic iden-
tity flavor. On the other hand, global identity is constituted by the emotional attach-
ment, and strength of, their identification with global culture and associated practices.
Active new media users need to negotiate these identity dialectics appropriately and
effectively because too much emphasis on either of these identities can create inter-
cultural communication schisms such as eroding local identity distinctiveness. Local
identity is made up of distinctive ethnic values, practices, and traditions of the local
identity communal group, whereas global identity is made up of individuals who adopt
 Intercultural Communication 9

and embrace international practices and values over local practices. Global culture as
exported through new media platforms tends to keep up with the latest trends, fash-
ions, technological advances, international programming, and consumer materialism.
For example, the international children’s television landscape is a shared new
media experience, with children having the same interests, watching the same pro-
gramming, playing the same games, and sharing in the same media preferences avail-
able on their smartphones or wireless tablets. The most dominant global networks are
Nickelodeon (Viacom), the Cartoon Network (AOL/Time Warner), and the Disney
Channel (Disney). All have managed to internationalize their brand with a packaged
variety of media products to international markets around the globe such as Dora the
Explorer, Spiderman, or Spongebob Square Pants. The aura of global cultural values
tied to consumerism and pop culture may then persuade local children to incorpo-
rate these “Western-­exported” values. The accelerated new media consumerism trends
can also create communication divisions between the older and younger generation
living in the same household across the globe. Through the explosion of new media,
the intersection of local and global identities is on the edge, standing at a crossroads
(Ting-­Toomey & Chung, 2012). Thus, the process of identity negotiation is a complex
phenomenon, and new media allure us into deciding what we should value or devalue,
what we should desire or forgo, and how we can lead a fulfilling lifestyle on a local
versus a global scale.
Second, social media allow redefining, exploring, and reinventing identities, and
new generations of individuals are forming a hybrid “third-­culture” identity constituted
by the fusion of local and global cultures, as discussed earlier (Casmir, 1997; Shuter,
2017). This hybrid identity as expressed in the “third space” social media culture can
create further intergroup dissonances and, at the same time, collaborative opportuni-
ties between individuals who have never met face to face. These individuals are not
likely to follow a particular traditional ethnic script to relate to and communicate with
one another. They may fuse their local culture’s communicative expectancies with the
global culture’s probable outlook and thus create either decoding confusions or renewed
intergroup–­interpersonal connective understanding. Furthermore, the social media
platform itself has its own value ideologies, pacing and rhythms, settings, global play-
ers, avatars, interactional moves and countermoves that mediate local culture identity
construction and global identity enactment and further impact on the intercultural–­
intergroup communication process itself. Thus, it has become more urgent to master
the essential skills of intercultural and intergroup interactional competencies as we
move forward connectively in this networked society in the 21st century.
Finally, social media communicators need to attend to cultural–­ethnic values ver-
sus social media values dialectics. While individuals may use the same social media
communication channel (e.g., WhatsApp, Viber), cultural value manifestations such
as linear-­sequential versus spiral-­relational reasoning patterns, communication styles,
emoticons selection, and cultural context influence how people interact in electronic
media. Cultural value orientations may also influence the attitude and communica-
tive behavior of social media users (such as collectivists seeking social support and
10 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

individualists seeking self-­promotion) (Kim, Sohn, & Choi, 2011; Stefanone, Lackaff,
& Rosen, 2011). Even with individuals texting or speaking the same language (English
is the dominant language for global social media users), they may use it in low-­context
style (being explicit and straightforward in conveying their intent) or high-­context
style (being implicit and relying heavily on nonverbal hinting), which requires mindful
decoding of the meaning level of the cryptic message exchange process (Hall, 1976,
1983).
New media empower individuals and organizational systems to exchange, share,
and distribute information using a wide range of social media connective platforms (e.g.,
Facebook, Google Plus, Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat) and to engage in different uses
of messaging applications (e.g., WhatsApp and WeChat). Based on the capacities of dif-
ferent social media and skills and users’ interest and needs, cultural partners can form
intercultural alliances and relationships, promote common-­interest social networks,
collaborate on global projects, engage in social activism such as climate change and
poverty reduction, and create virtual reality. In and for all of these areas, understand-
ing intercultural–­intergroup communication and practicing adaptive cultural-­sensitive
competence skills is all the more important because of the communication challenges
we have discussed.

Intergroup–Interpersonal Discovery Opportunities

In a global workplace, people bring with them different work habits, time rhythms, and
cultural practices. For example, in collectivistic cultures, staff members tend to wait for
their superiors’ or supervisors’ instruction on how to do their jobs, but in individualis-
tic cultures staff are expected to know how to do their jobs without having to wait for
supervisors’ instruction. Also, in collectivist cultures, people tend to think of time as
elastic, as expressed in the notions of “Indian time” and “Filipino time,” which are dif-
ferent from the notion of technical and clock-based mechanical time in individualistic
cultures such as the United States and Switzerland. Being exposed to these cultural dif-
ferences provides learning and growth opportunities to promote the development of a
well-­rounded, balanced intercultural person. Immersing and soaking up the distinctive
cultural experiences in different cultural communities stretches the different digital
and analogic aspects of our brain, imagination, heart strings, enjoyment, and expand-
able behavioral repertoires.
It is through the mirror of others that we learn to know ourselves. By facing our
own discomfort and anxiety, we learn to stretch and grow. In reality, however, most
of us prefer to spend time with people who are like us rather than different from us
for predictable interaction, security, and comfort (Gudykunst, 2005a). Being in contact
with an unfamiliar other often makes us feel vulnerable, exposed, and at times quite
disoriented and unsettled, a feeling stemming, for example, from language differences,
nonverbal awkwardness, and distinctive work habits and interactional styles. It takes
time, hard work, patience, and focused attention to really know a cultural stranger with
 Intercultural Communication 11

deep intergroup–­interpersonal understanding and empathy. However, the time and

energy we invest in learning to deal with our own feelings of ambiguity and in reducing
the discomfort of others do pay off substantially in the long run.
Encountering a dissimilar other helps us to question our routine way of thinking
and behaving and to consider alternative options. Connecting with a dissimilar other
deeply is a discovery process of whirlwind adventures, mystery encounters, and sur-
prising learning moments. According to creativity research (Maddux & Galinsky, 2009;
Sternberg, 1999), we learn more from people who are different from us than from those
who are like us. At the individual level, creativity involves taking in new ideas and
being thrown into disequilibrium. If the uncertainty is managed with an open-­minded
attitude and a willingness to change deportment, multicultural team members can
develop a synergistic perspective (Buzzanell, 2017). A synergistic perspective means
combining the best of all cultural approaches in solving a global or domestic workplace
problem. More specifically, our ability to evaluate different problem-­solving approaches
(e.g., inductive, deductive, spiral, metaphoric, or visualization/mapping) and to move
away intentionally from traditional “either/or” binary thinking can expand diverse cre-
ative options in a multicultural team’s deliberation process and outcome.
Indeed, at the small-group level of research, it has been shown that experts rate
the quality of ideas produced in ethnically/culturally diverse groups significantly
higher than those ideas produced in ethnically homogeneous groups (McLeod, Lobel,
& Cox, 1996). Of course, ethnically heterogeneous work teams also experience more
conflicts or communication struggles than homogeneous work teams. If such conflicts
are managed competently and constructively, however, the interaction outcome of het-
erogeneous teams often results in a higher quantity and quality of solutions than that of
homogeneous teams. Culturally and ethnically diverse teams bring a greater variety of
viewpoints to bear on the issue, a higher level of critical analysis of alternatives, and a
lower probability of groupthink owing to the heterogeneous composition of the group
(Oetzel, 2005). Thus, one’s commitment and willingness to experience a new cultural
community and to engage with new cultural members connectively can prompt more
alternative ways of learning and experiencing.

Cultivating Mindful Communication Practice

In mastering some of the key intercultural and intergroup communication competence
knowledge sets and skillsets in this book, you as an intercultural learner can assume a
personal leadership role in facilitating team meetings, coaching your culturally diverse
coworkers, informally mediating intercultural or intergroup conflicts, and serving as a
“cultural bridge” between your intercultural friends or multicultural families. At the
root of “personal leadership,” according to Schaetti, Ramsey, and Watanabe (2008), is
“understanding and managing our internal experience” (p. 4). They summarize their
particular “Personal Leadership” practices as “notice our automatic reactions and
untangle from them. . . . The more mindful and creative we are, especially when we’re
12 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

in an unfamiliar environment, the more chance we have of being effective. All it takes
is the commitment to be the leader of our own lives and a willingness to engage in the
moment-­to-­moment practice” (p. 4).
Mindfulness practice is rooted in the contemplative practices common to both
Eastern and Western spiritual traditions. It is, at once, a spiritual, meditative, reflec-
tive, psychological, ethical, and applied way of intentional living and communicating
(Ting-­Toomey, 1999). According to Buddhist practice, mindfulness means attending to
one’s own internal assumptions, arising emotions, intentions, cognitions, attitudes, and
behaviors. Mindful reflexivity requires us to tune in to our own cultural and personal
habitual assumptions in scanning a communication scene. It also means “emptying our
mind-set” and decluttering internal noises so that we can listen with an in-the-­moment
pure heart. As presented in the works of Thich Nhat Hanh (1991) and Jon Kabat-Zinn
(1994), mindfulness means tracking an unfolding communication episode with one-­
pointed wakefulness and watchfulness.
When viewed through a Western psychological lens, mindfulness means attuning
to the other person’s communication assumptions, attitudes, perspectives, and com-
munication styles (Burgoon, Berger, & Waldron, 2000). Langer’s (1989, 1997) concept
of mindfulness includes the following characteristics: (1) learning to see the unfamiliar
behaviors presented in the communication situation as novel or fresh; (2) learning to
view the interaction situation from multiple viewpoints or angles; (3) learning to attend
to the communication situation and the person with whom we are interacting holisti-
cally; and (4) learning to create new categories through which the unfamiliar behavior
may be understood. Applying this mindfulness orientation to intercultural and inter-
group interaction situations suggests a readiness and commitment to shift one’s frame
of reference from an ethnocentric lens to an ethnorelative viewfinder and increases the
possibility of interpreting events from the other person’s cultural frame of reference
(Ting-­Toomey, 1999, 2005a).
More specifically, in the absence of intercultural knowledge and cultural sensi-
tivity, we tend to use a mindless–­ethnocentric lens to perceive and relate to cultural
strangers. Ethnocentrism refers to the mind-set of holding the views and standards of
our own ingroup (Us) as superior to those of the referent outgroup (Them) and using
ingroup standards to evaluate intercultural strangers’ seemingly “bizarre” behaviors.
Alternatively, ethnorelativism refers to the mind-set of looking at things, including
communication, from the other person’s cultural perspective or cultural frame of refer-
ence (Bennett & Bennett, 2004; see also Chapter 9).
For example, there is no one right way of greeting each other across cultures. On
a global level, people greet each other with infinite variations, such as different types
of handshakes, hugs and kisses, or types and degrees of nodding or bowing. On the one
hand, ethnocentric-­minded individuals generally see their own way of greeting as much
more natural, spontaneous, logical, or easy to enact because of their own daily cultural
practice. Ethnorelative-­minded individuals, on the other hand, are more open-­minded,
flexible, and adaptive to situational needs between intercultural communicators. When
they practice new behavioral skills in the new cultural community, they do not find the
 Intercultural Communication 13

new rituals “cumbersome” and “backward,” or “illogical” and “uncivilized.” Ethnorela-

tive mind-set does not necessarily entail abandoning one’s cultural perspective, but it
does at least require giving alternative cultural perspectives the benefit of the doubt in
that they could be as good as one’s own cultural perspective, or even better. Studying
intercultural and intergroup communication more deeply and acquiring the necessary
knowledge and skills to function competently in a new culture can circumvent over-
reliance on rigidly held sweeping stereotypes and also inaccurate reactive judgments.
Here it is important to note the specific distinctions between the terms “general-
izations” and “stereotypes.” The knowledge blocks in this book offer “reasonable gener-
alizations” based on well-­grounded research data in the intercultural, intergroup, and
related interdisciplinary fields studying the aggregate patterns of individuals and group
membership communication. Sound and well-­argued theoretical frameworks, coupled
with well-­supported research evidence, can help shape the directions of “reasonable
generalizations” based on multiple data convergent points. Of course, through use of
an interpretive and critical research lens, it is also important to preserve the meaning-
ful distinctive voices of divergent identity groups and unique individuals. The concept
of “stereotypes,” in contrast, refers to overgeneralizations based on hearsay or slim (or
even no) evidence and apply sweeping categories to typecast an individual or an entire
identity group due to closed-­minded interpretive processes. On the one hand, the lan-
guage of “reasonable generalization” is open-ended, tentative, and subject to updated
revision based on the latest research data gleaned from multiple academic sources. The
language of “intergroup stereotype,” on the other hand, is close-ended, absolute, and
categorically imposing, and with the associated implication that the particular individ-
ual or group member is “always” behaving in such a manner and with 100% rigidified
certainty and predictability.
Mindful intercultural communication will enrich our understanding of a diverse
range of meanings and communicative situations concerning both face-to-face and
social media interactions. Mindful communication takes patience, commitment, and
practice. Our willingness to explore and understand such cultural differences and
group identity complexities in both face-to-face and mediated contexts will ultimately
enrich the breadth and depth of our own lived experiences and also enhance the qual-
ity of the communicational lives of culturally different others.

What Is Intercultural Communication?

The word culture is an elastic, dynamic concept that often takes on several different
shades of meaning, depending on one’s perspective. The word communication is also
fluid and subject to different interpretations. While both culture and communication
reciprocally influence one another, it is essential to distinguish the characteristics of the
two concepts for the purpose of understanding the complex relationship between them.
In this section, we answer the following two questions: “What is culture?” and “What
is intercultural communication?”
14 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Conceptualization of Culture
Definition of Culture
Culture is an enigma. It contains both concrete and abstract components. It is also a
multifaceted phenomenon. What is culture? This question has fascinated scholars in
various academic disciplines. As long ago as the early 1950s, Kroeber and Kluckhohn
(1952) identified more than 160 different definitions of the term “culture.” The study
of culture has ranged from the study of its external architecture and landscape to the
study of a set of implicit principles and values to which a large group of members in a
community subscribe.
The term “culture” originates from the Latin word cultura or cultus, as in “agri
cultura, the cultivation of the soil. Later, culture grabbed a set of related meanings:
training, adornment, fostering, worship. . . . From its root meaning of an activity, cul-
ture became transformed into a condition, a state of being cultivated” (Freilich, 1989,
p. 2). D’Andrade’s (1984) conceptualization of “culture” embodies three important
points. First, the term “culture” refers to a diverse pool of knowledge, shared realities,
and clustered norms that constitute the learned systems of meanings in a particular
society. Second, these learned systems of meanings are shared and transmitted through
everyday interactions among members of the cultural group and from one generation
to the next. Third, culture facilitates members’ capacity to survive and adapt to their
external environment.
Drawing from D’Andrade’s conceptualization of culture, we define culture in this
book as a complex frame of reference that consists of patterns of traditions, beliefs, val-
ues, norms, symbols, and meanings that are shared to varying degrees by interacting
members of an identity community.
Culture is like an iceberg: the deeper layers (e.g., traditions, beliefs, values) are
hidden from our view; we only see and hear the uppermost layers of cultural artifacts
(e.g., fashion, trends, pop culture), and we recognize some of the intermediate-­level
explicit (e.g., foreign language chattering) sounds and sense some of the undercurrent
verbal and nonverbal communication gestures and cues (see Figure 1.1). However, to
truly understand a cultural community with any depth, we have to match its deep-level,
underlying value system accurately with its respective norms, meanings, and symbols
located at the middle level of the iceberg metaphor. It is these beliefs and values that
drive people’s thinking, experiencing, reacting, and behaving. Furthermore, to under-
stand commonalities between individuals and groups, we have to dig deeper into the
shared seafloor-­level of universal human needs (such as safety, freedom, security, inclu-
sion, dignity/respect, control, connection, meaning, creativity and play, spiritual striv-
ing, peace, and a sense of well-being). While we illustrate many core concepts concern-
ing intercultural or intergroup membership differences in an intercultural–­intergroup
communication textbook such as this, we also need to always keep the seafloor-­level
shared humanity and common human fate in mind: our vast similarities of needs, inter-
ests, dreams, hopes, goals, and the well-being of our families and our loved ones.
 Intercultural Communication 15

Surface-Level Culture
(e.g., Popular Culture)

Intermediate-Level Culture:
Symbols, Meanings, and Norms

Deep-Level Culture:
Traditions, Beliefs, and Values

Seafloor-Level Humanity:
Universal Human Needs

FIGURE 1.1. Culture: An iceberg metaphor.

On a communal level, culture refers to a patterned way of living by a group of

interacting individuals who share similar sets of traditions, beliefs, values, and com-
municative practices. This can be considered the normative culture of a distinctive
identity group (Triandis, 1972). On an individual level, members of a culture can attach
different degrees of importance to this complex range and layers of cultural traditions,
beliefs, values, and norms. This is known as the subjective culture of an individual with
her or his distinctive personality traits, thought patterns, and unique life trajectories
(Triandis, 1995).
On an aggregate group membership level, culturally shared traditions can include
myths, legends, ceremonies, and rituals (e.g., celebrating Thanksgiving and New Year)
that are passed on from one generation to the next through an oral or written medium.
Culturally shared beliefs refer to a set of fundamental assumptions that people hold
16 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

dearly without question. These beliefs revolve around questions as to the origins of
human beings; the concept of time, space, and reality; the existence of a supernatural
being; and the meaning of life, death, and the afterlife. Proposed answers to many of
these questions can be found in the major religions of the world such as Christian-
ity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. People who subscribe to any of these religious
philosophies tend to hang onto their beliefs on faith, often accepting the fundamental
precepts without question.
Beyond fundamental cultural or religious beliefs, people also differ in what they
value as important in their cultures. Cultural values refer to a set of priorities that guide
“good” or “bad” behaviors, “desirable” or “undesirable” practices, and “fair” or “unfair”
actions (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). Cultural values (e.g., individual competitive-
ness vs. group harmony) can serve as the motivational bases for action. They can pro-
vide the explanatory logic for behavior. They can also serve as the desired end goals to
be achieved. To understand various communication patterns in a culture, we have to
understand the deep-­rooted cultural values that give meanings to such patterns. (For
an in-depth discussion of cultural values, see Chapter 6.)
Cultural norms refer to the collective expectations of what constitute proper or
improper behavior in a given situation (Olsen, 1978). They guide the scripts (i.e., appro-
priate sequence of activities) we should follow in particular situations (e.g., how to greet
a professor or how to apologize appropriately and effectively). While cultural beliefs
and values are deep seated and invisible, norms can be readily inferred and observed
through behaviors. Cultural traditions, beliefs, and values intersect to influence the
development of collective norms in a culture. Often, our ignorance of a culture’s norms
and rules can produce unintentional clashes between us and the people of that culture.
We may not even notice that we have violated another culture’s norms or rules in a
particular situation, such as wearing street shoes inside a traditional Japanese home.
A symbol is a sign, artifact, word(s), gesture, or behavior that stands for or reflects
something meaningful on an individual or cultural community level. The meanings
or sense-­making interpretations that we attach to the symbol (e.g., a national flag or a
memorial monument) can have both normative and subjective levels. People globally
can recognize a particular country by its national flag because of its design and colors.
However, people can also hold subjective interpretations and evaluations of what the
flag means to them, such as a sense of pride or betrayal. Another such example is the
linguistic symbol “home.”
On the relatively objective level, “home” refers to “a family’s place of residence.”
However, members of different cultures may give different subjective meanings to this
richly textured symbol. For example, for a Tomalithli Native American, “home” means
an experiential place where “time and space . . . blur into impressionistic totality. . . .
[Home is] the place of our birth vested indelibly in us, an identity, since we have always
been and will always be there with the spirits of relatives of past, present, and future”
(Grinde, 1996, p. 63). Interestingly, for individuals who see themselves as global citi-
zens (e.g., see Iyer, 2013), “home” is not tied to a physical location but instead implies a
sense of belonging to the whole globe.
 Intercultural Communication 17

Thus, for different individuals, the linguistic symbol “home” can connote spiritu-
ality, kinship, belonging, identity, a sacred space, and a sacred time. While the word
home sounds simple, it can conjure diverse cultural and personal meanings. To under-
stand a culture, we need to know in depth the values and meanings of its core symbols.
Often, we learn the essential values, meanings, and identity of a cultural community
through mastery of its core linguistic symbols, critical nonverbal artifacts, and situ-
ational frames. Culture matters in life.

Functions of Culture
What does culture do for human beings? Why do we need culture? As an essential com-
ponent of human beings’ effort to survive and thrive in their particular environment,
culture serves multiple functions. Of all these functions, we identify five here: identity
meaning, explanatory frame, intergroup boundary regulation, ecological adaptation,
and cultural communication.
First, culture serves the identity meaning function. Culture provides the frame of
reference needed to answer the human being’s most fundamental question: Who am
I? Cultural beliefs, values, and norms provide the anchoring points through which we
attribute meanings and significance to our identities. For example, in the larger U.S.
culture, middle-­class U.S. values emphasize individual initiative and achievement. A
person is considered “competent” or “successful” when he or she takes the personal
initiative to realize his or her full potential. Realizing this potential means gaining tan-
gible achievements and rewards (e.g., an enviable career, a good salary, a coveted car,
a big screen TV, or a dream house). A person who can realize his or her dreams despite
difficult circumstances is considered to be a “successful” individual in the context of
middle-­class U.S. culture. In this individualistic value system, each person is perceived
as unique, with free will and responsibility for his or her own growth.
Thus, the concept of being a “successful,” “competent,” or “worthwhile” person
and the meanings attached to such terms stem from the fundamental values of a given
culture. The identity meanings we acquire within our culture are constructed and sus-
tained through everyday communication. For example, in traditional Chinese culture,
a “worthwhile” person is the individual who respects his or her parents at all times
and is sensitive to the needs of his or her family. In the traditional Mexican culture, a
“well-­educated” person (una persona bien educada) is the person who has been well-­
taught by his or her parents the importance of “demonstrating social relationships con
respeto (with respect) and dignidad (dignity)” (Paniagua, 1994, p. 39). Therefore, if a
child is called mal educado (not well-­educated), the implicit assumption is that the
child did not receive proper family socialization and education from his or her parents
concerning how to treat others, particularly in interacting with individuals in a position
of authority and enacting the proper respeto (Paniagua, 1994).
Second, culture serves the explanatory frame function for why cultural members
do the things they do in a given culture. Culture creates a comfort zone in which we
experience safety, inclusion, and acceptance. We do not have to constantly explain or
18 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

justify our actions. With people of dissimilar groups, we have to be on the alert, and
we have to explain or defend our actions with more effort. We also need the mental
energy to figure out why they behave the way they do. For example, in the context of
cross-­cultural nonverbal interaction, nonverbal public display of affection (PDA; e.g.,
hugging, kissing, handholding) varies across cultures. Cultural strangers may be asked
to explain why they do or do not engage in PDA and in what particular situations and
relationship types. However, cultural insiders do not require such explanations—­they
just make those nonverbal gestures spontaneously, naturally, and properly in accor-
dance with their implicit cultural knowledge.
Interestingly, the explanatory function of culture is often taken for granted.
Regardless of the depth of knowledge about their own culture, people tend to expe-
rience less anxiety and uncertainty in intracultural interactions. In contrast, inter-
cultural strangers tend to experience high levels of anxiety and uncertainty in their
interactions owing to different cultural norms and divergent meaning interpretation
(Gudykunst, 2005a, 2005b). For example, romantic partnership dating is normative in
some cultures but not in other cultures before formal engagement or marriage. Inter-
cultural misunderstandings may occur because cultural strangers cannot produce each
other’s explanatory frame to explain such a “bizarre” dating or nondating norm. They
may not possess the deep-level understanding of the appropriate cultural values to
comprehend the other person’s “odd or illogical” cultural relationship practice. Inter-
cultural strangers cannot “fill in the blanks” spontaneously to grasp the underlying
meaning of a novel cultural custom as practiced repeatedly by the insiders of a cultural
community. Importantly, if intercultural strangers make an effort to learn about each
other’s cultural value systems and mindfully attune to them in interactions, they can
manage their own anxiety and uncertainty productively and also help to alleviate the
interactional anxiety and unpredictability of the cultural strangers with whom they are
communicating.
Third, culture’s intergroup boundary regulation function shapes our ingroup and
outgroup attitudes in dealing with people who are culturally dissimilar. Culture is a
web that connects and holds group members together. It is also the basis for differen-
tiating between cultural ingroup and outgroup members. While we feel emotionally
close to, and attach some importance to, the ingroups we belong to, we may feel no
emotional ties with and attach no importance to outgroups. An attitude is a learned
tendency that influences our behavior. Culture helps us to form evaluative attitudes
toward ingroup and outgroup interactions. Evaluative attitudes also connote positive-
or negative-­valenced emotions.
According to intergroup research (Brewer, 1997, 2000; Crisp, 2010a, 2010b), we
tend to hold favorable attitudes toward ingroup interactions and unfavorable attitudes
toward outgroup interactions. We generally experience strong emotional reactions
when our cultural norms are violated or ignored. In addition, we experience bewilder-
ment when we unintentionally violate other people’s cultural norms. While our own
culture builds an invisible boundary around us, it also delimits our thoughts and our
visions.
 Intercultural Communication 19

Culture is like a pair of sunglasses. It shields us from external harshness and offers
us some measure of safety and comfort. That same protectiveness blocks us from seeing
clearly through our tinted lenses. In brief, culture nurtures our ethnocentric attitudes
and behaviors. We often consider our own cultural way of seeing and sensing as much
more “civilized” and “correct” than other cultural ways. More often than not, we are
unaware of our own ethnocentric biases. We also make different attributions in inter-
group settings. While we often attribute our own and ingroup success to positive inter-
nal traits (e.g., smart and diligent), we oftentimes attribute the success of others and
outgroups to external situations (e.g., luck and favoritism). But for negative events we
reverse these intergroup attributions. While we tend to attribute our own and ingroup’s
failures to external situations (e.g., economic crisis or unfavorable working conditions),
we tend to attribute the failures of others and outgroups to their negative internal traits
(e.g., they are not smart enough and they are lazy). Unfortunately, we acquire the lenses
of ethnocentrism and biased attributions through growing-­up socialization and condi-
tioning processes. However, we can learn to intentionally switch our own frame of ref-
erence from thinking ethnocentrically to thinking ethnorelatively, and from interact-
ing mindlessly to interacting mindfully—­with culture-­sensitive attitudes, words, and
nonverbal actions.
Fourth, culture serves the ecological adaptation function. It facilitates the adap-
tation processes among the self, the cultural community, and the larger environment
(i.e., the ecological milieu or habitat). Culture is not a static system. It is dynamic and
changes with the people within the system. Culture evolves with a clear reward and
punishment system that reinforces certain adaptive behaviors and sanctions other
maladaptive behaviors over time. When people adapt their needs and their particu-
lar ways of living in response to a changing habitat, culture also changes accordingly.
Surface-­level cultural artifacts such as fashion or popular culture or technology change
at a faster pace than deep-level cultural elements such as beliefs, values, and ethics.
According to Triandis (1994a), the ecologies of a competitive hunting and fishing soci-
ety are different from those of a farming society. The former connotes a more competi-
tive worldview with perceived short supplies, whereas the latter connotes a spirit of
cooperation, interdependence, and blending-­in supportive harmony.
In today’s ecology of globalization and social media, the opportunity for both com-
petitive creativity and collaborative creativity is here to stay. Appropriate and effec-
tive identity management and negotiation through adaptive global communication and
transformative social media engagement can move global humanity one giant step for-
ward or, alternatively, one giant step backward. Culture rewards certain behaviors that
are compatible with its ecology and sanctions other behaviors that are mismatched with
the ecological niche of the culture, in the particular historical time–space period.
Fifth and finally, culture serves the cultural communication function, which basi-
cally means the coordination between culture and communication. Culture affects
communication, and communication affects culture. The noted anthropologist Edward
T. Hall (1959) succinctly states that culture is communication and communication is
culture. It is through communication that culture is passed down, created, and modified
20 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

from one generation to the next. Communication is necessary to define cultural experi-
ences. Cultural communication shapes the implicit theories we have about appropriate
human conduct and effective human practices in a given sociocultural milieu.
Cultural communication provides a set of ideals of how social interaction can
be accomplished smoothly among people within our community (Cushman & Cahn,
1985). It binds people together via their shared linguistic and nonverbal norms, codes,
and scripts. For example, people in a particular speech community have established a
set of norms of what constitutes a polite or impolite way of meeting strangers. In West-
ern Apache culture, remaining silent is the most proper way to behave when strangers
meet. As Basso (1990) observes, “The Western Apache do not feel compelled to ‘intro-
duce’ persons who are unknown to each other. . . . Outside help in the form of intro-
ductions or other verbal routines is viewed as presumptuous and unnecessary. Strang-
ers who are quick to launch into conversation are frequently eyed with undisguised
suspicion” (p. 308). While norms are implicit expectations concerning what “should”
or “should not” occur in an interaction, scripts refer to expected interaction sequences
of communication. As already noted, people in the same speech community often sub-
scribe to a shared set of norms and scripts in particular situations.
Cultural communication coordinates the different parts of a complex system. It
provides the people in a particular speech community with a shared consensus way of
understanding. It serves as the superglue that links the macro–exo–meso levels (e.g.,
macro level: cultural traditions, ideologies, beliefs, and values; exo level: governmental
policy institutions concerning education, health care, social service, or mass media;
meso level: the surrounding neighborhood community or workplace interactive setting)
together with the micro levels of an individual’s thinking pattern, personal experience,
affective reaction, morality stance, and use of particular verbal and nonverbal cues. A
change in one part of the cultural system is expressed and echoed in another part of
the system through symbolic communication. Thus, communication coordinates and
regulates the multiple facets of a culture in a stable, yet dynamic, direction.
In sum, culture serves as the “safety net” in which individuals seek to satisfy their
needs for identity meaning, explanatory frame, boundary regulation, adaptation, and
communication coordination. Culture facilitates and enhances individuals’ adaptation
processes in their natural cultural habitats. Communication, in essence, serves as the
major means of linking these diverse needs together. Drawing from the basic func-
tions of culture as discussed above, we can now turn to explore the characteristics and
assumptions of the intercultural communication process.

Conceptualization of Intercultural Communication

Definitions of Key Terms
The term “cross-­cultural” as used in intercultural literature refers to the communica-
tion process that is comparative in nature (e.g., comparing conflict styles in cultures X,
Y, and Z), while the term “intercultural” refers to the communication process between
 Intercultural Communication 21

members of different cultural communities (e.g., business negotiations between a Dutch

importer and an Indonesian exporter). To put it more succinctly, in intercultural com-
munication, the degree of difference that exists between individuals is derived primar-
ily from cultural group membership factors such as beliefs, values, norms, and interac-
tion scripts; the term “intergroup communication” implies that a degree of difference
exists stemming from distinctive group membership identity factors (e.g., age, gender,
status, social class, ability/disability). Intergroup communication is a broad term that
includes all kinds of communication based on different group membership identity
issues (Giles, 2012). Relatedly, “interethnic communication” refers to communicating
between individuals from different ethnic groups, and “international communication”
refers to communicating across international borders via media use (Croucher, 2017).
Intercultural communication takes place when our cultural group membership
factors (e.g., cultural norms and scripts) affect our communication process—­on either
an awareness or an unawareness level. Individuals may be aware that some cultural
differences exist between themselves and the other group members. Nevertheless, they
still need to master culturally relevant knowledge and skills to manage such differences
constructively. On the contrary, individuals may not be aware at all that some cultural
difference exists between themselves and dissimilar others. They may attribute the
communication missteps to factors (e.g., personality flaws) other than culture-­level fac-
tors. They may also be totally oblivious to the idea that the seeds of intercultural dis-
cord have already been sown and sprouted.
If, however, intercultural communicators continue to ignore group-based and
person-­based factors that impact their encounters, their misinterpretations may spiral
into major escalatory conflicts. Alternatively, individuals may stay in a superficial rela-
tionship without ever moving the relationship to a satisfactory level. To develop a quality
intercultural–­intergroup and interpersonal relationship, communicators need to inte-
grate identity-­sensitive knowledge, ethnorelative attitude, and constructive interaction
skills and integrate these components into everyday mindful communication practice.
According to Ting-­Toomey (2015b), mindfulness is “introspective attunement with the
self and being transparent about the self’s intentions, motivations, sociocultural iden-
tity, and personal identity security/vulnerability issues” (p. 421). It is also about extend-
ing such open-­hearted awareness and attunement in responding to the other person’s
identity struggles with vulnerability in an uncertainty space. Ting-­Toomey considers
mindfulness to be the “key link” connecting culture-­sensitive knowledge with actual
communication competence skills. To become astute intercultural communicators in
diverse cultural situations, we must first be mindful of the different characteristics of
the process itself and include different regional and faith-based perspectives on inter-
cultural communication (e.g., a South American, South African, Iranian, Israeli, Mus-
lim, or Buddhist perspective) as opposed to the “typical US, and Western, connotations
provided in most intercultural communication textbooks” (see Croucher, 2017, p. 1).
For example, from a Buddhist perspective, intercultural communication is considered
“a process of encoding and decoding messages in an intercultural context characterized
22 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

by understanding interdependent origination, nonviolence, and mindfulness, among

other things” (Dorjee, 2017, p. 71).
For the purpose of this textbook, intercultural communication is defined as the
symbolic exchange process whereby individuals from two (or more) different cultural
communities attempt to negotiate shared meanings in an interactive situation and in a
larger sociocultural–­macro environment. Furthermore, the shared meaning construc-
tion and coordination process between two persons (e.g., between Person A and Person
X from two diverse cultural communities) are profoundly shaped by their normative
cultural expectations and intergroup perceptions. The major characteristics of this defi-
nition include symbolic exchange process, different cultural communities, negotiation
of shared meanings, interactive situation, intergroup perception, intercultural expecta-
tion, and sociocultural–­macro environment (see Figure 1.2).

Explanations of Intercultural Communication Characteristics

In any intercultural encounter process, people use verbal and nonverbal symbols to
get their ideas/messages across. The first characteristic, symbolic exchange, refers to
the use of verbal and nonverbal symbols between a minimum of two individuals to
accomplish shared meanings. While verbal symbols represent the digital aspects of
our message exchange process, nonverbal symbols or cues such as smiles represent the
analogical aspects of our message exchange process. Digital aspects of communica-
tion refer to the content information that we convey to our listener. The relationship

Sociocultural–Macro Environment

Person A’s Intercultural Expectation Person X’s

Cultural Frame of Reference Cultural Frame of Reference

Intergroup Perception

Symbolic
Exchange
Process

Meaning Negotiation

FIGURE 1.2. Intercultural communication: A transactional model.

 Intercultural Communication 23

between a digital code (e.g., the word angry) and its interpretation is arbitrary. The
word angry is a digital symbol that stands for an intense, antagonistic feeling. The word
itself, however, does not carry the feeling: it is people, as symbol users, who infuse the
word with intense emotions. It is the same for all words, including words such as love
and hate, compassion and contempt.
In comparison, analogical aspects of communication refer to the “picturesque”
meanings or the affective meanings that we convey through use of nonverbal cues.
Nonverbal cues are analogical because of a “resemblance” relationship between them
and their meaning such as a frown and disliking something. Furthermore, while verbal
cues are discrete (i.e., with clear beginning and ending sounds), nonverbal cues are con-
tinuous (i.e., different nonverbal cues flow simultaneously with no clear-cut beginning
and ending) throughout the message exchange process. While verbal messages always
include the use of nonverbal cues such as accents and vocal intonations, we can convey
nonverbal messages independent of verbal cues such as eye contact (oculesic) and touch
(haptic). As babies, we acquire or soak up the nonverbal cues from our immediate cul-
tural environments before we actually learn our native tongue.
The second characteristic, process, refers to the interdependent nature of the inter-
cultural encounter. Once two cultural strangers make contact and attempt to communi-
cate, they enter into a mutually interdependent relationship. A Japanese businessperson
may bow, and an American businessperson may be ready to shake hands. The two may
also quickly reverse their nonverbal greeting rituals and adapt to each other’s behav-
ior. This quick change of nonverbal postures, however, may cause another awkward
moment of confusion. The concept of process involves the transactional and irreversible
nature of communication (Barnlund, 1962; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).
The transactional nature of intercultural communication refers to the simultane-
ous encoding (i.e., the sender choosing the right words or nonverbal gestures to express
his or her intentions) and decoding (i.e., the receiver translating the words or nonverbal
cues into comprehensible meanings) of the exchanged messages. When the decoding
process of the receiver matches the encoding process of the sender, the receiver and
sender of the message have accomplished shared content meanings effectively. Unfor-
tunately, more often than not, intercultural encounters experience misunderstandings
and second guesses because of language problems, communication style differences,
and value orientation differences.
Intercultural communication is an irreversible process because the receiver
may form different impressions even in regards to the same repeated message. Once
a sender utters something to a receiver, he or she cannot repeat the same message
exactly twice. The sender’s tone of voice, interaction pace, or his or her facial expres-
sion will not stay precisely the same. It is also difficult for any sender to withdraw or
cancel a message once the message has been decoded. For example, if a sender makes
a remark such as “I have friends who are Japs!” and then quickly attempts to withdraw
the message, this attempt cannot succeed because the message has already created a
damaging impact on the receiver’s decoding field. Thus, intercultural communication
24 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

process is irreversible (Barnlund, 1962). Throughout this book, we will use examples
of intercultural–­intergroup acquaintance relationships, business relationships, friend-
ships, and dating relationships to illustrate various intercultural communication pro-
cesses. We also encourage you to think of additional examples and questions to clarify
your own understanding of important concepts that affect the intercultural communi-
cation process. By reading each chapter mindfully and by practicing the concepts and
skills recommended in each chapter, you will uncover constructive choices and mul-
tiple pathways that lead to competent intercultural communication practice.
The third characteristic, different cultural communities, is defined as a broad
concept. A cultural community refers to a group of interacting individuals within a
bounded unit who uphold a set of shared traditions and way of life. This unit can refer to
a geographic locale with clear-cut boundaries such as a nation. This unit can also refer
to a set of shared beliefs and values that are subscribed to by a group of individuals who
perceive themselves as united even if they are dispersed physically. An example would
be diasporic communities around the world who feel a sense of belonging and identifi-
cation with their respective heritage cultures (such as religion, language, and lifestyles)
but do not reside in the same space or even the same time zone.
Broadly interpreted, a cultural community can refer to a national cultural group,
an ethnic group, or a gender group. It is, simultaneously, a group-level construct (i.e., a
patterned way of living) and an individual’s subjective sense of membership in or affilia-
tion with a group. The term “culture” is used here as a frame of reference or knowledge
system that a large group of interacting individuals share within a perceived bounded
unit. The “objective” boundaries of a culture may or may not coincide with its national
or political boundaries. The term can also be used on a specific level to refer to a pat-
terned way of living by an ethnocultural group (i.e., an ethnic group within a culture).
The fourth characteristic, negotiate shared meanings, refers to the general goal of
any intercultural communication encounter. In intercultural business negotiations or
intercultural romantic relationships, our first level of concern is that we want our mes-
sages to be understood. When the interpretation of the meaning of the message over-
laps significantly with the intention of the meaning of the message, we have established
a high level of shared meanings in the communication process. The word negotiate con-
notes the creative give-and-take nature of the fluid process of human communication.
For example, if both communicators are using the same language to communicate, they
may ask each other to define and clarify any part of the exchanged message that they
perceive to be unclear or ambiguous. Every verbal and/or nonverbal message contains
multiple layers of meanings. The three layers of meaning that are critical to our under-
standing of how people express themselves in a communication process are content
meaning, identity meaning, and relational meaning.
Content meaning refers to the factual (or digital) information that is being conveyed
to the receiver through an oral channel or other communication medium. When the
intended content meaning of the sender has been accurately decoded by the receiver,
the communicators have established a level of mutually shared content meanings.
 Intercultural Communication 25

Content meaning is usually tied to substantive discussion or issues (e.g., business con-
tract details) with verifiable, factual overtones (i.e., “Did you or did you not say that?”).
It also involves what is appropriate to say in a particular cultural scene. For example, in
many Asian cultures, it is impolite to say “no” directly to a request. Thus, people from
Asian backgrounds will tend to use qualifying statements such as “I agree with you in
principle, however . . . ” and “Maybe if I finish studying and if you still want to borrow
my lecture notes . . . ” to imply a “no” or “maybe” answer. In most encounters, people
more often operate by negotiation of content meaning than by negotiation of identity
or relational meaning. Intercultural communication is not only about what is said (the
content), but also about how we say what we say (metacommunication or relational
communication). Although content meaning is easy to “fix,” it is the intricate layers of
identity and relational meaning that carry powerful information about our “selves” and
about the relationship (see Chapters 2, 7, and 8).
Identity meaning refers to the following questions: “Who am I, and who are you in
this interaction episode?”; “Do I define myself as an individual or a social group mem-
ber in this interaction scene?”; “Do I define you as an individual or social group mem-
ber in this interaction scene?” (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018; Tajfel, 1978). Identity meaning
involves issues such as the display of respect or rejection or inclusion and exclusion and
is thus much more subtle than overt, content meaning. Decoders typically infer iden-
tity meanings through the speaker’s tone of voice, nonverbal nuances, different facial
expressions, selective word choices, and perceived physical traits (e.g., skin color). The
statement “Tomoko, come over here!” can be rephrased as “Ms. Sueda, when you have
a minute, I would really like to talk to you” or “Ms. Sueda, don’t you understand my
English? I need to talk to you right now!” or “Dr. Sueda, please, when you have some
time, I would really appreciate hearing your advice on this.” These different statements
indicate different shades of respect and politeness accorded to the addressee.
The verbal and nonverbal cues, the interaction styles, and the salient identities of
the communicators are part of the identity meaning construction and negotiation pro-
cess. Identity is a composite self-­conception that encompasses different facets of self,
such as culture, ethnicity, gender, and personality issues. This important theme is fur-
ther explored in the discussion of integrative identity negotiation theory in Chapter 2.
Relational meaning offers information concerning the state of the relationship
between the two communicators. Relational meanings are inferred via nonverbal into-
nations, body movements, or gestures that accompany the verbal content level (Watz-
lawick et al., 1967). It conveys both power distance (i.e., equal–­unequal) meanings and
relational distance (e.g., personal–­impersonal) meanings. For example, the professor
says, “I want to talk to you about your grade in this class,” which can be inferred as
either “You’re in serious trouble” or “I’m concerned about your grade in this class—let
me know how I can help you.”
On the relational level, the above phrase can be decoded with a mildly requesting
tone, a strongly demanding tone, or a sincerely caring tone. It can also be decoded with
compliance or with resistance. Relational meaning of the message often connotes how
26 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

the relationship between the communicators should be defined and interpreted. It is

closely linked with identity meaning issues. It is also often reflective of the expected
power distance dimension of the relationship.
The fifth characteristic, an interactive situation, refers to the interaction scene of
the dyadic encounter. An interactive scene includes both the concrete features (such
as the furniture or seating arrangements in a room) and psychological features (such
as perceived formal–­informal dimensions) of a setting. Every communication episode
occurs in an interactive situation—­it can be face-to-face or via mediated channel (e.g.,
text message). Burgoon, Buller, and Woodall (1996, p. 193) conclude that an interactive
situation typically includes these gestalt components: (1) Elements of behavior (specific
verbal and nonverbal communicative behaviors), (2) goals or motivations of the par-
ticipants (instrumental or social goals), (3) rules of behavior (formal or informal rules),
(4) different roles that people must play (role expectations), (5) the physical setting and
equipment (location, artifacts, and seating arrangement), (6) cognitive concepts (the
perceived social-­psychological features of the situation), and (7) relevant social skills
(effective goal-­oriented communication skills).
The interpretations that we attach to the various components of an interactive
situation are strongly influenced by the meanings we attach to these components. We
acquire the meanings of these situational components through the primary socializa-
tion process within our own culture. For example, whether we define different rooms
in our home environment as “public” or “private” spaces (reserved for guests or fam-
ily members) can vary tremendously from one culture to the next. Furthermore, our
expectations of what interaction scripts (i.e., patterns of communication or activities)
and how interaction sequences should be carried out (e.g., asking a guest if she or he
wants tea, coffee, or an extra bowl of rice) are highly culturally and situationally based.
In essence, intergroup perceptions and intercultural expectations influence our sense
making of interactions and communicative responses to each other. If the symbolic
exchange process is not attended to mindfully and intentionally, minor intercultural
irritations can often turn into major frustrations and conflicts in intercultural and inter-
group interaction contacts.
The sixth characteristic, intergroup perception, refers to the process of selecting
cues quickly from our social environment concerning intergroup membership issues,
organizing the decoded cues into a coherent pattern and automatically labeling it as
“positive” or “negative,” and subsequently interpreting it in accordance with our inter-
group expectation and possibly overgeneralized stereotypic notion.
In general, human perception is typically a rapid three-step process of selective
attention, selective organization, and selective interpretation. Each of these steps is
heavily affected by our cultural conditioning process and intergroup expectancies
and slim knowledge (see Chapter 9). Thus, intercultural and intergroup communica-
tion often involves varying degrees of biased perceptions such as overgeneralizations
and stereotypes as well as preconceived intergroup knowledge. The term “intergroup”
means viewing the person as a representation of a group membership category and
deemphasizing the person’s unique attributes.
 Intercultural Communication 27

When we communicate mindlessly, we fall back on our stereotypes to reduce

our guesswork and, perhaps, trying to reduce our emotional fear or vulnerable state.
Although the contents of our stereotypes can be positive or negative, rigidly typecast-
ing selective members of a cultural group into “triangles” and “squares” can perpetu-
ate inaccurate impressions and myths. If we are unwilling to question our rigidly held
stereotypes, our intergroup relationships will stay only at a superficial level of con-
tact. Stereotyping, together with an ethnocentric attitude and a prejudiced mind-set,
can often perpetuate misinterpretation spirals and intergroup conflict cycles. In this
regard, being mindful of intergroup perceptual biases is vital for negotiating shared
meaning in intercultural and intergroup communication.
The seventh characteristic, intercultural expectation, is conceptualized as a nor-
mative guideline for how individuals should or should not act in an interactive situation
as derived from the larger sociocultural values and anticipations. It is about communi-
cating appropriately or inappropriately. For example, every culture has developed some
guidelines for how to say hello, how to maintain a conversation, and how to say goodbye
appropriately and effectively. Every cultural community has also developed some ways
of how to make an appropriate request, how to show hospitality or rejection, or how to
“apologize” in a culturally responsive manner. When we encounter miscommunica-
tion in an intercultural interaction episode such as initial greetings and introduction
or extending culturally based hospitality (such as offering someone tea or food and
being rejected), we often experience emotional awkwardness or mild frustration that
may stem, in part, from intercultural mismatched expectations, or ignorance. To pre-
vent intercultural miscommunication, we should be mindful of how our cultural group
membership factors affect, in part, our communication process on either a conscious or
unconscious level. Expectation confirmation or violation often conveys our positive or
negative attitudes (Burgoon & Ebesu Hubbard, 2005) through the intonations we used
and the nonverbal gestures we conveyed.
Lastly, the eighth characteristic, the sociocultural– ­macro environment (or with a
combination of macro–exo–meso factors), refers to the multilayered “big picture” lived
environmental factors such as intergroup history, intergroup relationship climate, poli-
tics, economics, social class, formal institutions and policies, and also the community
or organizational contexts that shape the process and the outcome of the actual inter-
cultural and intergroup communication encounter. Communication accommodation
theory (Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005) theorizes that these sociocultural macro factors
impact interpersonal and intergroup communication. Transactional human communi-
cation always takes place within an interactive situation and is subjected to the influ-
ence of the above multilayered factors.
We encourage you to think of additional examples and questions to clarify your
own understanding of important concepts that affect the intercultural–­intergroup com-
munication contact’s conditions, processes, and outcomes. The next section examines
the five core assumptions of the intercultural communication model to enhance your
understanding of the dynamic and interlocked transactional process of intercultural
and intergroup interaction.
28 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Five Core Assumptions of Intercultural Communication

Intercultural communication is viewed as a symbolic exchange and meaning negotiation

process between persons of different cultural communities. The general goal of effec-
tive intercultural communication is to create shared meanings between intercultural
strangers in an interactive situation in a sociocultural–­macro environment. However, in
Chapter 2, we argue that in addition to creating shared content meanings between two
cultural communicators, we need to be mindful of the identity and relational meanings
that are being expressed in an intercultural–­intergroup situation. Identity support work
is viewed as an essential perspective in promoting mindful intercultural communica-
tion. Mindful intercultural communication requires that we support others’ desired
self-­images, including their preferred cultural, ethnic, gender, age, profession, ability,
and unique personal identities. The following assumptions are presented to increase
your understanding of the dynamic intercultural communication process.

Assumption
’’ 1: Intercultural communication involves varying degrees of socio-
cultural group membership differences. When individuals from two cultural groups
communicate, both differences and similarities exist between the two individuals.
Intercultural communication takes place when our sociocultural group membership
factors affect our communication process on either a conscious or unconscious level.
The sociocultural membership differences can include deep-level differences such
as cultural traditions, beliefs, values, and generational gaps. Concurrently, they can
also include the mismatch of applying different norms, ascribed status, and interaction
scripts in particular sociocultural settings. In practicing mindful intercultural com-
munication, we need to develop an understanding of the valuable intergroup differ-
ences that exist between identity groups. Yet at the same time, we need to continuously
recognize the commonalities that exist on a shared global-­humanistic level that thread
through idiosyncratic individuals and distinctive communities.
’’Assumption 2: Intercultural communication involves the simultaneous encod-
ing and decoding of verbal and nonverbal messages in the exchange process. From a
transactional model viewpoint, both intercultural communicators in the communica-
tion process are viewed as enacting the sender and receiver roles. Both are responsible
for synchronizing their conversational process and outcome, especially in regard to
communication appropriateness and effectiveness. Appropriate verbal and nonverbal
message exchange processes reflect cultural sensitivity to the situational norms and
expectancies of what one should or should not do in a given intercultural context. While
the effective encoding and decoding process leads to shared meanings, ineffective
encoding and decoding by one of the two “transceivers” can potentially lead to inter-
cultural or intergroup misunderstanding.
Beyond the accurate encoding and decoding of messages on the content level,
however, communicators need to cultivate additional awareness and sensitivity along
 Intercultural Communication 29

multiple levels (such as identity meaning and relationship meaning coordination) of

intercultural and intergroup understanding. With the aim being clarity of mutual
understanding, we can mindfully choose words and behaviors that make dissimilar
others feel included, respected, and embraced. With synchronized meaning coordina-
tion on multiple levels, effective intercultural or intergroup task outcome can also be
reached more amiably and productively.
Assumption
’’ 3: Many intercultural encounters involve well-­meaning clashes.
Members of different cultural communities have learned different interaction scripts
in, for example, how to offer effective feedback or how to compliment someone in a par-
ticular situation. They tend to use their own cultural scripts, often on an unconscious
level, to evaluate the aptness of the other person’s feedback message or the timeliness
or properness of the other person’s verbal compliment. Many intercultural miscommu-
nication episodes start off from well-­meaning clashes (Brislin, 1993).
“Well-­meaning clashes” basically refer to misunderstanding encounters in which
people are “behaving properly and in a socially skilled manner according to the norms
in their own culture” (Brislin, 1993, p. 10; emphasis in original). Unfortunately, the
behaviors that are considered proper or effective in one culture can be considered
improper or ineffective in another culture (e.g., using direct eye contact is considered a
sign of respect in the U.S. culture, whereas direct eye contact can signify disrespect in
the Thai culture). The term “well-­meaning” is used because no one in the intercultural
encounter intentionally behaves obnoxiously or unpleasantly. Individuals are trying to
be well mannered or pleasant in accordance with the politeness norms of their own
culture. Individuals behave ethnocentrically—­often without conscious realization of
their automatic-­pilot verbal and nonverbal actions.
Competent intercultural communication starts with the practice of mindful intra-
personal communication. Concurrently mindful intrapersonal communication starts
with the conscious monitoring of our own reactive-­defensive emotions and ethnocentric
judgmental attitude in evaluating the problematic intercultural clash. From practicing
mindful intrapersonal communication, we can extend this introspective attunement
and consider the other person’s cultural explanatory frame, communication habit, iden-
tity complexity, and situational context.
’’Assumption 4: Intercultural communication always takes place in context.
Intercultural communication does not happen in a vacuum. Intercultural interaction is
always context bound. Patterns of thinking and behaving are always interpreted within
an interactive situation or context.
In order to understand intercultural communication from a contextual viewpoint,
we have to consider how different cultural value dimensions influence the symbolic
exchange process between communicators in an interactive situation. Additionally,
the roles of the players, the interaction goals, the scripts, the timing, and the physi-
cal/psychological features of the setting can influence the mood of the interaction.
Lastly, cultural knowledge, past cultural visiting experience, and relevant application
30 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

of competent communication skills form the gestalt components of the context. In

order to gain an in-depth understanding of the intercultural communication process,
we have to mindfully observe the linkage among communication patterns, context,
and culture.
’’ Assumption 5: Intercultural communication always takes place in embedded
systems. A system is an interdependent set of ingredients that constitute a whole and
simultaneously influence each other. Our enculturation process (i.e., our cultural social-
ization process from birth) within our own culture is influenced by both macro-level
and micro-level elements in our environment. On a macro level, we are programmed
or enculturated into our culture via our family and educational systems, religious and
political systems, and government and socioeconomic systems, as well as the para-
mount influence of old/new media and social media in our everyday life. On a micro
level, we are surrounded by people who subscribe to similar ideologies, values, norms,
and expectations. We are the recipients and also the keepers of our culture via the daily
messages that we exchange. However, culture is not a static web, but a dynamic, evolu-
tionary process. Human beings are also not static individuals—­they are simultaneously
societal role performers and also change agents/innovators in different historical and
situational time periods.
To become mindful intercultural communicators, we have to develop fresh visions,
new ways of listening to others and of dialoging, and a soulful alertness. In viewing a
problematic communication situation via diverse multiple lenses, we may perceive our
own routine cultural practices with fresh insights. In learning about another cultural
group or dissimilar group responsively, we open more doors and pathways to experi-
ence the rich spectrum of human diversity and soak up the interconnection of distinc-
tive individuals from the larger humanistic community.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

T he world we live in today is tightly interdependent due to the shrinking of time

and space by global economic transactions, international travels, and technological
advancement. Millions of people are crossing intercultural and intergroup boundaries
for a variety of reasons, including business, pleasure, study, work, and relocation. In
this chapter, first we discussed five primary reasons why intercultural communication
matters today. Global and domestic sociocultural diversity trends and social media con-
nections undergird the ubiquity of intercultural interactions and the need to develop
intercultural communication competence. We need to learn to suspend mindless-­
ethnocentric attitudes and instead adopt mindful-­ethnorelative stances in crossing
intergroup boundaries adroitly and elastically. Second, we defined and discussed cul-
ture and intercultural–­intergroup communication. We concluded this chapter by dis-
cussing five core assumptions such as the involvement of sociocultural group member-
ship differences and well-­meaning cultural clashes in intercultural interactions.
 Intercultural Communication 31

To become competent intercultural–­intergroup communicators, we present five

mindful guidelines based on the chapter’s discussion:

1 We should be mindful of the tremendous sociocultural diversity that exists

at both global and domestic levels. It seems unbecoming to use ethnocentric
lenses to communicate with people from diverse sociocultural membership back-
grounds in different cultural workplace or intimate relationship settings. We need
to learn to intentionally adopt an ethnorelative mindset and flexible behavioral
repertoires in communicating competently with culturally dissimilar others in this
21st-­century global hyperconnective world.

2 We should also be heedful that while we may use the same social media com-
munication channel (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter), cultural
value patterns still shape our messaging expression modes, sharing/responding
styles, punctuation or emoticon usage preferences, texting versus audio or visual
engagement, and photo posting tastes. Furthermore, the challenge of managing
multiple sociocultural membership identity, social media persona identity, and
personal identity becomes more complicated as new wireless gadgets are invented
on a daily basis. We need to be constantly vigilant about the negotiation of global
and local identity dialectics, morphed and hybrid identity development in the
social media “third space,” and the struggles between cultural–ethnic value main-
tenance and social media ideological value formation.

3 We also need to pay exquisite attention to the interdependent, transactional

nature of the intercultural and intergroup communication process. Compe-
tent intercultural communications assume a culturally inclusive stance in making
individuals from diverse identity groups feel welcomed and included through the
intentional application of the knowledge blocks in this chapter and also through
our own immersion cultural experiences and first-hand discoveries.

4 We need to mindfully attend to culture as a meaning system at different levels:

from superficial level (e.g., pop culture) to intermediate level (e.g., symbolic
meaning and norms) to deep level (e.g., traditions, beliefs, and values) to tran-
scendental level (e.g., universal values and shared humanistic fate). We need to
understand how different cultures and group memberships impact our perception,
relationship, and communication with each other and how we can authentically
confront intercultural–­intergroup communication barriers and promote construc-
tive, peace-­building dialogues.

5 We should mindfully attune to the five core assumptions as identified in this

chapter to understand the intercultural communication process better and
through that understanding improve our capacity to communicate respectfully
and responsively with individuals from diverse sociocultural membership back-
grounds.
32 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. In what ways does intercultural communication matter from your personal point of
view? Which of the five reasons discussed in this chapter connect to your personal
experiences of intercultural communication? Select two out of the five reasons and
argue for their importance.

2. Culture is a broad concept, but how do you understand it? What metaphor or image
will you use to explain the concept of “culture” to a 6-year-old child? Using an ice-
berg metaphor of culture, find out how much you know about your own culture or
cultural community at the three levels and how much you know about your dissimilar
relational partner, friend, or coworker’s culture at the three levels. How does your
understanding go beyond the pop culture level (superficial level)?

3. Attending to the transactional process model of intercultural communication, how

do you think we can better our communication with each other in interpersonal and
workplace situations using the core ideas in this model?

4. Which of the five assumptions about intercultural communication do you find most
insightful and challenging in everyday intercultural–­intergroup interactions?

5. Assumption 3 of intercultural communication states that “[m]any intercultural encoun-

ters involve well-­meaning clashes.” Do you agree or disagree with this assumption?
Can you provide some interesting intercultural misunderstanding or clash examples
from your everyday life to illustrate this assumption?
 C H A P TE R 2

Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement
An Integrative Identity Negotiation
Theory Framework

„„Introduction
„„Theorizing and Researching Intercultural–­Intergroup Communication
††Functionalist/Social Scientific Paradigm
††Interpretive Paradigm
††Critical/Cultural Studies Paradigm
„„An Integrative Identity Negotiation Theory Framework
††Identity Negotiation Theory: Key Backdrop Ideas
††Identity Negotiation Theory: Key Assumptions
„„Understanding Core Composite Identity Domains
††Sociocultural Membership Identities: Cultural Identity and Ethnic Identity
††Religious/Spiritual Identity
††Gender Identity
††Stigmatized Group-Based Identities
††Sociorelational Role Identities: Family Role and Generational Role Identities
††Relational Role and Professional Role Identities
††Personal Identity Attributes
††Symbolic Interaction Identities
††Complex Sociocultural Identity Intersection: A Summary
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

A n I ntercultural J ourney: A Case S tory

Three American universities accepted my undergraduate applications—­one in Hawaii,
one in Ohio, and one in Iowa. Because I had no clue as to how one university differed
from another, I wrote down the names of the universities on three pieces of paper and

33
34 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

asked my then 9-year-old brother, Victor, to pick one with his eyes closed. He picked
Iowa. I decided fate had called me to the University of Iowa. Iowa City, in those days,
was an all-White campus town. The university campus was huge—­spread out and cut
off by a river running through it. I was one of the first group of international students
being admitted to the university from Asia. Life was composed of a series of culture
shock waves in my first few months there. From overdressing (I quickly changed my
daily skirts to jeans to avoid the question “Are you going to a wedding today?”) to hyper-
apprehension (e.g., the constant fear of being called upon to answer questions in the
“small power distance” classroom atmosphere). I experienced intense homesickness at
times. I definitely felt “different or experiencing distinctiveness” in all my years at Iowa
City especially via the nonverbal stares or odd questions directed to me. There were not
many Asians, let alone Chinese, in town. I encountered constant curiosity questions such
as “Where are you from?” and “Who gave you the name Stella?”
Both the questions and my responses to them were equally innocent. My role was
that of a Hong Kong international student. My name, Stella, came from a British teacher
in my first grade school because she had a hard time pronouncing all the Chinese
names (e.g., my Chinese family name is: TING Wun Chu. “Wun” denotes my genera-
tional cohort group, and “Chu” means “pearl of the family” as I’m the only daughter with
three beloved brothers) in the class, so she started to point to the first row and gave each
girl a name: A is Alice, B is Betty, C is Cathy, and so on, and by the time she counted to
me, she said S = Stella! and thus from then on, my English-­language identity became
“Stella!” So yes—I’d the lived experience of the British crown colony life in Hong Kong.
I even had to take a foreign language requirement (I took German) at the University of
Iowa because they thought that both English and Chinese should be my mother tongues.
Although honestly, while we learned textbook-­English in some classes, we all reverted
back to speaking Chinese (the Cantonese dialect) to our friends inside and outside the
classroom. We also used only Chinese to speak to our own parents and grandparents
at home.
Five years later from Iowa City, and fast forward to my PhD program studies at a
top-notch university up in the northwest U.S. region. . . .
I remember one incident, in particular, in which my graduate advisor’s support was
critical in encouraging me to move on. The incident was an exchange between myself
and a professor when he explained why I did not receive a full-year teaching assistant-
ship like the rest of the TAs. The exchange went something like this: “Stella, it’s not that
you’re not good. It’s just that life is like a horse race. Some horses get the first prize,
and others are runners-­up. . . . With your accent, it’s just very difficult for you to make
it to the first place. What I’m trying to say is . . . ” My heart sank upon hearing those
words. My heart was pumping fast, my face was flushed red, and I was in a daze. At that
moment, I genuinely had serious doubts about whether I belonged to this very American-
ized “speech” communication discipline. It was my advisor’s (Dr. Mae Bell) supportive
words and her academic faith in me that held me together in those days. It was also what
my husband Charles said to me that echoes still: “Stella, you should go back and tell
your professor, what happens in a real horse race is that most people bet on the wrong
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 35

horse—they have chosen poorly.” At that point and thereafter, I continued to field ques-
tions from others such as: “Where did you come from?” “Don’t you miss your home?” The
questions accentuated my sense of being “not at home.” It made me long for a “home” to
settle in and an address to claim as my own.
As I sojourned onward to my first Assistant Professorship job on the East Coast at
Rutgers University, I continued to encounter racial epithets (such as “Jap! Go back to
your own country!” or “Chink Chang Chong! Go back to Chinatown where you belong!”)
directed at me especially on off-­campus streets. While those remarks typically produced
a humiliating shock and numbing effect thereafter, the impact was shorter. The rebound
was faster. I guess the years (by that time I had lived in the United States for 10 years and
was in the process of applying for my U.S. citizenship) of living the “American Dream”
made me realize that dreams can include hopes and indulgences, plus nightmares and
disillusionments. My ethnic identity was “hardened”—you learn to grow a shell to pro-
tect yourself. More importantly, my “professional identity” at school and my “relational
identity” at home with my husband Charles and baby son Adrian superseded any of my
other identities.

—Stella, college instructor

Introduction

Stella’s story reflects her personal academic journey in the United States—­the land of
immigrants—­from international student to professor at American universities, at least
partially fulfilling the “American Dream” that involved nightmares and success. What
do you think of Stella’s personal narrative story? When you make an important deci-
sion, would you rely on your fate or destiny, or surely you would make your own choice?
What do you think about her first-grade teacher naming her “Stella” without consulting
her parents or even herself? What were some of the critical turning point events that
you notice in the story? Stella’s story provides insights into her core composite identity
domains and identity negotiation. Can you parse out Stella’s personal identity struggle
and/or sociocultural membership identity struggle issues? Do you perceive that some
of the similar issues still exist on and off campus? Do you resonate with any events she
described in her story?
In our everyday interaction before we can introduce ourselves to each other,
avowed identity (i.e., an identity you yourself claim) perceptions and ascribed identity
(i.e., an identity others assign you) perceptions already define who we are. We may see
ourselves as individuals (personal identity) or as social group members (social identity),
or most likely as both. Concurrently, others may perceive us in either way or both. Usu-
ally in cultural strangers’ interactions, we do tend to see each other first and foremost
as sociocultural identity members more so than on an interindividual level. These coor-
dinated or misaligned identity perceptions can define and change the dynamics of our
36 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

communicative interaction in the forms of convergence and divergence interactional

moves (Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2014).
If both self and others perceive and relate to each other as social group members,
we are engaged in an intergroup identity negotiation process. If both self and others
perceive and relate to each other as individuals, we are engaged in an interpersonal
identity negotiation encounter. Of course, sometimes we can have mismatched expec-
tancies of the identity facets in which the other person is operating from. In actuality,
communication shifts back and forth between intergroup and interpersonal interactions
and, therefore, we need to develop communication competence to navigate between
sociocultural identity interaction and personal identity interaction in various contexts
and across various cultural boundaries.
Given the ubiquitous nature of the intercultural and intergroup factors that influ-
ence our communication in interpersonal and social settings, this chapter provides an
integrative theorizing identity framework that is largely drawn from intercultural and
intergroup communication research. First, the three paradigms of functional, interpre-
tive, and critical research are discussed with exemplars drawn from the identity and
communication research domain. Second, an extensive integrative theorizing frame-
work is proffered to provide insights into complex identity negotiation processes in
contemporary sociocultural worlds. Third, core composite identity domains such as
cultural–ethnic identity, religious identity, gender identity, and stigmatized identity,
and sociorelational role-based identities such as family and intergenerational role iden-
tities, intimate relationship and professional role identities are examined. In addition,
distinctive personal identity and symbolic interaction identity are probed. The chapter
concludes with a chapter summary and mindful guidelines.

Theorizing and Researching

Intercultural–Intergroup Communication

The issue of how identities are negotiated and managed across and between sociocul-
tural communities has been investigated by a variety of scholars using different theo-
retical lenses and methods. On the metatheoretical levels of studying intercultural and
intergroup communication, there exist the functional/social scientific, narrative/inter-
pretive, and critical paradigms (Gudykunst, Lee, Nishida, & Ogawa, 2005; Oetzel &
Ting-­Toomey, 2011). Within each of these paradigms, there are some distinctive philo-
sophical differences, divergent and convergent theoretical points, and methodological
particularity and overlaps.
This section presents an overview of these three approaches by exploring how each
defines the concepts of culture or group membership, identity, conflict communication
(as illustrative examples), and conflict competence, and ends with addressing the larger
research goals and methods (see Appendix A at the end of the book for an overview of
the three paradigms) in the context of researching intercultural and intergroup com-
munication phenomena.
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 37

Understanding the key features of the three paradigms is imperative. As consum-

ers of intercultural–­intergroup studies, you will thereby learn why some of the research
findings emphasize overall patterns and regularities of how individuals communicate
across cultures, while other studies emphasize the distinctive voices or even muted or
empowering voices of a distinctive sociocultural identity group (see Baldwin, 2017).

Functional/Social Scientific Paradigm

The functional paradigm was the predominant approach to the study of intercultural–­
intergroup communication in the 1980s, but today it is one of the three major
approaches being used in the study of intercultural and intergroup communication.
From the functional/social scientific perspective, there exists an “objective reality” of
culture that can be scientifically studied, explained, and measured. The overall goal of
the social scientific approach is to explain and predict patterns or regularities in com-
munication across or between cultures. The overall method relies on preestablished
scientific protocols and objective criteria for research study. Often, studies also identify
patterns of communication and connect these patterns to underlying cultural value
dimensions.
More specifically, researchers who study intercultural or intergroup communi-
cation often use a cross-­comparative cultural lens (i.e., a cross-­cultural communica-
tion study) to examine a communication phenomenon (e.g., comparing conflict styles
between two or three national cultures or groups). Alternatively, they may use an a pri-
ori intercultural–­intergroup identity encounter lens (e.g., German in conflict commu-
nication with Russian; or intergenerational–­age identity conflict encounters between
young and old) to study intercultural or intergroup convergence–­divergence interac-
tional style.
Social scientists who study cross-­cultural communication and intercultural com-
munication share a number of research perspectives and methodological tools. Some
exemplar theories under the functional umbrella of cross-­cultural communication theo-
rizing process are identity negotiation theory (Ting-­Toomey, 2005a), conflict face nego-
tiation theory (Ting-­Toomey, 2005b), and conversational constraints theory (Kim, 2005).
Some exemplar theories under the intercultural–­intergroup communication umbrella
are anxiety/uncertainty management theory (Gudykunst, 2005a, 2005b), communica-
tion accommodation theory (Gallois et al., 2005), identity management theory (Imahori
& Cupach, 2005), and integrative communication theory (Kim, 2005).
From the social scientific point of view, individuals are socialized day in and day
out in proximal space from birth to adolescence or adulthood within a value-laden
cultural community. Within this period of deep cultural immersion, people soak up
the underlying traditions, customs, beliefs, values, norms, and communicative scripts
of their group membership community. They develop their sociocultural membership
identities and, concurrently, their distinctive personal identities through active inter-
actions with surrounding others. They also master how to behave appropriately and
effectively in routinized interactions in repeated situational settings. Thus, their verbal
38 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

and nonverbal communication patterns and the underlying cultural values often influ-
ence one another.
Culture is often regarded as a priori membership in a group. Individuals who are
enculturated or socialized within this group identity membership unavoidably take on
some of the underlying value characteristics and communication tendencies. To this
end, social scientific researchers study culture by identifying and operationalizing the
variables associated with cultural patterns. The most popular social scientific perspec-
tive on culture was offered by Hofstede (1991, 2001) and is known as the cultural vari-
ability perspective (Gudykunst & Ting-­Toomey, 1988; see also Chapter 6). For example,
Hofstede’s cultural variability framework included the following five value dimensions
based on an aggregate cultural membership-­level analysis: individualism–­collectivism
(the broad value tendencies of people to emphasize individual identity vs. communal
identity); small/large power distance (broad value tendencies of asymmetrical power
distributions, e.g., between employees and managers in a hierarchical corporate sys-
tem); uncertainty avoidance (the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened
by uncertain or unknown situations); femininity–­masculinity (the extent to which a
society emphasizes sex role flexibility or differentiation); and short-term versus long-
term orientation (orientation toward short-term gains and immediate tangible outcomes
versus traditions and long-term relationship building; Hofstede, 2001).
A key component of culture is identity. The traditional social scientific research
approach tends to focus on static national identity or racial–­ethnic background as the
key frame of identity analysis. Thus, for example, some studies compared conflict face-
work styles in Japan versus those of the United States (Cocroft & Ting-­Toomey, 1994),
or conflict styles in African Americans versus those of European Americans (Ting-­
Toomey, 1986). Cultural–ethnic identities are variables that can be measured and used
to predict and explain communication in a variety of settings. Contemporary social
scientific research, however, has conceptualized more complex identity differentiation,
such as degree of cultural–ethnic identity affiliation or social identity complexity facets
(e.g., see Brewer, 2010) as they relate to conflict styles or other communication-­related
issues (e.g., see Ting-­Toomey et al., 2000).
Overall, the social scientific perspective seeks to explain and predict the effect
of culture (or cultural variables) on communication variables and communication out-
comes, such as intercultural–­intergroup deterioration or reconciliation. Under the
intergroup theorizing umbrella, intergroup researchers (e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008;
Stephan & Stephan, 2001) also map out specific intergroup contact conditions that can
improve intergroup relations and trust-­building interactions. The functional perspec-
tive also uses existing theoretical lenses to explain the interrelationship among com-
munication phenomena such as sociocultural group membership, particular commu-
nication styles or strategies, and communicative competence or cooperation. In this
manner, social scientific researchers utilize etic (as opposed to emic) approaches for
studying cross-­cultural and intercultural–­intergroup communication. Etic approaches
involve the use of an explanatory schema to explain and predict the relationship among
variables under study. The researcher also positions her- or himself as an “objective”
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 39

social scientist to study culture from a scientific and outsider’s point of view. Compara-
tively, emic approaches emphasize an emergent-­grounded view in eliciting data and
first-hand stories from the participants inside a cultural community. The researcher
solicits interpretive accounts or acts as an ethnographer in observing the local cultural
scenes and attempts to understand culture and communication from an insider’s point
of view (see the next section).
Methodologically, the two predominant methods used by most social scientific
researchers are the survey questionnaire and the experimental design methods. The
survey questionnaire is by far the most frequently used (e.g., Oetzel et al., 2001; Zhang,
Ting-­Toomey, & Oetzel, 2014). For example, Oetzel et al. (2001) surveyed 768 college
students in four national cultures—­China, Japan, Germany, and the United States—­to
analyze the conflict communication patterns of university students in managing inter-
personal conflicts.
Experimental designs are the gold standard of social scientific research because
of the control condition, which allows examination of causal relationships. However,
culture is not a tangible variable that lends itself well to experimental manipulation;
thus experimental designs are relatively rare (Oetzel & Ting-­Toomey, 2011). Research-
ers typically manipulate the intra or intercultural–­intergroup composition of group or
dyad members and collect a combination of self-­report information (e.g., cultural and
individual variables) as well as videotaped interactions. For example, Cai, Wilson, and
Drake (2000) examined 80 U.S. and international students in a conflict negotiated task.
The researchers coded their interactions for information sharing, offers, and distribu-
tive tasks and correlated the participants’ self-­report questionnaires on individualism–­
collectivism with their behavior and negotiated outcomes.
Intergroup communication scholars also used experimental design. For example,
Dorjee, Giles, and Barker (2011) investigated the relationship among Tibetan identity,
language, and communication accommodation in the Indian diaspora. They used the
matched-­guise technique (see Lambert, 1967) to manipulate taped messages for three
experimental conditions. While the speaker and his message content remained the
same across the three conditions, he spoke in three different language styles: U-Kad or
Central Tibetan dialect (for the normative condition); Zhe-Sa or pure honorific Tibetan
(for the pro-­normative condition); and mostly Hindi mixed with some Tibetan words (for
the antinormative condition). The manipulation check indicated the effectiveness of the
manipulation, and as predicted the individuals who were perceived as pro-­normative
speakers (those speaking pure honorific Tibetan) were accommodated more to than
those perceived as normative (those speaking mostly Tibetan mixed with Hindi), who,
in turn, were more accommodated to than those perceived as antinormative (speak
Hindi) speakers.
The functional paradigm has both strengths and limitations. Theoretically, its
strength lies in discovering patterns and regularities within and across cultures and
the large population, such as the cultural dimensions that Hofstede (1991, 2001)
originally derived or Hall’s (1976) low- and high- context communication framework.
These patterns and styles have been useful in guiding thousands of intercultural and
40 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

cross-­cultural communication research studies. The research findings have also guided
intercultural training such as managing conflicts with more cultural sensitivity and
responsiveness. On the intergroup research level, many studies have also contributed
to understanding strategic communication on the perceived ingroup versus outgroup
interaction level. Methodologically, its strength lies in experimentally controlling
researchers’ value biases in the study of their communication interests. Through well-­
designed experimental studies and with the aid of valid and reliable survey instruments
to collect data, rigorous statistical data analysis can be performed and results can be
objectively derived. These systematically tested results from a variety of quantitative
data sets and also repeated tests/measures can help explain why and how people behave
the way they do culturally and on an aggregate patterned level. These findings also
provide knowledge predictability and applied tools to guide or train intercultural inter-
action competencies and help people to behave responsively in a new cultural terrain
or community.
With regard to the theoretical limitations of the functional paradigm, it often uses
culture as an a priori (national culture) static category and does not usually provide a
deeper understanding of culture in its specificity. Moreover, most of the theories used
in intercultural and cross-­cultural communication research have been designed in the
Western cultural context and therefore, they are Western-­centric in their approach
and understanding of identity, culture, and conflict management styles, for example.
Indeed, a cultural reflexive inquiry process is needed when using a Western- or U.S.-
centric theoretical lens in investigating cultural and communication patterns in the
world at large. Otherwise, the proposed study may result in theoretical imperialism or
an “imposed etic” bias. “Imposed etic” bias means that a narrow cultural perspective
is applied in explaining and measuring another culture’s communication phenomena.
Methodologically, a systematically “derived etic” research endeavor (e.g., in translating
a survey and if the survey appeared to be applicable to another cultural setting) and
an astute team of bicultural and bilingual translators are needed to engage in forward
translation and blind backward-­translation work (Brislin, 1986). Bilingual team meet-
ings are needed at each stage to ensure the meaning of convergent points of construct
and functional equivalences of wordings, meanings, functional relevance, and relevant
situational contexts between the source and target survey instruments.
Overall, when studying cultures, communication patterns, and people from
around the world, intercultural and intergroup communication scholars should be
more self-­reflexive and mindful in the use of established Western-­centric theories and
measurements. To improve Western-­based research studies, we need to maintain an
ethnorelative-­investigative attitude to learn from indigenous cultural perspectives,
divergent voices, and versatile methods. We also need to seek out multiple identity
group perspectives in order to make our intercultural scholarship work more inclusive,
multilayered, and balanced. We strongly encourage international–­interethnic research
collaboration to explore new ways of doing and advancing intercultural–­intergroup and
cross-­cultural/cross-­ethnic communication research. We now turn to a discussion of
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 41

the interpretive paradigm and its overall goal, together with its theoretical and meth-
odological emphasis.

Interpretive Paradigm
The interpretive paradigm gained increased attention in intercultural communication
or cultural communication research in the 1980s, an interest that continues into the
present. From this perspective, culture refers to the lived experiences and meaning
coordination processes among individuals in a sociocultural community. There exists
an “intersubjective reality” of how people coordinate and “make sense” of meanings
within their co-­constructed community. Within a larger national culture or co-­culture,
there are distinctive ways of communicating, interacting, and valuing between the co-­
participants of a speech community. The overall goal of the interpretive paradigm is to
describe and understand the shared meaning system and situational-­based system of
how insiders of a sociocultural community interpret identity construction and distinc-
tive shared communication codes as embedded within a cultural membership commu-
nity (Ting-­Toomey, 1984).
Interpretive researchers are interested in providing detailed descriptions or solic-
iting stories and meaning accounts of how an insider views culture and in situ cultural
communication issues. As Geertz (1973) has stated: “[Culture] denotes a historically
transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols” (p. 89). He explained that these
systems of symbols are webs of significance that we have created to make sense of our
lives on the meaning negotiation level. This sense-­making focus lies at the heart of a
variety of definitions of culture that have taken their lead from Geertz’s work. Under-
standing the subtle nuances and deep meanings of salient communication concepts
in a cultural community is vital to interpretive research scholars. Insiders’ repeated
communication vocabulary and the situated meanings they attach to symbolic motifs
reflect the recurrent melodies that members of a particular speech community deem
important and relevant (Oetzel & Ting-­Toomey, 2011).
Under the interpretive perspective, cultural communication theories such as
speech code theory (Philipsen, 1992; Philipsen, Couta, & Covarrubias, 2005), cul-
tural codes theory (Carbaugh, 1996), and coordinated management of meaning theory
(Pearce, 2005; see also Fisher-­Yoshida, 2013) have been developed. For example, Phil-
ipsen (1992) stated that culture is a “socially constructed and historically transmitted
pattern of symbols, meanings, premises, and rules” (p. 7) within a speech community.
A speech community refers to a group of people who share a distinctive code (linguistic
features) and situated norms for expressing and interpreting communication. Drawing
from the Ethnography of SPEAKING framework (i.e., S = Speech Acts; P = Partici-
pants; E = End Goals; K = Keys/nonverbal tone; I = Instrumentalities or communica-
tion channels; N = Norms/expectancy rules; G = Genre/larger speech frame; Hymes,
1972), researchers can use the ethnographic fieldwork method or participant obser-
vation method to study and analyze salient concepts such as “gossip” or “complaint,”
42 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

or “apology” or “forgiveness” speech act in a cultural community. The sense-­making

process of culture is recognized as something that is passed on to others over time and
helps to offer those individuals a sense of communal identity and in dialectical tension
with the individual identity. As noted in the interpretive description of culture, com-
munication in the interpretive perspective consists of a variety of salient speech codes
for making sense of the sociocultural world (Philipsen et al., 2005; Philipsen, 2010a,
2010b). Thus, communication performs a communal function as the critical means for
linking individuals into a shared sense of collective identity-­hood. In sum, communica-
tion and culture are inextricably linked, and interpretive scholars seldom attempt to
separate the two concepts. For example, Carbaugh (1989) identified 50 terms for talk
(i.e., communication) in six different cultural communities and compared four levels
of communication—­act, event, style, and function—­and the salient messages within
the cultural categories of speech (messages about communication, social relations, and
personhood).
From the interpretive perspective, communication competence has a similar con-
ceptualization to that of the social scientific perspective, but there is one distinction:
to truly participate in a cultural community, one must know what it feels like to be an
insider. Thus, competence is also the ability to feel as members do—the emotional
resonance level—­rather than simply the ability to communicate in appropriate and
effective ways on a behavioral level. Overall, the interpretive paradigm emphasizes
the importance of an insider’s lens in meaning construction and emotional resonance
at multiple levels of the symbolic exchange process. Further, the specific means of per-
forming competent communication are unique to a cultural community.
For example, Philipsen (2010a) identified, through a literature review, patterns
of competent communication in several distinct communities. In “Teamsterville” (a
working-­class suburb of Chicago), for example, community members needed to per-
form a distinctive communication code that exemplified their community membership
because performing appropriately and effectively in such a “neighborhood place” is
important. Factors such as recognition of hierarchical relationships among men, speak-
ing as an insider, and nonverbal physical responses to insults and threats are part of the
“speaking like a man in Teamsterville” interactional ritual (Philipsen, 1992). Similarly,
Covarrubias and Windchief (2009) illustrated how silence helped to perform three
key functions for Native American students attending a mainstream U.S. university:
maintaining traditional cultural practices, distinguishing cultural practices from those
of non-­Native Americans, and safekeeping cultural elements. These functions help to
develop and maintain interpersonal relationships (i.e., the particular communication
practice reinforces cultural identity).
Compared to the social scientific research approach, the interpretive research
approach emphasizes the importance of “thick description” and drawing out “sensitiz-
ing concepts” from cultural community insiders. This approach also tends to study each
speech community on its own (hence, the label cultural communication approach).
Interpretive researchers utilize emic approaches for studying cultural communication.
The researchers position themselves within the cultural system and derive competence
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 43

criteria generated by speech community insiders. However, from the critical theorist
lens, insider members can be differentiated as dominant versus nondominant groups
and in setting the approved communication agenda for all (see the next section). Under
the interpretive research paradigm, general research topics vary, but some common
topics include: (1) identifying cultural norms of communication; (2) investigating native
terms and the meanings these convey; (3) examining identity construction as it relates
to cultural communities; and (4) investigating intercultural couples’ negotiation of cul-
tural differences (Oetzel & Ting-­Toomey, 2011). For example, Leeds-­Hurwitz (2002)
studied 112 intercultural weddings—­interracial, interethnic, interfaith, international,
and interclass—­to identify how the couples coped with cultural differences. She exam-
ined how couples simultaneously displayed different cultural identities in their wed-
ding ceremonies. Her purpose was to describe how these diverse couples reconciled
distinctive cultural identity facets and not to actually predict the factors that lead to a
successful wedding negotiation outcome (the latter being a social scientific research
focus).
Interpretive research methods involve different types of qualitative data collection
approaches such as ethnography field studies, participant observation context studies,
in-depth case studies, and semistructured interviews. Regardless of which approach
is used to collect data, analysis of the data centers on interpretive frameworks such as
grounded theory, the theoretically guided frame approach, ethnography of speaking,
and phenomenology. In the realm of contemporary intercultural–­intergroup communi-
cation research, there exist two schools of thought: using grounded theory’s emergent
approach or the open-ended theoretical-­guided frame approach.
The advantages of grounded theory approach are as follows: it illuminates emer-
gent communication data from the insiders’ viewpoint with no preconceived, super-
imposed concepts; it captures insiders’ relevant stories and everyday speech activities;
and it connects relevant situational dynamics with insiders’ system of meaning inter-
pretations (see also Miike, 2017). The approach also has a number of disadvantages: it
generates myriad grounded data, with often overloaded stimuli in an immersion field
study; it encounters wide open-ended interpretation possibilities; and it takes immense
time and effort to immerse oneself in a speech community to understand the situational
dynamics surrounding the emergent field concepts.
Alternatively, on the positive side, the theoretically guided frame approach sets the
theoretical inquiry parameter of a study; it uses core “sensitizing concepts” in a theory
to guide the rationale of a study; it employs relevant theoretical concepts to design
meaningful interview questions or observational protocols; and it provides theoretical
design and content guidance in the data interpretation and data analysis phase. On the
negative side, it superimposes communication concepts that may not be relevant to the
speech community under study; it narrows the interpretive scope of an emic-­derived
data set; and the theoretical filter may hamper the discovery of emergent voices and
sense-­making accounting processes from the local experts of the cultural community,
that is, the insider versus the researcher as the expert (as in the social scientific para-
digm).
44 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Like the functional paradigm, the interpretive paradigm has its strengths and lim-
itations. Theoretically, interpretive scholars are not interested in discovering commu-
nication laws, but rather are in search of situated meaning and, overall, their work pro-
vides a deep understanding of a specific cultural community’s situations and practices
(e.g., distinctive communication codes or webs of significance of cultural weddings).
Using an intergroup communication term, interpretive scholars do not sweep the posi-
tive distinctiveness of cultural identity under the rug of dominant culture. Rather, they
tend to accentuate the cultural community’s positive distinctiveness in thick descrip-
tion and situational analysis. Methodologically, not only do they allow indigenous voices
to be heard, but these voices are privileged as insiders’ voices without superimposing
outsiders’ ideas on them. Grounded theory analysis or thematic analysis tends to yield
new and useful insights into a particular community’s meaning construction of culture
and its practices. They discover both commonalities and uniqueness related to a com-
munity and its members.
The interpretive research perspective also has some limitations. While, in prin-
ciple, being a participant–­observer seems an enticing idea, in reality gaining access to a
cultural community and its cultural-­specific knowledge is not easy. From an intergroup
perspective, social groups regulate intergroup boundaries differently in that they do
not easily admit outsiders into their tight-knit groups (especially when conducting
research in a collectivistic cultural community). In some cases, the doors are closed off
completely to outsiders (impermeable boundary condition). Trust is a crucial factor in
gaining access, and it takes much time and resources to develop trust-based relation-
ships between participant–­researchers and research participants in many distinctive
identity communities (not to mention communities that have been consistently stigma-
tized). Relatedly, we may ask: Can cultural outsiders decode cultural-­specific meanings
as accurately as cultural insiders? What does it take for cultural outsiders to be able
to competently decode cultural nuances just like cultural insiders do? What and how
much is lost in the translation or decoding process?
Methodologically, lack of culture-­sensitive knowledge and linguistic skills will
greatly affect interpretive work. For example, without competency in the Chinese
language and its dialects, interpretive scholars have to rely on bilingual/bi-­dialect
interpreters for sense-­making. That means that the interpreter’s interpretation is
mediating the interpretive scholar’s understanding of a cultural community. To do
their jobs well, interpretive researchers need sharp eyes and ears to spot cultural
themes, deep listening skills to capture cultural meaning subtleties, and keen inter-
pretation skills to render the meanings as accurately as possible and in alignment with
the cultural insiders’ interpretations. Even when interpretative–­narrative scholarship
provides deep and accurate understanding of a given ethnocultural community, its
scope remains limited because that understanding (e.g., based on 5–25 cultural insid-
ers) cannot be generalized to beyond the situated meanings on a case-by-case cultural
interpretation angle. Of course, interpretive researchers are interested in deriving
particularization of situated meaning rather than generalization of distinctive com-
munication codes across contexts.
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 45

Overall, interpretive scholars are not interested in prediction but rather in discov-
ering deep meaning within and across cultures. Their emic lens and research protocols
empower research participants and privilege their voices with regard to representing
and understanding their culture and its practices. To be able to derive deep under-
standing of a given cultural community and its members, interpretive researchers need
to acquire culture-­sensitive knowledge, linguistic competencies, nonverbal decoding
capacities, refined listening skills, and versatile tools for data analysis. They also need to
be resourceful and creative in extending the scope of their research to include a wider
range of research participants from multiple strata (i.e., pending on research questions
posed). They also need to use multiple interpretive methods (e.g., the ethnographic
observation method together with semistructured interview method). They can start
conducting more comparative interpretive studies (utilizing similarly situated contexts
and similar participants’ backgrounds) to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning
comparisons and contrasts between key cultural motifs that are valued in respective
cultural systems.

Critical/Cultural Studies Paradigm

Starting in the 1990s, a third paradigm emerged in the study of intercultural–­intergroup
communication: the critical/cultural studies perspective. This perspective interprets
culture as a site of power struggle and contested grounds; the dominant/mainstream
group wields power, and the co-­culture or minority groups are viewed in the oppressed
or stigmatized positions (Hall, 1986). Critical scholars also focus on the macro level of
power dominance (e.g., colonial history—­remember Stella’s opening story on how she
got her name “Stella”)—through its oppressive institutional structure and existing poli-
cies in intergroup inclusion/exclusion interactions. This contrasts with the interpretive
and social scientific perspective of striving for shared or coordinated meanings among
cultural members—­with the implicit assumption that multicultural members are on an
equal-power footing of wanting to learn and understand each other’s culture. To critical
researchers, the starting standpoint of meaning negotiation exists on an uneven playing
field, and the power resources already tip toward the dominant group—for example, in
the interracial context in the United States, the European American dominant group
(Oetzel & Ting-­Toomey, 2011).
Critical theorists prefer to challenge the hegemonic concept of culture in order
to explore voices that have not been represented in the mainstream intercultural–­
intergroup communication literature (Moon, 1996; Sorrells, 2016). According to Sor-
rells (2016), “hegemony or domination through consent . . . is dominance without the
need for force or explicit forms of coercion . . . it operates when the goals, ideas, and
interests of the ruling group or class are so thoroughly normalized, institutionalized,
and accepted that people consent to their own domination, subordination, and exploi-
tation” (p. 8). Thus, culture involves the social context and structures in which power
struggles and clash of meanings exist between the dominant and nondominant group
forces starting on the macro level of polarized tensions.
46 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Cultural identity also centers on issues of privilege and contextualization. When

viewed from the critical theorist lens, research on cultural identity emphasizes the
(lack of) power in which members of traditionally underrepresented groups find them-
selves in given structural oppression in the system. Critical scholars emphasize the
importance of resisting mainstream perspectives of identity. Further, they emphasize
the framing of context on cultural identities. The plurality of identity intersected with
power is an important distinction as it represents the fact that individuals have multiple
cultural identities that change and reflect the influence of context. In intercultural–­
intergroup relationships, this point emphasizes that relational partners have many cul-
tural identities intersected with power and that these vary in different situations.
Communication, from the critical perspective, tends to center on discourse. Dis-
courses are written and verbal texts that reflect a way of thinking about a subject. Dis-
course is a way of framing communication from the critical perspective and is linked
to theoretical and analytical approaches to the study of phenomena. Some theoretical
exemplars that reflect the umbrella of the critical/cultural studies paradigm are cultural
identity theory (Collier, 2005), standpoint theory (Smith, 1987), muted group theory
(Kramarae, 1981), and co-­culture theory (Orbe & Spellers, 2005). For example, accord-
ing to Orbe, Everett, and Putnam (2013), co-­cultural theory is derived from the “lived
experiences of a variety of ‘nondominant’ groups, including people of color, women,
persons with disabilities, gays/lesbians/bisexuals, and those from a lower socioeconomic
background” (p. 673). Two epistemological assumptions guided the development of the
co-­culture theory and research agenda: (1) multiple co-­cultural group members share a
similar stigmatized position that renders them marginalized and muted within a soci-
ety; and (2) in order to navigate oppressive dominant forces and achieve any measure
of success, co-­cultural group members adopt certain strategic communication orienta-
tions and practices in their everyday interactional lives (Orbe et al., 2013, p. 673). While
the co-­culture theory attempts to address the identity concerns of marginalized group
members generally, it has primarily studied the lived experiences of people of color in
the United States. For example, organization communication researchers have utilized
co-­cultural theory to study the communication of different co-­cultural groups based on
race/ethnicity (e.g., Buzzanell, 1999; Orbe, 1998, 2011, 2012) and also how co-­culture
members negotiate cultural difference within and between group memberships with
individuals who are perceived to be both similar and dissimilar to them.
Given the strong interest of critical studies to unmask all forms of domination
and oppression as they occur in everyday lives, the ultimate goal of critical research-
ers is to bring awareness to the taken-for-­granted oppressive structures that exist in a
hierarchically loaded society. These forms of oppressive structures and contents can
manifest themselves via the grounded cultural terrain of everyday practices, such as
watching television, listening to music or everyday talk shows, texting, wearing brand-
name clothes or clothes with slogans, tourist consumerism and impact on local culture,
eating fast food or dining out (Sorrells, 2016). A further goal of critical scholars is to
identify how culture is used to privilege and reinforce the power of certain groups at
the expense of other groups. This focus on power/privilege and potential reform are
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 47

the distinguishing features of critical scholarship in comparison to most social scien-

tific and interpretive research. For example, Halualani (1995) examined how the per-
spectives of romance reinforce patriarchal power relationships, male dominance, and
female subordination in an Asian mail-order bride catalog. Thus, she called attention
to the unequal power dynamics of interpersonal relationships that begin through the
patriarchal-­dominant and female-­oppression mail-order practice.
From the critical scholars’ theorizing lens, communication competence has par-
ticular meaning within the context of power relations among different cultural groups.
“Distorted communication” and the unilateral power dominance viewpoint from the
dominant group lens are associated with incompetent intergroup communication,
“rational or unconstrained communication” exchange (i.e., communicating authenti-
cally via dialogue format) coupled with the shared power stance is associated with
competent intergroup communication (Habermas, 1987). Furthermore, when viewed
from the co-­culture lens on conflict communication, competent conflict communica-
tion practice may include situational fluid code switching via the use of diverse conflict
styles and strategies and the enactment of a fully integrated bicultural identity (e.g., in
the case of biracial Black/White individuals in enacting a mixture of adaptive conflict
styles with ingroup and dominant outgroup; see Hamby, 2003/2004).
Methodologically, the data collection methods of critical scholars are largely consis-
tent with those of interpretive scholars. Critical scholars use ethnography, open-ended
interviews, and case studies to collect data. The actual analytical approach of critical/
cultural studies scholars is different from that of interpretive scholars because of their
different research goals. Critical scholars are interested not in describing but rather
in critiquing data. As a result, approaches include discourse analysis, textual analy-
sis, and phenomenology. For example, Collier (2009) studied the discourse of female
Palestinian and Israeli teens who were participants in a peace-­building project. The
discourse was captured through interviews with the participants, and the author then
identified themes of the discourse. In general, critical discourse about culture focuses
on thematic discourse units such as history, power relations, white privilege, ideology,
communicative experiences of cultural processes, and communication contexts of race,
gender, sexuality, class, caste, and nationality (Hall, 1986). Thus, in intercultural rela-
tionships, critical scholars attempt to flush out salient discourses that privilege certain
groups and lead to imbalanced relationships and distorted communication processes.
The conversational partner from the group with less privilege often has to adapt to the
more privileged person to maintain the relationship rather than the other way around
(Oetzel & Ting-­Toomey, 2011).
The ultimate applied goal of critical theorists is to move toward local and global
social activism and level the communication playing field of power dominance and
subjugation among different sociocultural identity groups in a society and on a global
level. As Sorrells (2016) aptly observes: “In the context of globalization, our choices
and actions are always enabled, shaped, constrained by history; relations of power; and
material conditions that are inextricably linked to intercultural dimensions of culture,
race, class, religion, sexual orientation, language, and nationality. Intercultural praxis,
48 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

offers us a process of critical, reflective thinking and acting and enables us to navigate
the complex and challenging intercultural spaces” (p. 23).
As is true of the other two paradigms, the critical paradigm has both strengths
and weaknesses. Unlike functional and interpretive standpoints, theoretically, critical
scholarship tends to call for taking a stand on domination, oppression, and social injus-
tice in society, culture, and discourses. Often, critical scholars criticize social scientific
scholarship and interpretative scholarship for not addressing power and privilege and
social injustice issues and taking a stand on them (e.g., Clifford Geertz’s ethnographic-­
interview approach to the study of Balinese cockfighting in Indonesia has been criti-
cized for privileging the male-­dominant voice and interpretive perspective to the
neglect of the female voice in interpreting this illegal yet widely practiced social event;
Geertz, 1973). Critical scholarship calls attention to pervasive but neglected concepts
such as power, privilege, and oppression, dominance and submission, sociohistorical
contextualization, marginality and muted voices. They also call for advocacy to even out
the playing field for all membership groups in interpersonal relationships, workplace
situations, political environment, and the media world (Oetzel & Ting-­Toomey, 2011).
Methodologically, as stated earlier, they largely use the same methods as the interpre-
tive scholars do, notably ethnography, case studies, and discourse analysis. The power–­
privilege–­oppression lens guides critical scholars’ methodological practices.
The critical paradigm also has theoretical and methodological limitations. Theo-
retically, critical scholars have largely adopted the Western-­centric power–­privilege–­
oppression lens to study culture and communication practices around the world. For
example, the Marxist notion of class struggle is superimposed on other cultural com-
munities to discover power, privilege, and class struggles. It appears that their research
agenda is also based on a strong a priori categorical lens to find exactly what they are
looking for: that is, power, privilege, and oppression in a given society and culture.
Indeed, it is rather difficult, if not impossible, to find a society or culture that is free of
power imbalance, privilege, haves and have nots, and oppression. While critical schol-
ars have criticized functional paradigm scholars for essentializing culture in the forms
of cultural dimensions (e.g., individualism–­collectivism and power distance), it seems
they, too, have essentialized concepts such as power, privilege, oppression, and social
injustice in and via their scholarship. It appears that discovering power imbalance,
privilege, oppression, and social injustice is already a predetermined agenda and a con-
clusion. However, each concept always has a counterpart (as in the yin-yang Taoist
philosophical approach) or multiple counterparts such as in examining any asymmetri-
cal power–­oppressive power relationship. We can also always find symmetrical power
of collaboration and humanistic teamwork and mutual respect, inclusion, and interde-
pendent resonance and compassion.
Methodologically, critical scholars need to be creative and think outside the box to
unearth power imbalance, privilege, oppression, and social injustice in cultural com-
munities. For this purpose, in accordance with their wish to give voice to the voice-
less/muted voices, they should not impose concepts of power, privilege, and oppression
on indigenous communities but rather should ask them for their understanding and
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 49

definitions of power, privilege, oppression, and multilayered situations and strategic

counterresponses. They need to think about the use of holistic, facilitative, multivocal,
well-­balanced, and open-ended schemas to organize and present their critical analysis
report so that preconceived discourse types do not become constricting categories.
Overall, critical scholarship is unique within the three paradigms in that they
proffer advocacy with power imbalance, privilege, oppression, and social injustice.
Indeed, societies and cultural communities must be aware of these issues and find ways
to address them. However, critical scholars can also counterbalance their approach to
broaden their scope of interest by conducting more detailed analyses of often neglected
yet important concepts (e.g., compassion, forgiveness, and peace-­building conflict reso-
lution) and also understanding and diagnosing bottom-­up (or even top-down, or both)
authentic empowerment processes to offer hope and positive activism energy to the
new generation of intercultural scholars and researchers. Furthermore, in the inter-
est of improving the social world, they can connect more with the intergroup contact
research literature (see Chapter 9) and also integrate issues of intergroup prejudice
reduction with positive intergroup contact conditions when addressing issues of power
imbalance and social injustice.
Academically, the intercultural and intergroup communication fields can move
ahead constructively and productively if researchers from each paradigm can practice
cultural humility and draw learning lessons and useful findings from each paradigmatic
domain, while engaging in cross-­fertilization of ideas and team collaboration. Having
discussed the three research paradigms of functionalist/social science, humanistic/
interpretive, and critical studies, we contend that each paradigm has its own meaning
and rhythm much as is the case with different genres of music. While academics may at
times rigidly adhere to their particular paradigm, we strongly feel that the better deci-
sion concerning which paradigm to adopt depends on the purpose of one’s research,
hypotheses (for the functionalist folks), meaning-­centered approach (for the interpretiv-
ist scholars), or social advocacy/critique approach (for the critical studies folks), and the
type of research questions being asked. If one is interested in predicting and hypoth-
esizing about the relationships among identity, culture, and communication, one must
choose the functionalist/social science paradigm and its theoretical perspective and
quantitative methodology. However, if one is interested in attaining a deep and unique
understanding of identity, culture, situated meanings, and communication, one must
follow the interpretive paradigm and its theoretical perspective and qualitative meth-
odology. Or if one is interested in exploring power imbalance, privilege, and oppression
related to identity, culture, and communication, one must follow the critical paradigm
and its theoretical perspective and critical methodology.
Knowledge generated through these paradigms can also be complementary.
Researchers can be innovative in their own reflexive decision, integrate different per-
spectives, and parallel multimethods (or the triangulation method) in their research as
long as the theory–­research design components do not violate the core assumptions,
epistemology, and ontology of that particular theoretical application. For example, both
identity negotiation theory and face negotiation theory (and different paradigmatic
50 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

scholars) have drawn much from functional and interpretive paradigms, especially
on the research design and methodological data collection levels. Although we do not
think one paradigm is better than the other, researchers should decide which paradigm
to adopt based on their research topic, the guided theory used, the study’s objectives
and goals, and the research questions being addressed. To make a difference in the
field, they should also mindfully consider what they consider as meaningful data to col-
lect. Lastly, novice scholars should be well trained in all three paradigms and hold an
“ethnorelative mind-set” in skillfully articulating (and even utilizing) the theories and
methods of all three paradigms and then decide on the particular research contribu-
tions they would like to make, in order to advance both intercultural and intergroup
communication competence research/theoretical domains forward.

An Integrative Identity Negotiation Theory Framework

An integrative theorizing effort in explaining intercultural–­intergroup communication

dynamics paves the first step in enhancing our awareness, knowledge, open-­minded
attitudes, and skills in dealing with sociocultural membership groups both adroitly and
flexibly. The integrative identity negotiation theory (IINT) framework draws heavily on
both the functional and interpretive paradigms in the research questions raised and the
methods utilized in the last 30 years (Ting-­Toomey, 1986, 1993, 1999, 2005a, 2015a;
Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2014, 2015).
With the accelerating identity diversity of immigrants and co-­culture members
operating in both heterogeneous and even homogeneous societies, identity transfor-
mation and complexity is here to stay (see Chapter 4). Co-­culture members or com-
munities, according to Orbe et al. (2013), refer to the lived experiences of a variety of
“nondominant” groups, including “people of color, women, persons with disabilities,
gays/lesbians/bisexuals, and those from a lower socioeconomic background” (p. 673).
Furthermore, millions of international students, cultural exchange students and teach-
ers, Peace Corps volunteers, business folks, military personnel, diplomats, humanitar-
ian advisors, and tourists also travel to the four corners of the earth to learn, teach,
perform, serve, conduct business, and simply play and enjoy (see Chapter 3).
People experience culture shock whenever they uproot themselves from a familiar
setting. Experiencing culture shock is an inevitable affective occurrence for both long-
term immigrants and short-term sojourners, but how they confront and manage culture
shock stressors and how they communicate strategically and responsively will deter-
mine the adaptive process and outcome. Understanding the distinctive overlapping
features of intercultural and intergroup communication, especially from an integrative
identity negotiation theorizing framework, can pave the way to a fuller picture of help-
ing immigrants, co-­culture members, sojourners, and host nationals to communicate
appropriately, effectively, and adaptively.
This section is organized in three parts. The first part introduces IINT and its key
backdrop ideas. The second part delineates the IINT key assumptions. Finally, the
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 51

third part explores the notion of core composite identity, with the four identity domains
of sociocultural membership identities, sociorelational role identities, personal iden-
tity attributes, and symbolic interaction identities drawn from the updated IINT-based
intercultural and intergroup communication studies (see also Liu, 2017).

Identity Negotiation Theory: Key Backdrop Ideas

The updated IINT framework concerns the importance of negotiating sociocultural
membership identity, sociorelational role identity, and personal identity issues in
intercultural–­intergroup and interpersonal communication settings via symbolic inter-
action exchange processes (Ting-­Toomey, 1999, 2005a). The term “identity” in the IINT
framework (Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2015) refers to an individual’s composite cultural,
ethnic, religious, gender, and stigmatized identities, as well as family and generational
role identities, intimate relationship and professional role identities, and individuated
personal image(s) based on self-­reflection and other-­ascription identity construction
processes in a sociocultural world.
The IINT framework is a compound theory that draws from the work of social iden-
tity complexity theory (SICT; e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Brewer, 1991, 2010; Brewer
& Miller, 1996); communication accommodation theory (CAT; e.g., Gallois et al., 2005;
Giles, Reid, & Harwood, 2010); symbolic interactionism theory (SIT; e.g., McCall &
Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1981, 1991); identity negotiation theory (INT) and face nego-
tiation theory (FNT) lenses (e.g., Ting-­Toomey, 1993, 1999, 2005a, 2005b); and rela-
tional dialectics theory (RDT; e.g., Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008; Baxter & Montgomery,
1996). The framework also draws heavily on both the interpretive and functional para-
digms’ intercultural–­intergroup communication research studies and, concurrently,
on the amplified discussions of intergroup-­biased perceptual filters (see Chapter 9),
intercultural–­intergroup conflict challenges (see Chapter 10), and meta-­ethics guide-
line issues (see Chapter 12). The amplified analysis of intergroup biases embraces the
discussion of global/cultural social justice/injustice issues, power dynamic issues, and
alliance-­building and intergroup peace-­building issues, which are essential concepts
covered under the critical paradigm.
While SICT and CAT theorists derive their ideas from the social psychological and
intergroup relations disciplines, SIT theorists draw their ideas from the sociological
arena. The INT, FNT, and RDT approaches reflect theoretical, research, and applied
work in the intercultural and interpersonal communication fields. Since historical
study of intercultural communication is an open-­boundary field based on theory and
research, it seems fitting that the study of intercultural and intergroup communication
processes relies on the triangulated knowledge bases of multiple academic disciplines.
(For the evolutionary background history of IINT, see the review chapters and encyclo-
pedia entries in Ting-­Toomey, 2014, 2015b.)
The fine-tuned version of the original INT (Ting-­Toomey, 2005a) appeared as a
chapter edited by Dr. William Gudykunst (2005) in Theorizing in Intercultural Com-
munication (see also Ting-­Toomey, 2014, 2015b, 2017b, ICA conference paper). The most
52 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

recent version, especially covering the integrative intercultural–­intergroup framework

on the topic of INT-based (Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2015) communication competence,
appeared as a chapter edited by Annegret Hannawa and Brian Spitzberg (2015) in their
Communication Competence monograph.
The fundamental basis of the original INT posits that individuals in all cultures
desire to be competent communicators in a diverse range of interactive situations. They
learn to be competent communicators within their own cultures through repeated
exposure and practice. They also learn to deal with others appropriately and effectively
through habitual interaction routines. According to social identity theory, two sources
of identity typically influence an individual’s everyday interaction: social identity and
personal identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identity can include ethnic member-
ship, religious/spiritual, gender, family role and age, relational and professional role
identity issues (to name a few examples). In contrast, personal identity can include any
unique attributes (e.g., personality traits, personal habits and hobbies, personal dreams
and wishes, and personal self-­concept and self-­esteem) associated with our distinctive
or individuated self in relation to others.
Our awareness of these identities stems primarily from the internalization of
the viewpoints of others around us. For example, when relevant others and the larger
societal-­multilayered environment consistently regard us in a favorable light, we tend to
develop positive conceptions of ourselves. However, if they consistently view us or treat
us in an unfavorable light, we tend to develop negative self-­concepts. Of course, many
mediating factors (e.g., individual resilience, educational upward mobility, situational
opportunity) may mitigate this direct pathway connection.
In essence, the INT posits that the core processes of individuals’ reflective self-­
conceptions are formed through symbolic communication with others (McCall & Sim-
mons, 1978). It is through communication that we acquire our generalized views of
ourselves and others, as well as particular ways of thinking about ourselves, our roles,
and other’s roles in different situations. The SIT further posits that we typically relate to
others through two types of perception: intergroup-­based versus interpersonal-­based
perceptions (Tajfel, 1981). In our updated IINT lens, we also consider a wider range
of group membership categories in our everyday relatedness processes, for example,
religious/spiritual, stigmatized, generational role, and professional role identity. In
later chapters (e.g., see Chapter 4), we also discuss some strategic convergence and
divergence moves that co-­culture members use to change their group membership sta-
tus, and we also address the emphasis on practicing the competent intergroup identity
negotiation process strategically. In an intergroup-­based relationship, we often tend to
focus exclusively on sociocultural group membership markers or individuals’ sociorela-
tional role features. In an interpersonal-­based relationship, we often attend selectively
to the idiosyncratic traits or unique attributes of the particularized individuals.
In actual intercultural–­intergroup encounters, however, both types of relatedness
are present. Intergroup-­based perceptions are salient, for example, when we experience
ingroup–­outgroup membership distinctions that arise from the preconditioned social
stereotypic process (e.g., Black and White racial group memberships and intergroup
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 53

conflict history). Interpersonal-­based perceptions are salient when we get a chance to

share or find out more unique information about the person in the encountering process
or information based on strong interpersonal emotional arousal or the attractiveness (or
repulsiveness) factor. Both types of perception can contribute to either an astute or
obtuse interaction outcome, depending on whether we use the group-based or person-­
based attribution and impression formation processes constructively or detrimentally.
The social identity and symbolic interaction theories both show that the process of
defining a personal self is inevitably a social process. Personal identity is developed in
conjunction with the evolution and reinforcement of sociocultural and sociorelational
role membership. Sociocultural identity, relational role identity, and personal identity
traits are acquired and developed within the larger webs of our cultural socialization
process. Under the updated IINT umbrella, the broad “social identity” category is fur-
ther divided into two identity membership labels: sociocultural group membership
identities (e.g., master identities such as race/ethnicity, sex/gender, religious identity;
Deaux & Verkuyten, 2014) and sociorelational membership identities (e.g., family/rela-
tional role or professional role identity) in order to give each identity domain its due
value and attention in conjunction with analyzing different communication implica-
tions.
The metatheoretical premises underlying the intercultural–­intergroup IINT state
first that each individual has three core composite identity domains that they value and
deem important: sociocultural membership identity, sociorelational role identity, and
distinctive personal identity. Second, these intersecting identity domains are cultur-
ally and situationally primed, intrapersonally constructed, and interpersonally marked
and coordinated. Third, for culturally distinctive members or co-­culture members,
their core sociocultural identity domain often includes cultural/ethnic/gender/religious
distinctiveness issues. For other identity stigmatized groups, their core sociocultural
group membership sets can include, but are not limited to, LGBT identity, socioeco-
nomic class, able-­bodied/disabled identity, and age, to name a few. Fourth, the other
two composite identity domains—sociocultural relational role identity and personal
identity attributes—can also include family/relational roles or professional roles and
unique personal identity attributes. Fifth, from a developmental lifespan perspective,
the tripartite composite identity domains and the associated identity features change
and evolve, with shifting foreground/background weight at different developmental
life stages. Sixth, all the various identity performance and expressions are conveyed
via symbolic communication with others or decoded by others. These codes of con-
duct and practice and meaning construction processes are expressed in the symbolic
interaction identity domain and reflect our complex sociocultural, sociorelational role,
and personal-­individuated selves in conjunction with particular situational expectancy
norms and the larger cultural belief and value systems.
Overall, culture is the prime regulator in influencing how we attach meanings,
develop labels, negotiate roles and identities, and draw boundaries in constructing oth-
ers’ and our own social identities and personal selves (Rosaldo, 1984). Regardless of our
degree of awareness, these identities influence our everyday behaviors. An individual’s
54 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

polygonal identity shapes her or his social cognition, affective being, behavioral ten-
dencies, and ethical choices in particular adaptive situations. Understanding an indi-
vidual’s tripartite sociocultural membership identity, socio­relational role identity, and
unique personal identity, together with their associated lived experiences, is an essen-
tial undertaking designed to promote quality intercultural–­intergroup relatedness and
connection.

Identity Negotiation Theory: Key Assumptions

The particular IINT version (Ting-­Toomey, 2005a; Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2015) pre-
sented here highlights five cultural boundary-­crossing identity dialectical themes (iden-
tity security–­vulnerability; inclusion–­differentiation; predictability–­unpredictability;
connection–­autonomy; and identity consistency–­change across time) and three iden-
tity negotiation competence outcomes (i.e., the feeling of being understood, the feeling
of being respected, and the feeling of being affirmatively valued and supported). The
term “dialectics” in IINT refers to a tension between opposing or competing forces
within a discourse communication system. It also means that whenever we commu-
nicate, we are invoking multiple systems of meaning from a contextual and positional
lens. Concurrently, the term “negotiation” refers to the dynamic process of verbal and
nonverbal message transaction and meaning attribution coordination between the two
(or more) communicators in maintaining, threatening, or uplifting the various sociocul-
tural group-based, role-based, or unique personal-­based identity images of the other.
Individuals mostly acquire their composite identity through sociocultural condition-
ing processes, individual lived experiences, and repeated intergroup and interpersonal
interaction experiences.
The current IINT version consists of the following 10 key assumptions, which
explain the antecedent, process, and outcome components of intercultural–­intergroup
identity-­based communication competence:

1. The core dynamics of people’s group membership identities (e.g., cultural and
ethnic and religious/spiritual memberships, or stigmatized identities), role-
based identities (e.g., family roles, or intimate relationship roles), and personal
identities (e.g., unique attributes, interests, hobbies, and dreams) are formed
via symbolic communication with others.
2. Individuals in all cultures or ethnic groups have the basic motivation needs for
identity security, inclusion, predictability, connection, and consistency on both
group-based and person-­based identity levels. However, too much emotional
security will lead to tight ethnocentrism, and conversely, too much emotional
insecurity (or vulnerability) will lead to fear of outgroups or strangers. The
same underlying principle applies to identity inclusion, predictability, con-
nection, and consistency. Thus, an optimal range exists on the various social
identity group membership and personal identity negotiation dialectical spec-
trums.
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 55

3. Individuals tend to experience identity emotional security in a culturally

familiar environment and experience identity emotional vulnerability in a cul-
turally unfamiliar environment.
4. Individuals tend to feel included when their desired group membership and
role-based identities are positively endorsed (e.g., in positive ingroup contact
situations) and experience differentiation when their desired group member-
ship identities are stigmatized (e.g., in hostile outgroup contact situations).
5. Individuals tend to experience interaction predictability when communicat-
ing with culturally familiar others and interaction unpredictability when com-
municating with culturally unfamiliar others. Interaction predictability tends
either to lead to further trust (i.e., within the optimal level) or to become rigid
stereotyped categories (i.e., beyond the optimal level). Constant interaction
unpredictability tends to lead to either mistrust or negative-­valenced (or in
some cases, positive-­valenced) expectancy violations.
6. Individuals tend to desire interpersonal connection via meaningful close
relationships (e.g., in close friendship support situations) and to experience
identity autonomy when they undergo relationship separations. Meaningful
intercultural–­intergroup and interpersonal relationship interactions can cre-
ate additional emotional security and trust in cultural strangers.
7. Individuals tend to experience identity consistency in repeated cultural rou-
tines in a familiar cultural environment and identity change (or at the extreme,
identity chaos and turmoil) and transformation in a new or unfamiliar cultural
environment.
8. Situational complexity dynamics intersect with salient cultural–ethnic iden-
tity notions, salient role-based identity facets, and unique personal identity
qualities and shape the meanings, interpretations, and evaluations of these
identity-­related themes.
9. The competent identity negotiation process emphasizes the importance of
integrating the necessary intercultural and intergroup identity-­based knowl-
edge, mindfulness, and interaction skills to communicate appropriately, effec-
tively, and adaptively with culturally dissimilar others.
10. Satisfactory identity negotiation outcomes include the feeling of being under-
stood, respected, and affirmatively valued on both the social identity group
membership and personal identity level.

IINT posits that human beings in all cultures desire positive identity affirmation
in a variety of communication situations. However, what constitutes the proper way
to show identity affirmation and consideration varies from one cultural context to the
next and one situation to the next. The IINT emphasizes particular identity domains
in influencing individuals’ everyday interactions. It is a meso- or middle-­range theory
because how immigrants/refugees or co-­culture groups develop their cultural–ethnic
56 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

and personal identities in an unfamiliar environment is based on a range of macro-host

national reception factors, structural–­institutional support factors, and immediate situ-
ational and individual factors. The current IINT perspective also covers the importance
of gender, religious/spiritual, stigmatized membership, and intergenerational identity
in navigating the labyrinths of intercultural–­intergroup encounter, above and beyond
cultural/ethnic/racial identity issues.
In a fast-paced multiracial/multigroup identity formation society, race, ethnic-
ity, gender, sexual orientation, generation, age, religion, and social class culture will
become an increasingly integrative or fragmented focal point for identity negotiation
and renegotiation. Newly arrived immigrants, refugees, minority members, biracial/
multiracial individuals, and global adopted kids often need to learn to swing between
the various dialectical-­thematic poles adaptively and creatively in crafting their strate-
gic identity self-­presentation and in counteracting other-­typecasting imposition.
Three recent research studies have provided additional evidence on the dialecti-
cal nature of identity negotiation themes and the situational nature of the enactment
of particular cultural and ethnic identity features. The first study (Collie, Kindon, Liu,
& Podsiadlowski, 2010) investigated the acculturation process of Assyrian women in
New Zealand. It revealed the complex emotional experiences of the Assyrian women
and their sense of identity attachment to Iraq, the local Assyrian community, and their
adopted homeland, New Zealand. Based on 400 hours of a participatory action ethno-
graphic research design (i.e., face-to-face interviews and focused group sessions with
60 young Assyrian women and 72 Assyrian adults), three themes emerged: (1) Iraq
emerged as a beautiful place of happy memories versus a place of fear and hardship; (2)
New Zealand emerged as a place of opportunities versus discrimination; and (3) New
Zealand identified as a threat to the Assyrian culture. Using the INT as a major guid-
ing framework, the researchers noted that these Assyrian women used mindful iden-
tity negotiation strategies (e.g., social identity creative strategies) to position themselves
strategically to achieve an optimal connection with their families, the wider Assyrian
community, and their Assyrian and non-­Assyrian peers in schools. The interviewees
expressed the importance of optimal identity distinctiveness in the interviews when
asked to comment about Assyrian ethnic traditions versus the Kiwi cultural practices
(e.g., how to raise their children). They were mindfully cautious in expressing their nar-
rative viewpoints in order not to alienate the older people in their community and risk
being accused of turning their back on their Assyrian ethnic heritage.
The second study (Hotta & Ting-­Toomey, 2013) focused on examining the cul-
tural adjustment narratives and friendship stories of 20 international students. The
findings revealed three themes: a predominant upward trend or M-­shaped adjustment
trend; the role of cultural expectancy and personal compressed time sense in intercul-
tural friendship development; and identity shock issues and friendship dialectics. The
upward trend or M-­shaped trend means that international sojourners swiftly encoun-
tered a “frustration–­hostility period” in their sojourning experience before incremen-
tally picking themselves up through a variety of socioemotional strategies (e.g., via
multinational friendship formation patterns) and instrumental strategies in achieving
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 57

their degree goals and, finally, landed in a more “in sync” cultural adjustment period
(see Chapter 4).
During the “frustration–­hostility period,” some international student interviewees
felt that U.S. American students perceived the foreign students as being too differ-
ent from them and, therefore, the international students felt intergroup–­interpersonal
rejection. Concurrently, some of these international students also craved some particu-
larized identity recognition process as “worthy guests” and felt that they actually had
rich intercultural resources to share. For many of the interviewees, their storytelling
narratives emphasized the repeated melodies of IINT along the notion of the iden-
tity dialectical struggle of feeling being differentiated versus wanting to be included.
Unfortunately, more often than not, these international students do not perceive their
“special guest status” as being validated or welcomed. In fact, in the extreme case of
identity differentiation, international students often felt stigmatized or marginalized
(e.g., discriminated against) in various classroom settings or shared apartment situa-
tions.
The third study (Toomey, Dorjee, & Ting-­Toomey, 2013) focused on investigating
the meaning construction of “bicultural identity” of Asian-­Caucasian individuals and
their intergroup communication strategies. The formation of the bicultural identity of
Asian-­Caucasian individuals was conceptualized as a multilayered, complex lived expe-
rience. Both self-­perceptions and perceptions by salient others (especially in intercul-
tural dating relationships) have a pronounced impact on the participants’ construction
of bicultural identity meaning. Results indicated eight thematic patterns: bicultural
construction of integrated identity; an “I–We” sense of selfhood; distinctive communi-
cation practice; feelings of being misunderstood in intergroup relationships; intergroup
distance attitude/racist jokes; expectancy violations and the use of identity buffering
strategies; enactment of identity segmentation strategies; and use of age-­related self-­
identity affirmation talks to reaffirm their own bicultural identity significance. These
same bicultural individuals often experienced emotional security and, simultaneously,
emotional vulnerability and identity fragility in perceived intergroup identity-­threat
situations. They are also keenly aware of the situational and relational role cues in
the social settings that prompt their own identity code-­switching and frame-­switching
processes.
The next section explores more in depth the concept of core composite identity
domains. According to the updated IINT framework, we all have primary and situ-
ational identity role sets. Some of these identity sets are ingrained and consistent across
time, and others are relationally and situationally induced. The IINT also emphasizes
the importance of a co-­orientation view in understanding identity negotiation issues.
For example, an intergroup communicator may not see her or his age identity as being
salient in the workplace conversation, but others may view age identity as critical to
their perceptual field. To further our discussion of identity negotiation issues, we will
now turn to analysis of the four core composite identity domains: sociocultural mem-
bership identities, socio­relational identities, personal identity attributes, and symbolic
interaction identities.
58 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Understanding Core Composite Identity Domains

The core composite identity set is conceptualized as an individual’s self-­definitional

emphasis of salient sociocultural group membership identities, socio­relational role
identities, distinctive personal identity attributes, and symbolic interaction identities
that he or she holds as important and desirable, and communicatively significant (see
Figure 2.1).
Echoing the iceberg model metaphor, some of these identities are quite visible or
have visible markers (e.g., race, sex, age, physical disability, accents), while other identi-
ties (e.g., ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious/spiritual affiliation, mental health) can
be submerged under the water and are intrapersonally constructed and socially coor-
dinated.
Sociocultural membership identities comprise cultural/ethnic, spiritual/religious,
gender, and stigmatized group-based identities, and the broad camp of socio­relational

Cultural Identity
Sociocultural Ethnic Identity
Membership Religious/Spiritual Identity
Identities Gender Identity
Stigmatized Identity

Family Role
Sociorelational Symbolic
Generational Role
Role Interaction
Intimate Relationship Role
Identities Identities
Professional Role

Independent vs.
Interdependent Self
Personal Horizontal vs. Vertical Self
Identity Uncertainty-Oriented vs.
Attributes Certainty-Oriented Self
Internal vs. External Locus
of Control

FIGURE 2.1. Integrative identity negotiation theory: Core composite identity domains.
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 59

identities includes family, generational, intimate relationship, and professional roles.

The concept of “role” is a theatrical metaphor that is shaped by expectancy norms
within a particular situation and between two role enactment actors in a symbolic
interaction negotiation scene (Burke, 1945; Goffman, 1959; Stryker, 1987, 1991). Fur-
thermore, under the canopy of “personal identities,” we emphasize distinctive person-
ality attributes and some exemplars. Lastly, under the “symbolic interaction identity”
domain, we emphasize the importance of conveying cultural sensitivity and interper-
sonal responsiveness to sociocultural group membership, the sociocultural relational
role, and personal identity issues. In being aware of these various identity domains
of self and others, we can begin to mindfully notice and listen to the concerns that
surround a person’s identity stories in a communication episode at intercultural and
intergroup levels.

Sociocultural Membership: Cultural Identity and Ethnic Identity

All individuals are socialized within a larger cultural membership group. For example,
everyone born and/or raised in the United States has a sense of being an “American” (in
this book, to avoid ambiguity, we use the term “U.S. American”). Our cultural identities
can be so ingrained that unless we encounter major cultural differences, we may not
even notice the importance of our cultural membership badges.
Individuals acquire their cultural group memberships through parental guidance
and responses during their formative years. Furthermore, physical appearance, racial
traits, skin color, language usage, education, mass media, peer groups, institutional
policies, and self-­appraisal factors all enter into constructing one’s cultural identity. The
meanings and interpretations that we hold for our culture-­based identity groups are
learned through symbolic interaction with others.
Cultural identity, when viewed from the IINT perspective, is defined as the emo-
tional significance that we attach to our sense of belonging or affiliation with the larger
national culture. To illustrate, we can talk about the larger Brazilian cultural identity or
the larger Canadian cultural identity. Salience of cultural identity refers to the strength
of our affiliation with the larger culture. Strong or weak associations of membership
affiliation reflect high or low cultural identity salience. The more our self-image is influ-
enced by our cultural identity salience, the more we are likely to practice the norms
and interaction scripts of our culture. The less our self-image is influenced by our cul-
tural identity salience, the more we are likely to practice norms and scripts of our own
inventions. For example, as an immigrant society, residents in the United States may
mix some of the larger cultural values with those of their ethnic-­oriented values and
practices. In order to negotiate cultural and ethnic identities mindfully with diverse
cultural–ethnic groups, we need to have an in-depth understanding of the value con-
tent and salience of cultural and ethnic identity issues.
Ethnic identity is “inherently a matter of ancestry, of beliefs about the origins
of one’s forebears” (Alba, 1990, p. 37; emphasis in original). Ethnicity can be based
on national origin, race, religion, or language. For many people in the United States,
60 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

ethnicity is based on the countries from which their ancestors came (e.g., those who can
trace their ethnic heritage to an Asian or a Latin American country). Ethnic heritage
may or may not be easily traced.
Most Native Americans—­ descendants of people who settled in the Western
Hemisphere long before Columbus arrived, sometime between 25,000 and 40,000
years ago—can trace their ethnic heritage based on distinctive linguistic or religious
practices. However, most African Americans may not be able to trace their precise
ethnic origins because of the pernicious slavery codes (e.g., a slave could not marry or
meet with an ex-slave; it was forbidden for anyone, including Whites, to teach slaves to
read or write) and the uprootedness forced on them by slaveholders beginning in the
1600s (Schaefer, 2009). As for many European Americans, they may not be able to trace
their ethnic origins precisely because of their mixed ancestral heritage. This phenom-
enon stems from generations of intergroup marriages (say, Irish American and French
American marriages, or mixed Irish/French American and Polish American marriages,
and the like) starting with the great grandparents or grandparents.
Ethnicity, of course, derives from more than the country of origin. It involves a
subjective sense of belonging to or identification with an ethnic group across time. In
order to understand the significance of someone’s ethnicity, we also need to understand
the content and salience of that person’s ethnic identity in particular. For example, with
knowledge of the individualism–­collectivism value tendencies of the originating coun-
tries, we can infer the value contents of specific ethnic groups. Most Asian Americans,
Native Americans, and Latino/a Americans, for example, who identify strongly with
their traditional ethnic values, would tend to be group oriented. European Americans,
who identify strongly with European values and norms (albeit on an unconscious level),
would tend to be individualistic oriented. African Americans might well subscribe to
both collectivistic and individualistic values—­in blending both ethnic African values
and assimilated U.S. values—­for purposes of survival and adaptation (see Chapter 4).
Ethnic identity has both objective and subjective layers. The objective layers can
include racial classifications, shared religion, or shared language. From such a layered
outlook, ethnicity is an inheritance and an immutable historical fact. On the individual
identification level, members who identify strongly with an ethnic group believe that
they share a common history, heritage, and descent. In essence, ethnicity is, overall,
more a subjective experience than an objective classification. Ethnic minority group
members, in the context of intergroup relations, tend to be keenly aware and sensitive
to the intersecting issues of ethnicity and national identity culture. For ethnic minor-
ity members, the perceived imbalanced power dimension and power inaccessibility
dimension within a society lead them to draw clear boundaries between the dominant
“powerholder” group and the nondominant “fringe” group (Orbe, 1998; Yinger, 1994).

Religious/Spiritual Identity
In many countries, especially those countries whose immigrants have dispersed and
settled in different European countries, religious identity intersects with their ethnic
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 61

background to form a primary sociocultural identity packet. For example, in Germany,

the largest immigrant population is of Turkish origin; in France, the largest immigrant
groups are from Algeria and Morocco; and in the Netherlands, the largest groups origi-
nated from Turkey and Morocco. The majority of these immigrants belong to the Mus-
lim religious faith (Deaux & Verkuyten, 2014).
In the United States, religious identity has been bracketed as an ethnic heritage
maintenance process, and most immigrants keep their religious faith and practice in
accordance with their family tradition or personal preference. After 9/11, the fear of
terrorism by Muslim extremists sparked some racist incidents such as the burning of
a Quran by a Florida minister and public protest over the development of an Islamic
Center near the site of the World Trade Center bombings. More recently, in December
2015, in reaction to ISIS terrorist threats in Europe, a presidential frontrunner, Donald
Trump, declared that “all Muslims should be banned in travelling to the U.S.,” and he
also called for surveillance against all mosques and the establishment of an exclusive
database for all Muslims living in the United States. This public message prompted an
immediate outcry from the Obama administration: the call to ban all Muslims from
traveling to the United States was seen as “contrary to our values as Americans.” The
Obama administration pointed to the Bill of Rights’ protection of freedom of religion
and emphasized the “extraordinary contributions Muslim Americans have made to the
U.S.” (see www.CNN.com/2015/12/07). Almost immediately upon becoming president,
Donald Trump signed an executive order banning travel from seven Muslim countries
to the United States, leading to both controversy and legal challenges that continue to
date.
The intersection of cultural national identity development, ethnic identity main-
tenance, and religious identity practice will only become more prominent in the
intercultural–­intergroup communication studies field. It will serve as a nation’s pivotal
force of either fragmentation or united strength. The religious identity fragmentation
can either divide immigrant and host groups into different polarized camps or unite
them based on some core shared transcendental religious beliefs such as hope, forgive-
ness, and compassion.
Two trends have been observed with regard to the struggle for religious identity
maintenance in host environments. First, immigrants tend to cherish and preserve the
distinctiveness of their religious identity through unique religious practices such as
religious education, seminars, rites and rituals, and gatherings. They tend to invest
more effort in these practices, especially when the host environment is unfavorable to
their faith (see the above examples regarding Islam) and demand that immigrants con-
ceal their religious identity or assimilate into the dominant faith-based identity. These
push and pull factors contribute to the fragmentation of religious identity in a host
environment. Second, interfaith meetings and dialogues and interfaith pilgrimages and
favorable host environments for promoting equal respect, tolerance, appreciation, and
support of such initiatives and efforts contribute to interfaith unity and harmony. For
example, the Dalai Lama, the 1989 Nobel Peace Laureate, in his teaching and meet-
ings throughout the world, has actively promoted his view of our entire humanity as
62 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

one family and has emphasized that all religions have the same message: respect, toler-
ance, love, compassion, and forgiveness. In this way, he has fostered the idea of inter-
religious understanding and global harmony (see www.dalailama.com).

Gender Identity
The meanings of gender terms such as “feminine” and “masculine” reflect how the
larger culture or ethnic group constructs the images of females and males. While sex
is a biological attribute that is determined by genetics and hormones, gender is a phe-
nomenon learned through our primary cultural socialization process (Belenky, Clinchy,
Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Wood, 1996, 1997). Whereas sex is a static concept, gender
is a dynamic construct. We can learn and unlearn gender role expectations.
In short, gender identity refers to our meanings and interpretations concerning our
self-­images and expected other-­images of “femaleness” and “maleness.” For example, in
some cultures females are expected to act in a nurturing manner, to be more affective,
and to play the primary caregiver role. Males in some cultures are expected to act in
a competitive manner, to be more emotionally reserved, and to play the breadwinner
role (see Chapter 6). The orientations toward femaleness and maleness are grounded
and learned through cultural and ethnic socialization practices. As we interact with
our family members, friends, and coworkers, we participate in the cultural and ethnic
construction of the meaning of differentiated gender roles and communication expec-
tancies (Wood, 1996; Wood & Fixmer-­Oraiz, 2017).
Although gender difference is pervasive in our everyday lives, it is difficult to pin-
point its effect. As Wood (1996) observes insightfully, “Just as we seldom notice air and
fish are unaware of water, for the most part we do not realize the myriad ways in which
gender infuses our everyday lives as individuals and our collective life as a culture.
This is because the meanings of gender that our [U.S.] society has constructed are nor-
malized, making them a constant taken-for-­granted background that can easily escape
notice” (pp. 8–9). Our gender identities are created, in part, through communication
with others. They are also supported and reinforced by existing cultural structures and
practices. The gender identities we learned as children affect how we define ourselves,
how we encode and decode messages, and how we develop expectations of what con-
stitute appropriate or inappropriate sex role behavior. We can choose to behave differ-
ently or to reframe our evaluations in viewing gender-­based identity performance.

Stigmatized Group‑Based Identities

Identities are constructed and negotiated through symbolic interaction with others.
According to an intergroup perspective, stigmatized sociocultural membership ascrip-
tion and perception can lead to intergroup communication predicament. Stigmatiza-
tion can be socially constructed based on ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, and others. For example, since 9/11, Muslims residing in the United States
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 63

have often been stigmatized; they are frequently perceived to be terrorists or potential
terrorists. At the airports or on planes, Muslims, because of their stigmatized group
membership, are frequently eyed with suspicion. Even many Sikhs (Punjabis from
India who believe in Guru Nanak and Sikhism, not Islam and Muhammad) have been
detained at airports; based on a confused demographic profile which highlights their
turbans, long beards, skin color, and loose clothing, they are misidentified as Muslims.
Thus, both Muslim immigrants and their look-alike Sikh immigrants have faced preju-
dice and discrimination in their symbolic interaction with others in interpersonal and
social settings.
All in all, dominant members of nonstigmatized social groups tend to see indi-
viduals with stigmatized identities as representative of their respective collectivity,
while deindividualizing their personal identities. In other words, given the antinor-
mative visibility of transgender individuals, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ
members, dominant group members may often ascribe stigmatized social identities
to them, which they relate to them accordingly. Thus, interactions in these cases are
primarily intergroup in nature and present a communication predicament. One way
to improve communication among dominant able-­bodied heterosexuals and individu-
als who belong to stigmatized groups is to relate to each other interpersonally at the
micro individual level, such as sharing unique life experiences and identity vulnerable
stories.

Sociorelational Role Identities: Family Role

and Generational Role Identities
Role identities are closely linked to the situational parameters of the intercultural–­
intergroup encounter. The term “role” refers to a set of expected behaviors and associ-
ated values and meanings that a culture or ethnic group defines as proper or improper,
approved or disapproved, in particular situations.

Family Role Identity

People in every culture are born into a network of family relationships. First and fore-
most, we acquire the beliefs and values of our culture within a family system. The rules
that we acquire in relating to our grandparents, parents, siblings, extended families,
peers, and teachers contribute to the initial blueprint of our relational role images.
For example, through our primary family socialization process, we learn to deal with
boundary issues such as space and time and authority issues such as gender-­based
decision-­making activities and power dynamics. From similar others in our own socio-
cultural setting, we also acquire the scripts for emotional expressiveness or restraint, as
well as for nonverbal immediacy or gestural nuances.
To illustrate the intersection among ethnic identity, gender role, and family role,
in the traditional Mexican culture, child-­rearing practices for socializing girls and boys
64 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

differ significantly. At the onset of adolescence, the difference between girls and boys
becomes even more markedly apparent. The female is likely to remain much closer to
home and to be “protected and guarded in her contact with others beyond the fam-
ily. . . . The adolescent male, following the model of his father, is given much more
freedom to come and go as he chooses and is encouraged to gain much worldly knowl-
edge and experience outside the home” (Locke, 1992, p. 137). Growing up as second-­
generation Mexican Americans in a traditional household, adolescent males may enjoy
more freedom, but adolescent females usually experience more stringent family rules
and compliance expectations. Ethnic family socialization and gender role expectancy
often converge, becoming part of the family system, linking family role identity images
and communication practices.

Generational Role Identity

For the first time on a global scale, four distinctive identity generations (i.e., the Silent
Generation: born 1929–1945; Baby Boomers: 1946–1964; Generation X: 1965–1978;
and Generation Y or Millennials: 1979–1997) can be working side by side in an inter-
national office. A generation is defined as an identifiable group that shares birth years,
age, location, and significant life events, as well as value patterns in the era in which
they were born and raised (Gursoy, Chi, & Karadag, 2013). To illustrate, U.S. Baby
Boomers, having been socialized in a prosperous postwar economy, value hard work
and sacrifice, which are key to their self-image and their respect for hierarchical sta-
tus relationship in the workplace. However, Generation X was the first generation to
grow up in a world where the expression “more choices mean better choices” became a
watchword and to adapt to complex “blended-­family” dynamics. They prefer to work to
live, and they generally seek more autonomy and instant self-­recognition than the Baby
Boomer generation. They are also skeptical of the status quo and hierarchical work
relationships, and they believe they can earn interpersonal respect through personal
credibility and competence. Generation Y or the Millennial generation has grown up
with technology, where nearly every waking moment is dominated by social network-
ing interactions via text messaging, instant messaging, and multiplayer games. Millen-
nials prefer flexible work schedules but also crave supervisory role models (or mentors
or “workplace parents”) and work structure. They also enjoy teamwork coupled with
their own strong-­willed leadership skills so that they can move things through speedily
(Gursoy et al., 2013; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Millennials appear to have paradoxical
needs for both a guided workplace structure and freedom and, simultaneously, team-
work and self-­expressive personal leadership and autonomy.
Thus, beyond ethnic intergenerational gaps, intercultural–­intergroup researchers
and practitioners may also want to pay close attention to global trends showing gen-
erational cultural gaps along a longitudinal, historical period time span—­especially
with the demarcation of the Millennial generation versus the here-to-stay Z gener-
ation (1998–2014) in their connection to savvy social media usage as digital natives
coupled with an innovative “can do” spirit, a strong sense of self-­direction and purpose
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 65

with some mild hand-­holding expectancy, and in the U. S. context, the most ethnically
diverse and multicultural generation of all.

Relational Role and Professional Role Identities

Relational Role Identities
Beyond forming relational identities within the family and across generations, we also
develop voluntary social relationships, such as love relationships and friendships. The
self-­conception support from intimate friends and significant others can be a powerful
form of identity approval (Cupach & Metts, 1994). However, the development of an
intimate relationship between persons of two contrastive cultures is a complex phe-
nomenon. The cultural and personal expectations and definitions of “close friendship”
or “intimate partner” may also vary from one culture to the next and from one per-
son to the next. In addition, some relational partners may move quickly from culture-­
based group membership interaction to person-­based interaction with rapid sharing,
fast-paced rhythms, and self-­disclosure depth. Other partners may spend a lifetime
negotiating the meanings of cultural or religious identities, on the one hand, and the
meanings of relational/personal identities, on the other.
For example, research indicates that many collectivists value companionate love
(strong friendship intimacy and commitment) more than passionate love in roman-
tic relationships (Gao, 1991). Some traditional collectivist cultures (e.g., India, Iran,
and northern Nigeria, in which arranged marriages are still the norm) prefer to get
married and then take their time to “fall in love.” In these cultures, ingroup harmony
and cohesiveness are emphasized over individual needs and desires. From this par-
ticular communal-­relational value system, the value of intimacy or incremental love is
expressed through dedicated caregiving, doing things for one another, and long-term
reciprocal loyalty and trust (Kline, Horton, & Zhang, 2008). For some collectivistic
relational partners, the meaning of being in love takes long-term commitment and rela-
tional patience. During the intimacy development process, intercultural partners often
encounter different dialectical tensions between supporting their own cultural mem-
bership practice and that of their intimate partners (see Chapter 11).

Professional Role Identities

Role expectations and identity also intertwine in the global workforce. According to
Stohl, McCann, and Bakar (2013): “Globalization creates a work context in which social
identities, normative expectations, and societal institutions must continually be nego-
tiated as they can no longer remain spatially and communicatively distinct” (p. 731;
emphasis added). Norms refer to expectations about what “should or should not” hap-
pen in an interactive situation; they govern the interpretations of workplace roles,
responsibilities, accountability, and work and friendship boundary issues in the profes-
sional arena. Norms are prescriptive in nature and guided by the values and expectancy
66 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

standards of a cultural community. For example, in individualistic workplace organi-

zations, friendship and professional relationships should be compartmentalized and
clearly differentiated (e.g., in German and Swiss individualistic workplace environ-
ments). Friendship has to do with private interaction, whereas workplace relationships
should be kept professional and role specialized. In some collectivistic workplace com-
munities (e.g., in South Korea and Venezuela), close/intimate relationships and profes-
sional relationships are often commingled. Supervisors may play the benevolent big
brother/big sister roles, and the employees may also cover for their bosses when work-
place problems arise. Thus, friendship and professional relationships are intertwined,
and there is not necessarily a clear-cut professional boundary between them. Cultural
normative expectations also frame the interactional scripts of what constitute appro-
priate or effective behaviors in relation to one’s supervisors, colleagues, or employees.
However, in a global workplace, where members come from different cultural back-
grounds, their cultural–ethnic or gender identities shape their expectations and prefer-
ences for the various ways in which “individuals perform their roles and related to one
another . . . and various approaches to problem solving; and multiple instantiations of
spatial/temporal boundaries” (Stohl et al., 2013, p. 715).
Cultural values such as individualism–­collectivism and power distance (see Chap-
ter 6) undergird the interpretations of appropriate role performance of different actors
in a given intimate relationship or workplace setting. For role performance to be appro-
priate and effective, the actors need to internalize their role scripts for different situa-
tions and move forward strategically in order to achieve their intergroup–­interpersonal
communication goals. Beyond the emphasis on sociocultural memberships and/or
sociorelational role identity domains, individuals can also value their personal identity
attributes above and beyond the various social identity complexity categories.

Personal Identity Attributes

Beyond group membership identities, individuals develop distinctive personal identi-
ties owing to their unique life histories, experiences, and personality traits. We develop
our personal identities—­our conceptions of a “unique self”—through our observations
of our role models and our own drives and reinventions. Personal identity is defined as
the individual’s sentiments and information which form personal self-­images linked to
her or his unique personalities, drives, goals, dreams, and values. Personal identity can
have two facets: actual personal identity and desired personal identity.
On one hand, the term “actual personal identity” refers to those unique attributes
that an individual exhibits frequently and that are also perceived by others (e.g., traits
such as assertiveness, talkativeness, decisiveness). The labeling of such attributes may
vary markedly between one’s own perception and that of others (e.g., others may label
the self-­perception of being “decisive” as being “pushy”). The term “desired personal
identity,” on the other hand, refers to the preferred attributes that an individual con-
siders to be assets in an interaction (Cahn, 1987). The more others affirm such desired
identities in the interaction, the more the person feels that he or she is being understood,
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 67

respected, and supported. The premise of the identity negotiation approach rests on
the importance of supporting others’ desired, salient identities more than their actual
identities. Beyond actual and desired personal identity facets, we should also consider
specific personality trait factors in the identity negotiation process. To differentiate
trait-level analysis versus culture-­level analysis, Markus and Kitayama (1991) coined
the terms “independent construal of self” and “interdependent construal of self” (see
Chapter 6).
“Independent-­self” individuals tend to be motivated by personal goal achievements,
personal assertion, and personal fairness and rewards. Comparatively, “interdependent-­
self” individuals tend to be motivated by group-­oriented goal achievements, collec-
tive consensus, and ingroup harmony and rewards. According to past research, the
independent-­self pattern tends to predominate in individualistic cultures, and the
interdependent-­self pattern tends to predominate in collectivistic cultures (Triandis,
1995). Thus, on the one hand, on a desired identity level, independent-­self individuals
tend to strive for personal self-­esteem validation, such as by someone acknowledging
their unique attributes and distinctive competence. On the other hand, interdependent-­
self members strive for collective self-­esteem validation through their team effort and
collective group success. Moving beyond the discussion of desired personal identity
validation, the intercultural research literature also presents the study of individualized
personality traits such as horizontal versus vertical self (Triandis, 1995), uncertainty-­
oriented versus certainty-­oriented personality features (Sorrentino & Roney, 2012), and
internal versus external locus of control self (Rotter, 1966; Smith, Bond, & Kagitcibasi,
2006). These personal identity attributes are explored further in Chapter 6.

Symbolic Interaction Identities

All core composite identity domains are implicitly or explicitly expressed through sym-
bolic interaction. Symbolic interaction identity refers to the verbal and nonverbal com-
munication processes through which we acquire our reflective and desired self-­images
on group-based, relational role-based, and personal identity levels (Blumer, 1969;
Blumstein, 1991; Mead, 1934). Through our communication with others and the view-
points they embody and project, as well as through our understanding of the sociocul-
tural life around us, we develop our composite self-­conceptions. Symbolic interaction
consists of the exchange processes of distinctive verbal and nonverbal messages that
strategically express the composite self-­identity, the inferred composite other-­identity,
the ongoing relationship itself, and the situation. Distinctive verbal and nonverbal sym-
bolic cues serve as the emblems of our composite identities. For example, in Montreal,
Francophones prefer to use French to converse, whereas Anglophones prefer to use
English in their interactions. The language or dialect we use are social identity mark-
ers that reflect our group membership affiliation or a sense of membership pride and
solidarity. Additionally, individuals tend to use certain styles of linguistic and nonverbal
codes in relating with others to signal or minimize their group membership identity or
to project their personal self-­identity insignia (see Chapters 7 and 8).
68 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Individuals in all societies use ethnic-­based language and its distinctive accents,
archetypal verbal interaction styles, and emblematic nonverbal movements to manage
impressions, to persuade, to develop relationships, to seek approval and recognition,
and to evoke and elicit their desired identity motifs. These verbal and nonverbal pat-
terns tell others something about ourselves and how we want others to perceive us and
form impression of us. In the first few minutes (and some say in 7 seconds) of interac-
tion with cultural strangers, we form impressions of them, develop attraction or repul-
sion, and draw ingroup/outgroup boundaries based on respective symbolic interaction
identity assessments. Thus, in order to increase the likelihood of positive interaction
outcomes with unfamiliar others, we must become mindful of our own symbolic inter-
action process with cultural strangers and also continue to cultivate responsive interac-
tion with our professional colleagues and close friends.
In essence, IINT posits that the core processes of individuals’ reflective and
desired self-­conceptions—­whether the emphasis is on the social identity level or the
personal identity level, or both—are formed through strategic symbolic communica-
tion with others. It is through communication that we acquire our generalized views
of ourselves and others, and also particular ways of thinking about ourselves, our roles,
and others’ roles in different situations. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, in an
intergroup-­based relationship, we tend to pay selective attention to sociocultural group
membership markers or sociorelational role features of the individuals and, often, we
draw from our preconceived stereotyped categories, which may hamper a quality
intergroup rapport-­building process. In an interpersonal-­based relationship, we often
pay focused attention to the idiosyncratic traits or attributes of the particularized indi-
viduals, and we may neglect (or minimize) the salient social identity membership or
sociorelational role identity conceptions that are vital to our intergroup conversational
partners. We may also experience emotional vulnerability or communication appre-
hension owing to our lack of requisite communication skills to discuss or disclose social
identity or stigmatized membership identity issues with communicative ease or con-
fidence.
In actual intercultural–­intergroup encounters and interactions, both group-based
identity and individual-­based identity are manifested. Both social identity and sym-
bolic interaction theories, as well as the current IINT theoretical lens, make it clear
that the process of defining a personal self is inevitably a social process. No single
individual person on Planet Earth can develop a sense of self in a vacuum. Personal
identity attributes are developed in conjunction with sociocultural and sociorelational
role membership maturation; sociocultural and sociocultural relational role identities
also shape our personal identity conception and developmental growth. By mastering
the various knowledge blocks and tools related to the formation and expression of sym-
bolic interaction identity (e.g., see Chapters 7, 8, and 10), intergroup identity and inter-
personal identity perceptions/attributions (see Chapters 9 and 11), and the cultivation
of mindfulness (see Chapter 5), the deep mastery of the key premises and core identity
domains of the IINT will help you to become a more elastic and dynamic intercultural
and intergroup communicator in various sociocultural situations.
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 69

Complex Sociocultural Identity Intersection: A Summary

Individuals may change their conceptions of composite identities at different age brack-
ets, at different life stages, and with different life experiences. When one facet of our
self-­conception encounters stress (e.g., initial cultural identity shock in an overseas
assignment), other facets of our composite identity can experience the vibrations. A
threat to our cultural identity can be perceived as a threat to our personal self-­esteem
level. For example, saying to a non-­native speaker, “I don’t understand your heavy
accent. How did you ever get this job in the first place?” the hearer’s cultural identity
can be threatened, and simultaneously her or his personal self-­esteem level can plum-
met. Likewise, a perceived threat directed at our personal identity level can also evoke
defensive alarms in our other identity domains. For example, when someone says in a
belittling tone, “Are you sure you’re competent enough to handle this job yourself?” the
hearer’s personal self-­esteem level can suffer, and he or she may also wonder whether
the speaker is acting out of racist or sexist bias.
While some core sociocultural identities and family role identities, for example,
are culturally bound and scripted to a high degree, other core identities (e.g., invisible
stigmatized identities) and professional roles are vastly situational-­dependent phenom-
ena. Dependent on the configuration of the skillful conversation negotiation processes,
interaction goal movements, individual wants and needs, and their roles/statuses and
interaction activities in the situation, some core identities are fairly malleable and adap-
tive, while other identities are more entrenched, rooted, and internalized. People bring
many social identities (e.g., social class, sexual orientation, age, disability and others)
into an interaction. In this book, however, we emphasize the core composite identity
domains as constituting the nucleus of the identity negotiation framework. Having dis-
cussed the sociocultural identity, sociorelational role identity, personal identity, and
symbolic interaction identity domains, we now turn to a discussion of some mindful
guidelines in promoting intercultural–­intergroup communication identity awareness.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

I n this chapter, we emphasized and discussed the identity perspective for responsive
identity negotiation in intercultural–­intergroup engagement settings. We started off
with a discussion of the functional/social scientific, humanistic/interpretive, and criti-
cal paradigms used in intercultural and cross-­cultural communication research stud-
ies. We highlighted both the strengths and limitations of each paradigm. Against this
backdrop, we proffered an integrative theorizing effort to synthesize intercultural and
intergroup perspectives using the updated version of IINT as an exemplar that has also
drawn much from both functional and interpretive paradigms.
We discussed IINT’s key assumptions and research works guided by it. Following
this discussion, we extensively discussed core composite identity domains, splitting it
into four categories: sociocultural membership, socio­relational role identity, personal
70 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

identity attributes, and symbolic interaction identity. In our daily social interactions,
we face both the challenges and excitements involved in managing and conducting
identity negotiation work on these various identity domains: cultural identity, ethnic
identity, religious/spiritual identity, gender identity, stigmatized social identity (all of
these are subsumed under sociocultural membership), family role identity, intergen-
erational role identity, intimate-­relationship role identity, workplace/professional role
identity (all of these are subsumed under sociorelational role identity), and personal
identity attributes. In order to manage any of these identity domains competently,
mindfulness is a key connective factor (see Chapter 5) in prompting the development
of identity-­sensitive knowledge and also practicing culturally responsive symbolic com-
munication with others in order to build deeper engagement with unfamiliar others
and promote quality intergroup interactions. We encourage intercultural–­intergroup
strangers to consider the following mindful guidelines drawn from the chapter:

1 Besocio­mindful of how both self and others’ sociocultural membership identity,

relational role identity, and personal identity are influencing our inter-
group perceptions, relationships, and communication dynamics in a given situ-
ation. Communication shifts between these tripartite identity management and
how we pay mindful attention to these intersecting identity domains will affect the
interactional process and outcome.

2 Beidentity
mindfully attuned to the core composite identity or a combination of the
domains (e.g., culture identity, religious identity, and professional role
identity) that is being accentuated in a social interaction and is also intentionally
changing the dynamics of communication via personal identity connection (prim-
ing personal identity) and vice versa. Mindful attunement means really listening
and reflecting deeply to the repeated vocabulary that your speaker is using and
being more intentional in developing communication competence.

3 Beratherawareare that the core composite identity domains are not fixed or static but
dynamic in nature; they provide both self and others a wide range of
options for identity connection and identity negotiation.

4 Byedge,wayflexible
of mindfulness, we can acquire and utilize culture-­sensitive knowl-
attitudes, and versatile skillsets so that we can competently
negotiate intercultural–­ intergroup relationships, conflicts, and communication
while demonstrating respect, identity affirmation and support, together with vora-
cious curiosity to learn and appreciate each other’s identity domains and cultural
resources.

5 Researchers should be mindful of ethnocentrism with regard to each of the

three paradigms and should be ethnorelative in giving at least the benefit
of the doubt to a contending paradigm to provide alternative or complementary
insights into intercultural and intergroup communication learning.
 Intercultural–Intergroup Engagement 71

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. Let’s revisit Stella’s story, which reflects her core composite identity domains and
social identity complexity. Using each of the three paradigms—­functional/social sci-
entific, narrative/interpretive, and critical/social justice—­what insights can you pro-
vide about Stella’s identity negotiation outlook in her U.S. adjustment experience?
Can you identify dialectical themes such as security–­vulnerability and inclusion–­
exclusion in Stella’s story? In what ways does identity negotiation theory enable you
to understand Stella’s social identity complexity or that of your own complex identity
negotiation navigation?

2. Of the 10 key assumptions from the IINT, which three key assumptions resonate with
you? How so and why?

3. Which identity domain is more important to you at this stage of your life: sociocul-
tural identity, sociorelational role identity, and/or personal identity? Does your socio-
cultural and sociorelational role identity shape your everyday communication more
so than personal identity, or vice versa? Can you offer some concrete examples?

4. What are your experiences of communicating with individuals from stigmatized

group memberships such as people with disabilities?

5. If you’re interested in studying the topic of “Peace Corps volunteers’ intercultural

adjustment process overseas,” can you articulate the researcher’s standpoint and
emphasis from each paradigm: functionalist paradigm, interpretive paradigm, and
critical paradigm? What would you be interested in theorizing and studying about?

6. Each research paradigm has its own identity and parameter. What do you think are
the future trends of each paradigm? Convergence or divergence of perspectives?
Argue for your point of view.
 C H A P TE R 3

Sojourners’ Culture Shock

and Intercultural Adjustment Patterns

„„Introduction
„„Different Types of Sojourners: Motivations and Expectations
††Adjustment Motivations and Expectations
††International Students and Cultural Exchange Student Sojourners
††Global Workplace Transferees and Global Mobility Families
††Third-Culture Kids/Global Nomads
††Tourists as Short-Term Sojourners
„„Culture Shock: Conceptualization and Implications
††Culture Shock: An ABC Model
††The Pros and Cons of Culture Shock: Implications
„„Navigating Intercultural Adjustment: Underlying Factors and Models
††Underlying Factors
††Intercultural Adjustment Models: Developmental Patterns
„„Reentry Culture Shock: Surprises and Resocialization
††Surprising Elements
††Resocialization: Profiles of Different Returnees
††Where Is Home?
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

C ulture S hock : A C up of T ea I nterview Case S tory

My first visit abroad was to Missoula, Montana. I was a visiting Tibetan Buddhist Scholar
at a small Tibetan Buddhist Center. One day Carleen, my friend, took me to Starbucks in
the downtown. I had to go through an interview to get a cup of tea! I stood in the line to

72
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 73

order a cup of tea, and the girl at the counter asked me, “What kind of tea?” She listed
a couple of teas, including herb tea that I had no clue about. She had no Lipton Tea,
which I wanted, so I settled for English Breakfast Tea. I assumed she would provide milk
in my tea, but she did not. So I asked for milk to which she said, “Do you want half and
half, whole milk, or 2 percent?” I had never heard these choices in my life so I asked for
regular milk. She looked baffled and waited for my answer. I looked at Carleen, who
said half and half would be fine. I like sweet tea so I asked if I can get some sugar,
and she asked me, “Would you like sweetener or this or that?” I had no idea of all these
choices so I said, “Sugar, please.” Finally, I sat at a table with Carleen who had gotten
her coffee. When Carleen finished her coffee, the girl refilled her cup, but she did not
ask me if I wanted more tea. I said, “Could you give me some more tea?” She said, “You
need to pay first.” I was a bit shocked and frustrated. I told Carleen that I would rather
buy tea materials and make good tea for myself than go through this “tea interview and
discrimination experience.” We both had a good laugh. She took me to Safeway to buy
tea materials, and I could enjoy my tea in peace. In India, “tea” or “chai” means black
tea leaves or tea dust cooked in boiled water with real milk and sugar. Being a newbie
in this strange land, I did not know all the American options for tea and milk and sugar
varieties!

—Tenzin Dorjee, college instructor

Introduction

Millions of individuals cross cultural boundaries every year to study, to work, to engage
in government service, and to volunteer their time in global humanitarian work. When
individuals move from their home cultures to a new culture, they bring with them
their cultural habits, familiar scripts, and interaction routines. For the most part, these
home-based cultural habits may produce unintended clashes in the new culture due to
dissimilarity and unfamiliarity of foreign language usage, nonverbal situational enact-
ment, and contrastive value assumptions. If you are visiting or sojourning to a new cul-
ture for the first time, it is likely that you will experience some degree of cultural shock.
Tenzin’s “Tea Interview” case story is simple, yet insightful, about his culture
shock experience in Missoula, Montana. What do you think about his culture shock
experience? In India, tea stalls are everywhere just like Starbucks in the United States.
In India, you can simply ask for tea, and it is prepared with black tea, milk, and sugar;
hardly any questions are asked about tea preference. Would you be shocked if you were
given sweet-milky tea without being asked first about your preferences for tea, milk,
and sugar? Tenzin grew up on a farmland with cows. and they made tea with fresh milk
from their cows. He had no concept of different types of milk as found in the United
States, and he probably considers 2% milk, which lacks rich, creamy taste, to be more
like water than milk.
74 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Culture shock is about the stress and the feeling of disorientation you experience
in a new culture. The tropical hot weather, crowded public transportation, hustle and
bustle of street life, bargaining prices of goods and services, and the need to navigate
your way through alleys and backstreets can at times be overwhelming and emotionally
draining. Even if you do not plan to go overseas to work in the next few years, interna-
tional classmates and coworkers may be sitting right next to you—­working side by side
with you. Today, even social media can bring cultural shock experiences (e.g., shocking
images and YouTube postings, and culturally insensitive comments) to your home or
almost anywhere you are on your iPhone, laptop, and tablet.
You may also experience culture shock when you move away from home and live
on your own for the first time or move from the East Coast to the West Coast of your
country. You may also experience culture shock when you switch jobs or schools. By
learning more in depth about your own and others’ culture shock experiences, you can
be better prepared for the unanticipated culture shock and up-and-down adjustment
processes. In this chapter, you can acquire some culture shock vocabulary, models,
and strategies to help to buffer your own or your friend’s culture shock experiences
and increase your cultural adroitness in dealing with an unfamiliar cultural turf. This
chapter asks four questions: Who are the sojourners crossing cultural boundaries on the
global level? What is culture shock? Can we track meaningful factors and patterns of
the intercultural adjustment process? What are some surprises awaiting the returnees
as they return home?
The chapter is developed in five sections. First, we set the background context
of adjustment motivations and expectations of different types of sojourners; we also
discuss some characteristics of cultural exchange college students, global workplace
transferees, third-­culture kids/global nomads, and tourists as short-term sojourners.
Second, we address the conceptualization of the affective–­behavioral–­cognitive model
of culture shock, and analyze the pros and cons of culture shock. Third, we explain
the factors that impact the culture shock roller-­coaster experience and explore two
intercultural adjustment models that have intuitive appeals to many sojourners or inter-
national students who cross cultural boundaries. Fourth, we examine the surprising
elements of reentry culture shock and different returnees’ resocialization processes and
end with the question: “Where is home?” In the last section, we summarize the key
ideas in the chapter and offer a set of mindful guidelines for the sojourners to derive
optimal benefits and rewards in their sojourning experiences.

Different Types of Sojourners:

Motivations and Expectations

Indeed, millions of international students, cultural exchange students, and teachers,

artists, scientists, and businesspeople go to the four corners of the earth to learn, teach,
perform, experiment, serve, and conduct business. People experience culture shock
whenever they uproot themselves from a familiar setting and move to an unfamiliar one
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 75

(e.g., relocating from Odensk, Denmark, to Shanghai, China, or making the transition
as a high school senior to a college freshman). Culture shock is unavoidable, but how
we manage it will determine the adaptive process and outcome. Culture shock is, first
and foremost, an emotional experience. Intense emotions are involved in combination
with behavioral confusion and inability to think clearly. Both short-term sojourners and
long-term immigrants can experience culture shock at different stages of their adapta-
tion.
Sojourners such as cultural exchange students, businesspersons, diplomats, For-
eign Service officers, journalists, military personnel, missionaries, and Peace Corps
volunteers often enact temporary resident roles with a short to medium span of stay in
the new country destinations. While sojourners often refer to individuals who stay in a
new culture (this can be anywhere from a 6-month to a 5-year period) and then return
home (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001), expatriates are individuals who move to
a “foreign land” and initially have no clear intention to stay but, nevertheless, stay in
their foreign abodes for a much longer duration or for an unspecified period of time.
Comparatively, immigrants are individuals who have made the commitment to move
from their original homelands and intend to take up permanent residence and eventual
citizenship in their adopted homelands (see Chapter 4). In this section, we discuss the
general motivations and expectations of the sojourners in traveling overseas, and we
also identify the profiles of the three types of sojourners: international students and
cultural exchange sojourners, international workplace sojourners, and tourists.

Adjustment Motivations and Expectations

Sojourners’ motivational orientation to leave their home countries and enter a new
culture has a profound influence on their culture shock attitudes. Individuals with vol-
untary motivations (e.g., Peace Corps volunteers) to leave a familiar culture and enter
a new cultural experience tend to manage their culture shock experience more effec-
tively than do individuals with involuntary motivations (e.g., refugees). Furthermore,
sojourners (e.g., international students, tourists) encounter less conformity pressure
than do immigrants because of their temporary visiting role. Host cultures often extend
a friendlier welcome to sojourners than to immigrants or refugees. Thus, sojourners
tend to perceive their overall international stay as more pleasant and the local hosts as
friendlier than do immigrants or refugees.
Furthermore, their motivational orientation can be understood from their success
or failure in achieving an instrumental goal, a socioemotional goal, or a combination
of the two. Instrumental goals refer to task-based or business or academic goals that
sojourners would like to accomplish during their stay in a foreign country. For example,
military personnel are often posted overseas for shorter “tours of duty” and have a
specific mission or task-based goal to accomplish during their sojourn. Socioemotional
goals refer to relational, recreational, and personal development goals during their
sojourning experience. A tourist, for example, may seek out a socioemotional sightsee-
ing goal and sample the local cultural scenes, people, and cuisines as their foci. A mixed
76 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

motivational goal orientation connotes the importance of both pursuing an instrumen-

tal goal and experiencing cultural enjoyment and a relationship rapport-­building goal.
Thus, a Peace Corps volunteer might take an overseas assignment for two years for
instrumental service and also seek out relational/personal enrichment satisfaction. Fur-
thermore, a businessperson with family might accept an international posting for a
medium-­term stay and strive to reach for the mixed motivational goal orientation. A
missionary might also stay for a longer period of time in his or her new assignment and
hope to satisfy both task-based and socioemotional motivational goals.
Personal expectations have long been viewed as a crucial factor in the culture
shock management process. Expectations refer to the anticipatory process and predic-
tive outcome of the upcoming situation. Two observations have often been associated
with such expectations: The first is that realistic expectations facilitate intercultural
adaptation, and the second is that accuracy-­based positive expectations ease adaptation
stress (Pitts, 2009). Individuals with realistic expectations are psychologically prepared
to deal with actual adaptation problems more than are individuals with unrealistic
expectations. Furthermore, individuals with positive expectations tend to create posi-
tive self-­fulfilling prophecies in their successful adaptation (e.g., believing relocation is
a great move as well as a positive adventure and growth experience); negative expecta-
tions (e.g., loneliness and unwelcoming hosts) tend to produce the opposite effect.
Most international students tend to carry positive expectation images concerning
their anticipated sojourn in the new culture (Sias et al., 2008). Overall, realistic and
positively oriented expectancy images of the new culture can help to facilitate inter-
cultural adjustment for both business and student sojourners. Expectations influence
newcomers’ mind-sets, sentiments, and behaviors. A positively resilient mind-set helps
to balance the negative stressors that a newcomer may encounter in her or his adaptive
efforts.

International Students and Cultural Exchange Student Sojourners

According to the latest UNESCO—­Institute for Statistics Report (UNESCO, 2016),
about 4.1 million students worldwide have chosen to study outside their countries. The
top five sending countries are China, India, France, the United States, and Saudi Ara-
bia. The top five destination hosting countries are the United States, United Kingdom,
Australia, France, and Ireland. Right now, there are approximately 975,000 interna-
tional students studying in different U.S. colleges with the explicit aim of getting their
college degrees here. They also bring $24.7 billion into the U.S. economy via out-of-
state tuition and living expenses.
The top five countries sending international students to the United States are
China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Canada (Institute of International Edu-
cation, 2016). Indeed, well-over 50% of international students studying in various U.S.
colleges are of collectivistic cultural backgrounds. They are also studying in the fields of
business and management, engineering, and math and computer science. The top three
hosting U.S. states are California, New York, and Texas.
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 77

Comparatively, there are approximately 305,000 U.S. students nationwide who

embark on short-term (summer or 8-week program), midlength (one semester or 1–2
quarters), or long-term (one academic year) study abroad programs. The favorite study
abroad destinations of U.S. college students are the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain,
France, and China (IEE, 2016). The students surveyed cited personal growth, new per-
spectives on world affairs, and career enhancement as some of the reasons for opting
to go abroad to study. Beyond instrumental goals, international students and cultural
exchange sojourners also emphasize the importance of pursuing socioemotional goals
or fun activities, such as developing new friendships with the local students and hosts,
visiting local marketplaces and museums, and learning about local histories, sports, and
folk crafts.

Global Workplace Transferees and Global Mobility Families

With growing new global markets, the greater economic affluence of developing coun-
tries, and the accelerated demographic changes in different cultural regions, there is
a high flux of global workplace transferees who move across multiple country borders.
According to Gundling and Kaleel (2015), working abroad is one of the ways to develop
effective global leadership skills. They identified the following as part of the transfer-
ees’ international assignments: to establish a new country operation, to lead an estab-
lished subsidiary, to transfer knowledge or skills, and/or to lead or complete a technical
report project. They also noted contemporary global assignment trends: (1) employees
from locations such as China, India, Brazil, or the Middle East relocated to headquar-
tered countries; (2) transferees tasked with growing operations in other fast-­growth
markets (Africa, South and Central Asia); (3) professional workers who are transferred
as skilled yet inexpensive talents to aid new workplace operations; (4) third-­country
assignments and traveling between multiple subsidiary locations; (5) an increased num-
ber of women assignments and dual-­career assignments; and (6) the rise of short-term,
frequent-­traveler project assignments due to personal or family reasons and the employ-
ees cannot live abroad for a longer duration.
For those global employees who brought family members with them, Copeland
(2015) observed some of the challenges and rewards awaiting them in their overseas
assignments. Culture shock challenges can include the following: (1) family boundary
disruption due to a sense of disconnection from their respective extended family sys-
tems; (2) a strong sense of loneliness and not knowing whom to turn to for support or
being disoriented by the sudden presence of maids, nannies, drivers, and nosy neigh-
bors; and (3) change of family roles due to the relocation process and also a change in
the income status of one spouse, thereby compounding the other spouse’s loss of pro-
fessional identity. However, the rewards in managing culture shock as a family system
include: (1) family members develop a broad, multidimensional worldview and become
more socially attuned and adaptable; (2) the opportunity arises to rear bilingual or mul-
tilingual children in foreign countries and enhance their metalinguistic skills such as
flexible perception and creative problem-­solving outlook; and (3) the chance to become
78 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

effective intercultural bridge-­builders in conflict situations and mediate misunderstand-

ings and culture clashes with cultural sensitivity. Some of the key factors that affect a
family’s satisfying versus dissatisfying sojourn in another country have been identified
as follows: the spouse’s interest and willingness to relocate; active involvement of the
spouse in planning the move; strong support for children’s education overseas; a strong
social network support abroad; and instrumental and socioemotional support via sound
intercultural communication training for the entire family system (Copeland, 2015).

Third‑Culture Kids/Global Nomads

Third-­culture kids (TCKs) and global nomads (GNs) are individuals who have been
raised internationally usually because of a parent’s overseas occupation. Such overseas
assignment occupations or professions can include international business employee
kids, international education teachers’ kids, diplomatic employees’ kids, military kids,
nongovernmental organization (NGO) employees’ kids, and missionary kids. More spe-
cifically, the terms “TCKs” and “GNs” are used “interchangeably to describe people of
any age or nationality who have lived a significant part of their developmental years out-
side their passport country(ies) because of a parent’s occupation” (Schaetti, 2015, p. 798).
Developmentally, the primary socialization age range between 2 and 7 appears to
be a critical period wherein the child acquires a sense of world awareness or a more fluid
global identity. High mobility and the readiness for change appear to be the hallmark
characteristics of TCKs or ATCKs (adult TCKs). In addition, the term “cross-­cultural
kids” (CCKs) has been used to describe children of intercultural-­international families,
such as bicultural/biracial kids or adopted kids from another culture and immigrant
children. Through bicultural or multicultural immersive socialization processes, some
of these children have also developed some TCKs’ traits.
While TCKs and GNs have to deal with some challenging identity issues growing
up (e.g., not feeling fully rooted in one place; losing friends and anchoring family mem-
bers in one integrative spatial locale; and an uncertain and unpredictable home-based
future), they also tend to possess the following global-­minded tendencies: panoramic
observational skills, a multidimensional worldview, socially astute interpersonal com-
munication skills, and sensitive intercultural mediation skills in handling different con-
flict situations.

Tourists as Short‑Term Sojourners

Over the past six decades, tourism has experienced rapid expansion and diversification
to the tune of U.S. $1245 billion in 2014 (United Nations World Tourist Organization—­
UNWTO—­Annual Report 2015 (UNWTO, 2016). Indeed, tourism and intergroup–­
intercultural contact has become one of the fastest and largest economic sectors in the
world. Tourists are individuals who depart their normal place of residence and volun-
tarily visit another country or multiple countries for a short-time duration and for non-
work-­related purposes such as leisure, recreation, relaxation, enjoyment, and novelty
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 79

(Harris, 2015). Every year, more than one billion tourists across the globe travel to some
far-flung tourist destinations to enjoy, relax, and daydream.
According to the latest United Nations World Tourist Organization (UNWTO)
Report (UNWTO, 2016), international tourist arrivals grew by 4.4% in 2015 and
reached a new height of an estimated 1.184 billion international tourist arrivals. The
top five international tourism destinations in 2015 were France, United States, Spain,
China, and Italy. China remained the top tourism source market. Chinese tourists con-
tributed an estimated U.S. $165 billion worldwide during their recreational sojourning
experience, while U.S. tourists spent an estimated $111 billion and German tourists
around $92 billion.
Most tourists usually do have a fun-­filled, relaxed time during their trips, especially
when their socioemotional goals of enjoying a new culture and sampling different local
scenes have been met. However, when unpredictable events occur in an unfamiliar cul-
ture, such as theft of one’s passport, or a sudden health issue, the negative expectancy
violations may jolt the visiting tourist from a leisurely mood to a defensive–­ethnocentric
posture. Ward and Berno (2011), in a unique tourism survey (N = 663 research partici-
pants), conducted a research project that focused on the reactions of two host countries
to tourism. Using integrated threat theory as an explanatory framework, they probed the
intergroup perceptions and attitudes of the host residents (i.e., Fijians and New Zealand-
ers) toward incoming tourists. They found that while the Fijians were receptive to tour-
ists in high-­density tourism areas with regard to relative economic benefits, they showed
ambivalence on the personal contact satisfaction criterion. With respect to the intergroup
contact hypothesis, the more the New Zealand residents had positive contacts with the
incoming tourists interpersonally, the more their negative stereotypes diminished and
their positive attitudes toward the influx of visitors increased. In the give-and-take of the
intercultural adjustment process, both visitors and host nationals also seem to experience
some form of culture shock, as well as “identity defensiveness” based on perceived unfa-
miliarity, dissimilarity, and cultural and intergroup attitudinal distance.

Culture Shock: Conceptualization and Implications

An anthropologist named Kalervo Oberg (1960) coined the term “culture shock” over
five decades ago. He believed that culture shock produces an identity disorientation
state, which can bring about tremendous stress and pressure on an individual’s well-
being. Culture shock involves (1) a sense of identity loss and identity deprivation with
regard to values, status, profession, friends, and possessions; (2) identity strain as a result
of the effort required to make necessary psychological adaptations; (3) identity rejection
by members of the new culture; (4) identity confusion, especially regarding role ambi-
guity and unpredictability; and (5) identity powerlessness as a result of an inability to
cope with the new environment (Furnham, 1988). An identity disorientation state and
a sense of isolated vulnerability (in accordance with the integrative INT; see Chapter 2)
is part of the culture shock experience.
80 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Culture shock basically refers to a stressful transitional period that occurs when
individuals move from a familiar to an unfamiliar environment for a short, medium,
or long-term duration. In this unfamiliar cultural environment, the individual’s iden-
tity appears to be stripped of all protection. Previously familiar cues and scripts are
suddenly inoperable in the new cultural setting. In this regard, Ward, Bochner, and
Furnham (2001) discuss the ABCs of culture shock in terms of affective, behavioral, and
cognitive disorientation dimensions.

Culture Shock: An ABC Model

According to Ward (2015; Ward et al., 2001), culture shock and its accompanying inter-
cultural adjustment process can be understood by considering the three components of
the ABC (affective–­behavioral–­cognitive) model. Affectively, sojourners in the initial
culture shock stage often experience anxiety, bewilderment, confusion, disorientation,
and perplexity as well as an intense desire to be elsewhere. However, culture shock
is viewed as a normal affective phenomenon in dealing with change and challenge in
the new environment. Personality traits such as emotional stability and socioemotional
outreach skills such as developing close social network support may help to moderate
such initial strains and stress (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2013). Behaviorally,
sojourners are at the confusion stage in terms of the conventions, norms, and rules that
guide communication appropriateness and effectiveness. They are often at a loss in
terms of how to initiate and maintain smooth conversations with their hosts and how
to conduct themselves properly with correct nonverbal cadences. Sojourners at this
stage need to master culture-­specific communication skills to operate appropriately
and effectively in the new cultural arena. Cognitively, they lack the cultural interpre-
tive competence to explain many of the “bizarre” behaviors that are occurring in their
unfamiliar cultural settings. In the opening story, Tenzin affectively experienced anxi-
ety and bewilderment when confronted with a tea interview. Behaviorally, he did not
know how to respond to the tea interview questions. Cognitively, he lacked the ability
to make sense of different types of tea and milk. In particular, he could not understand
why a tea drinker must pay for more tea but a coffee drinker could get a free refill. In
his confusion over the tea versus coffee refill, he even joked with his friend Carleen
concerning the meaning of the American equality principle. The sojourners now need
to dig deep into the explanatory framework of value dimensions in the new cultural sys-
tem and “make sense” of the wildly dissimilar behaviors with new schematic categories
and understanding. This “cultural sense-­making process,” or the construction of “iso-
morphic attribution,” demands an open mind-set and an ethnorelative, nonjudgmental
lens. Isomorphic attribution means the capacity to come up with a similar “reasoning
schema” to explain the observed problematic incident as an insider would in the new
culture (Triandis, 1995).
Culture shock is sparked by the anxiety that results from losing all one’s familiar
signs and symbols of everyday social interaction. These signs or cues include “a thou-
sand and one ways in which we orient ourselves to the situations of daily life: when to
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 81

shake hands and what to say when we meet people, when and how to give tips” (Boch-
ner, 1986, p. 48). We, of course, have repeated practice in these interactions in our own
culture, but we are not aware of how much we take these interactions for granted until
we are away from our native culture. Only when we start feeling inept in the new cul-
tural environment and our peace of mind is suddenly shattered do we begin to realize
the importance of intercultural learning and the development of intercultural compe-
tence skillsets (Berg & Paige, 2009).

The Pros and Cons of Culture Shock: Implications

Culture shock can have both positive and negative implications. The negative implica-
tions involve three major issues: (1) psychosomatic problems (e.g., headaches, stomach-
aches) caused by prolonged stress; (2) affective upheavals consisting of feelings of loneli-
ness, isolation, depression, drastic mood swings, and interaction awkwardness caused
by the inability to perform optimally in the new language; and (3) cognitive exhaustion
caused by difficulty in making accurate attributions.
If managed effectively, however, culture shock can have positive effects, notably:
(1) a sense of well-being and heightened positive self-­esteem, emotional richness, and
enhanced tolerance for ambiguity; (2) behavioral competence in social interaction,
cognitive openness, and flexibility; and (3) increased optimism about self, others, and
everyday surroundings. Culture shock creates an environment and an opportunity for
individuals to experiment with new ideas and coping behaviors. It critically challenges
individuals to stretch beyond the usual boundaries of thinking and experiencing.
New arrivals can defuse their perceived threat and, hence, their anxiety level by
(1) increasing their motivations to learn about the new culture; (2) keeping their expec-
tations realistic and becoming more familiar with the new culture (e.g., conducting
culture-­specific research through readings and diverse accurate sources, including
talking with people who have spent some time in that culture); (3) increasing their
linguistic fluency and learning why, how, and under what situations certain phrases or
gestures are appropriate, plus understanding the core cultural values linked to specific
behaviors; (4) working on their tolerance for ambiguity and other flexible personal attri-
butes; (5) developing both strong ties (close friends) and weak ties (acquaintanceships)
to manage identity stress and loneliness; and (6) being mindful of their interpersonal
behaviors and suspending ethnocentric evaluations of the host culture.

Navigating Intercultural Adjustment:

Underlying Factors and Models

The following factors have been found to influence why individuals manage their cul-
ture shock experience differently: cultural distance, multicultural personality trait
dimensions, psychological adjustment, sociocultural adjustment, and communication
competence. Being a first-time novice traveler or a seasoned globetrotter will make a
82 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

significant difference in someone’s sojourning experience overseas. Furthermore, the

magnitude of cultural distance may be key in shaping an individual’s initial culture
shock experience in the unfamiliar culture.

Underlying Factors
Sojourners tend to encounter more severe culture shock when there is a large cul-
tural distance between their home cultures and the host society. Cultural distance
factors can include differences in cultural values, language, verbal styles, nonverbal
gestures, learning styles, decision-­making approaches, and conflict negotiation styles,
as well as in religious, sociopolitical, and economic systems. Interestingly, however,
when sojourners expect low cultural distance (e.g., Koreans traveling to Vietnam or
U.S. Americans traveling to western European countries), they may actually encounter
more intercultural frustrations or cultural buzz. Because of this “assumed similarity”
factor, cultural differences may be glossed over; guests may overlook the vast differ-
ences in political, business, or communication practices. They may start using biased
intergroup attributions and engage in disparaging remarks about the “backwardness”
or the “uncivilized manners” of their new cultural hosts. From the standpoint of per-
ceived similarity of language/culture (e.g., the British dealing with Aussies in Australia;
Colombians dealing with Mexicans in Mexico), for example, sojourners may hold on
to their initial ethnocentrism in their interactions with their local country hosts. Both
hosts and guests may experience increased intergroup frustrations without realizing
that they are caught up in an understated culture clash spiral and that they are seeing
things from their mindless, reactive ethnocentric lenses.
Sojourners can also encounter emotional frustrations and dissonances based on
their personality traits and competence orientations. According to Leong (2007) and
Van Oudenhoven and Van der Zee (2002), the following five personality traits predicted
competent or incompetent adjustment in international students and professionals in
11 countries: emotional stability, flexibility, open-­mindedness, cultural empathy, and
social initiative. Two higher-­order factors emerged that grouped emotional stability
and flexibility as a “stress-­buffering competence” factor and open-­mindedness, cultural
empathy, and social initiative as a “social-­perceptual competence” factor.
Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2013) explained that in the initial culture shock
stage, stress-­buffering traits such as emotional stability and flexible tendency can help
protect newcomers against the sense of loss of control and the feeling of uncertainty
in the unfamiliar culture. In subsequent developmental adjustment stages, social-­
perceptual competence traits such as open-­mindedness, cultural empathy, and social
initiative can help sojourners to acquire the new local language, construct alternative
cultural meanings, enjoy everyday local scenes, and finally reach out and befriend local
host nationals in a meaningful way.
In addition to the five multicultural personality traits discussed, other particu-
lar personality traits such as high tolerance for ambiguity (i.e., high acceptance of
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 83

ambiguous situations), internal locus of control (i.e., inner-­directed drives and motiva-
tions), and self-­efficacy mastery can contribute to generally good adjustment and posi-
tive psychological well-being. Interestingly, Ward (2004) also suggests a “cultural fit”
proposition, which emphasizes the importance of a good match between personality
types (e.g., extraversion and introversion) in the sojourners and host cultural norms.
For example, we can speculate that independent-­self sojourners may be more com-
patible with individualistic cultural norms, whereas interdependent-­ self sojourn-
ers may be more compatible with collectivistic cultural norms. On the one hand, the
independent-­self personality basically prioritizes personal self-­interest and self-need
over other-­oriented interest or desire. The interdependent-­self personality, on the other
hand, tends to stress other-­oriented or group-based interest above and beyond own
self-­interest and own self-need (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1994a, 1994b). By the same
token, biconstrual individuals (with a balanced self-­construal of independence and
interdependence self-­construals) may fit well into both individualistic and collectivistic
cultures. The synchronized match between a particular personality type and the larger
cultural norms produces a “goodness of fit” and possibly cultivates a positive adaptive
experience for the visiting residents.
In addition, Ward (2004) identified two adjustment strategies that sojourners can
use to deal constructively with their new cultural milieu: psychological adjustment and
sociocultural adjustment. Psychological adjustment refers to feelings of well-being and
satisfaction during cross-­cultural transitions (Ward et al., 2001). Chronic strain, low
self-­esteem, and low mastery have a direct effect on adjustment depression. As the
cultural distance widens and the stress level increases, newcomers must use different
strategies to deal with such differences.
To counteract psychological stress, researchers recommend the use of positive self-
talk strategies and positive situational appraisal strategies (Chang, Chua, & Toh, 1997;
Cross, 1995). Positive self-talk strategies (e.g., giving yourself a pat on the back for being
adaptive in the new culture) and rewarding yourself with a nice treat (e.g., for master-
ing the intricacies of saying “no” in the new culture without actually using the word
“no!”) are two good self-­validation strategies to keep in mind. A sense of light-­hearted
humor in laughing at your own cultural faux pas or missteps and taking oneself lightly
in a stressful situation can also help to create more positive momentum and enlight-
ened energy. Constructive incremental steps in moving forward psychologically can
strengthen self-­confidence and personal resilience.
Positive situational appraisal strategies also involve changing perceptions and
interpretations of stressful events or situations. For example, you can talk yourself into
taking more Italian-­speaking classes from the “seemingly mean” teacher and reframe
the harsh situation from the new viewpoint that the same teacher is caring and actually
helping you to master your Italian faster than the “nice” teacher. For example, in many
traditional Asian cultures, such as Tibetan and Indian cultures, teachers are purpose-
fully very strict and adopt stern looks in order to reflect their care and the seriousness
of their profession’s mission to discipline their students. Research indicates that the use
84 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

of cognitive coping strategies (i.e., positive self-talk and situational reinterpretation)

is associated with lower levels of perceived stress and fewer symptoms of depression
in East Asian students in Singapore (Ward, 2004). Thus, cognitive reframing appears
to soften the psychological stress level for East Asian students who are attempting to
adapt to a new cultural environment. The nature of the stressful event and the degree
of control and success that students can assert with regard to the distressing situation
may explain this finding. Beyond the use of psychological adjustment strategies in the
new cultural setting, individuals can also pay more attention to the sociocultural adjust-
ment factor.
Sociocultural adjustment refers to the ability of the newcomer to fit in and execute
appropriate and effective interactions in their everyday lives in a new cultural envi-
ronment (Ward et al., 2001). It can include factors such as the quality or quantity of
relations with host nationals and the length of residence in the host country (Gareis,
2000; Kudo & Simkin, 2003; Mortensen, Burleson, Feng, & Liu, 2009). International
students, for example, report greater satisfaction with their host culture when host
nationals take the initiative to befriend them. International students’ friendship net-
works typically consist of the following: (1) a primary, monocultural friendship network
that consists of close friendships with other compatriots from similar ethnic/cultural
backgrounds (e.g., Nigerian international students developing friendship ties with other
African students) (Brown, 2009; Matusitz, 2005); (2) a bicultural network that consists
of social bonds between sojourners and host nationals, whereby professional aspirations
and goals are pursued (Holmes, 2005; Lee, 2006); and (3) a multicultural network that
consists of acquaintances from diverse cultural groups for recreational activities (Furn-
ham & Bochner, 1982). Research further indicates that greater sociocultural adjust-
ment and social support in the new cultural environment are associated with lower
levels of depression and hopelessness in international students (Lee, 2006, 2008; Lin,
2006; Paige & Goode, 2009).
In heeding the call from Shuter’s (2012) critique that the current literature lacks
information on how different forms of new media shape the international sojourners’
adjustment process, Ju, Jia, and Shoham (2016) investigated the use of new media by
Chinese international students and their adjustment process in the United States. In
the research study, Chinese international students completed a questionnaire about
their sociocultural adaptation and logged into their diary details on how much and how
they communicated with their local hosts. On average, they were found to communi-
cate with their hosts 1 hour and 18 minutes on a daily basis via social media, including
Facebook and Twitter; the majority of this time involved browsing other individuals’
social statuses and interactions on Facebook and Twitter. According to Ju et al. (2016),
this finding made sense because international students predominantly engaged in face-
to-face interactions with the host nationals on campus and in the classrooms or during
class-­related activities. It is also noteworthy that all their face-to-face encounters were
in the context of mandatory academic activities. However, with regard to the social
media usage platform, all these online activities were voluntary (e.g., social chit-chats
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 85

and exchanges of common interests and hobbies) and were often based on anonymous,
self-­selective interactions. It appears that while the actual interpersonal face-to-face
contact offers depth of intercultural task learning, the mediated social media channel
offers a safe space for international students to pose cultural questions and to learn
about their host nationals without the stress of performing and interacting in their sec-
ond language, English (i.e., verbal English communication). Based on these findings,
the researchers suggested that educational institutions should promote more online
interactive communication opportunities and tools between the international students
and host culture students, which may ease the initial culture shock stressors for the
international newcomers. For longer term adjustment, it is also critical to create face-
to-face contact opportunities (e.g., cultural mixers, cultural role-play fun activities,
short intercultural sightseeing trips, or nature exploration) between the international
students and the domestic students, enabling them to gain greater and more meaning-
ful, in-depth knowledge about each other’s culture.
Two additional research studies provided more evidence for the above research
investigation. Drawing from social network theory (Bakardjieva, 2003; Marsden &
Campbell, 1984), Ye (2006a) collected survey data from Chinese international col-
lege students in the United States and explored the relationship among psychologi-
cal adjustment stress, interpersonal social network support, and use of online ethnic
social groups. Interpersonal social networks were defined as friends and/or relatives
who were living in the United States. Online ethnic social groups were conceptualized
as online groups developed for people who have the same national origin and are cur-
rently living in a foreign country. Research results suggested that students who were
more satisfied with their interpersonal support networks had less perceived discrimi-
nation and negative feelings caused by cultural change. Among the international stu-
dents who had used online ethnic social groups, those who reported receiving higher
amounts of online informational and emotional support messages from their own ethnic
groups experienced lower levels of acculturative stress. As a follow-­up study, Ye (2006b)
conducted an online survey of Chinese students in the United States concerning their
sociocultural adjustment processes. The results suggested that perceived support from
interpersonal networks in the host country and from online ethnic social groups was
related to less sociocultural everyday adjustment difficulties. These “weak ties” (i.e.,
acquaintanceship ties) provided the international students with online informational
support through protective anonymity and voluntary selective interactions. With time,
the international students in the host country also reported more interpersonal network
support from face-to-face relational friendship circles.
Obviously, future research studies need to diversify their research sample and
move beyond measuring just the Chinese international students’ adjustment process in
the United States and include other cultural–ethnic sojourning groups and other coun-
tries and cultural settings in their research studies. Future studies can also investigate
different context domains of adjustment (e.g., the use of new media in the international
workplace adjustment context or the sociocultural adjustment process of Peace Corps
86 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

volunteers) as well as associated appropriate and effective interactional strategies that

are being employed in diverse settings. More longitudinal-­developmental studies (or
pre-, midpoint, and poststudies) to explain the relationship among psychological, socio-
cultural, communicative adjustment, and levels of emotional stress and satisfaction may
offer a fuller picture of the sojourners’ overseas adjustment experience.
Overall, culture-­specific knowledge, language fluency, more extensive contact
with host nationals, and a longer period of residence in the host culture are associated
with lower levels of sociocultural difficulty in the new culture (Kohls, 1996; Ward,
1996). In addition, the host culture’s receptivity to new arrivals, the degree of cultural
conformity expected, and the current political climate of open-door versus closed-­door
attitudes toward international students and visitors can also either facilitate or create
roadblocks to sojourners’ sociocultural adjustment process.
In the intercultural communication competence field, researchers have identi-
fied the following components as critical to sojourners’ adjustment process (Deardorff,
2009; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009): culture-­sensitive knowledge, motivation to adapt,
appropriate and effective communication skills, mastery of culture-­based contextual
rules, and achievement of conjoint outcomes between the intercultural communica-
tors (see Chapter 5). On the behavioral tendency skills level, intercultural competence
scholars also emphasize the following attitudinal tendencies and skillset (Gudykunst,
2005a, 2005b; Pusch, 2009): mindfulness, cognitive flexibility, tolerance for ambigu-
ity, behavioral flexibility, and cross-­cultural empathy. Whereas intercultural commu-
nication scholars emphasize the importance of communication competence skills and
sociocultural and psychological adjustment factors, cross-­cultural psychologists tend to
emphasize the importance of psychological adjustment and then sociocultural adjust-
ment and communication competence skills (Gudykunst, 2005a, 2005b; Matsumoto,
Yoo, & LeRoux, 2010). Sojourners can achieve improved intercultural adjustment to
the host environment if they attend to and practice intergroup communication identity-­
sensitive competence skills (see Chapters 2 and 5).

Intercultural Adjustment Models: Developmental Patterns

The term “intercultural adjustment” refers to the short-term and medium-­term adap-
tive process of sojourners in their overseas assignments. Tourists are different from
sojourners. On the one hand, tourists are visitors whose length of stay exceeds 24 hours
in a location away from home and who have traveled for voluntary, recreational holiday-­
enjoyment purposes. A tourist, while visiting another country, can be a welcomed guest,
a nuisance, or a downright intruder in a sacred land. Tourists, their hosts, and busi-
ness/service providers all weave together interdependently to form impressions, trade,
and share some memorable moments through brief encounters and amusing contacts.
Sojourners, on the other hand, are temporary residents who voluntarily go abroad for a
set period of time that is usually related to task-based or instrumental purposes. Both
tourists and sojourners can, of course, experience culture shock—­especially when the
country they visit is very different from their own culturally and on many other levels.
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 87

The U‑Curve Adjustment Model

A number of researchers have conceptualized the sojourner adjustment process using
various developmental perspectives. An interesting consequence of these stage-­
oriented descriptive models centers on whether sojourners’ adaptation is a U-curve or
a W-curve process. Interviewing over 200 Norwegian Fulbright grantees in the United
States, Lysgaard (1955; see also Nash, 1991) developed a three-phase U-curve intercul-
tural adjustment model that includes the following stages: (1) initial adjustment, which
is the optimistic or elation phase of the sojourners’ adjustment process; (2) crisis, which
is the stressful phase, when reality sets in and sojourners are overwhelmed by their
own incompetence; and (3) regained adjustment, which is the settling-­in phase, when
sojourners learn to cope effectively with the new environment.
In extending the U-curve model, Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) proposed a
six-stage W-­shaped model, with successive honeymoon, hostility, humorous, at-home,
reentry culture shock, and resocialization stages. Expanding on these authors’ ideas,
we have developed the following seven-stage revised W-­shaped adjustment model to
explain sojourners’ short-term to medium-­term adjustment process (see Figure 3.1).

High Adjustment
Satisfaction A
8

6 G
C

midrange 4

2
B

Low 0
Satisfaction time

FIGURE 3.1. The revised W-­shaped cultural adjustment model. A: honeymoon stage; B:
frustration/hostility stage; C: rebound/humorous stage; D: in-sync adjustment stage; E:
ambivalence stage; F: reentry culture shock stage; G: resocialization stage.
88 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

The Revised W‑Shaped Cultural Adjustment Model

The revised W-­shaped adjustment model consists of seven stages: the honeymoon, frus-
tration/hostility, rebound/humorous, in-sync, ambivalence, reentry culture shock, and
resocialization stages. The model applies especially to international students’ experi-
ence abroad.
In the honeymoon stage, individuals are excited about their new cultural environ-
ment. This is the initial landing phase in which everything appears fresh and exhilarat-
ing. Sojourners perceive people and events through pleasantly tinted (or rose-­colored)
glasses. Nonetheless, they do experience mild bewilderment and perplexity about the
new culture; they also experience bursts of loneliness and homesickness. However,
overall, they are cognitively curious about the new culture and emotionally charged up
at meeting new people. They may not completely understand the verbal and nonverbal
behaviors that surround them, but they are enjoying their initial “friendly” contacts
with the locals.
In the frustration/hostility stage, sojourners experience major emotional upheavals.
This is defined as a hurdle–­culture shock stage in which nothing works out smoothly and
emotional frustration and resentment set in. This stage can occur rapidly, immediately
after the glow of the honeymoon phase is over and reality sets in sooner than expected.
At this stage, sojourners experience a major loss of self-­esteem and self-­confidence.
They often feel emotionally drained and overwhelmed, and they experience intense
communication stressors in many aspects of their lives. Many of these sojourners can
either become very aggressive/hostile or totally withdrawn when facing these stressful
episodes. Anderson (1994), for example, identifies three types of “culture shockers”: (1)
the early returnees—­those who tend to use aggressive or passive–­aggressive strategies
and blame the host culture’s “hostile environment” for their increased anxious state and
often return prematurely to their home cultures; (2) the time servers—­those who are
doing a minimally passable job with minimal host contact and who are emotionally and
cognitively “serving their time,” but eagerly looking forward to returning home; and (3)
the participators—­those who are committed to adjust optimally and to participate fully
in their new culture and who take advantage of both instrumental and socioemotional
learning in the new environment.
The “early returnees” tend to use pounce strategies or passive–­aggressive strate-
gies and blame all their problems on the new culture. They constantly use their ethno-
centric standards to compare and evaluate the local practices and customs. They exit
their overseas assignments prematurely because of the “uncivilized” people they have
to deal with on a daily basis (Brown, 2009). Yiping, a young woman from China who
had been studying in the United States for seven months, complained to her Chinese
friends:

We have three parts of the earned grade in this class. One third is discussion participation,
the other two-­thirds are writing articles. So if you don’t talk, you lose one third of your
points. So you have to talk. Talking is so exhausting! And it’s not just talk, you know, from
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 89

the material. You need to say what you think about it. But in China, you just remember the
expert answer. That’s my educational experience in China. But here it’s like, okay, no right
answers. Every answer is correct. You just need to give your own perspective loudly and
with back-up evidence. I’m so worn-out from talking and stressed all the time. I’m here to
learn from the expert professors; why do they care about my opinions? I’m so ready to go
home to China now! (in Hotta & Ting-­Toomey, 2013, p. 556).

The “time servers” tend to use avoidance strategies. They adopt either physical
avoidance or psychological withdrawal strategies to avoid interacting with host mem-
bers. They do their job or they fulfill their role in attaining their instrumental goals.
However, they are fairly dissatisfied in the socioemotional connection area and feel
quite isolated. They also tend to engage in wishful-­thinking strategies and count the
days until they can go home. In an intercultural adjustment interview study (Hotta &
Ting-­Toomey, 2013), Mariko, who had been studying in the United States for 17 months,
described her problem with her roommate and how she handled it:

Sometimes when I’m tired or not feeling very well, it appears on my face. And my Ameri-
can roommates started to tell me how small my eyes are. “You are Japanese, and your eyes
are usually small, but it’s getting smaller, and smaller, and I couldn’t see them.” I took it
as a joke at first. But the problem is, she didn’t stop even though I tried to show that I was
becoming annoyed. . . . However, whenever I tried to tell her about my problems, she
started telling me it’s my cultural background, or tried to talk about her own problems
instead. She was never really respectful or caring of me. I now tried to avoid my roommate
and stayed in the library more. I’m now counting down my months when I can go home and
sleep on my own cozy futon bed (in Hotta & Ting-­Toomey, 2013, p. 561).

Finally, the “participators” use active commitment strategies to realign their

identities with the new culture. They try to engage in positive self-talk and positive
situational appraisal strategies. They also intentionally develop new communication
competence practices to connect with their new culture. They are committed to using
an ethnorelative lens to view things from the other culture’s frame of reference (Iyer,
1989). With the help of supportive networks, incremental task goal progression, and
their personal emotional resilience, many sojourners can pull themselves out from the
frustration/hostility stage and arrive at the recovery curve. Natalia, a Colombian stu-
dent who has been in the United States for 18 months, talked about how her attitude
changed so that she became more of a participant in the U.S. culture:

I think [my attitude] changed when I started applying (for the master’s program). Because I
see that I will stay here for two years or more. So that’s a lot of time. Then in this process, I
have to start to make new American friends, and not to talk too much with the same friends
in Colombia. . . . I make a decision to participate more in the American culture—­watch
more American news, talk more to American students in class, and learn to visit Professors
in their office which I’m not used to back home. I want to really know how the American
mind ticks, why they all seem so confident and carefree! (Ting-­Toomey & Chung, 2012,
pp. 103–104; see also Hotta & Ting-­Toomey, 2013).
90 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

At the rebound or humorous adjustment stage, sojourners learn to laugh at their

cultural faux pas and start to realize the pros and cons of each culture—­just as there
are both good and bad people in every society. They experience a mixture of stress–­
adaptation–­growth emotions (Y. Y. Kim, 1988, 2005), such as small frustrations and
small triumphs. For example, on his first-ever sojourn in Missoula, Montana, Tenzin
was invited to lunch by his U.S. American friend. He ordered salad but did not know
anything about salad dressing (such as Blue Cheese and Italian), so he politely said no
to dressing. He nibbled at the salad while waiting for the main course (in his culture,
salad is a side dish; never a main dish). Nothing came and he sensitively asked his friend
about the main food to which he said, “Did you order anything? If not, that’s it.” Tenzin
was too shy to order another main dish (to save his face and also give face to his friend),
so to be polite he ended up eating just a bit of the dry, flavorless salad and returned
home to cook lunch for himself. It was a stressful and awkward experience then, but
looking at the incident retrospectively, he finds humor in it. Later, he learned to enjoy
different types of salad with different types of dressing. At this stage, sojourners are
able to compare both their home and their host cultures in realistic terms; they no lon-
ger take things as seriously as they did in the hostility stage. They can now take a step
backward and look at their own behavior and reactions objectively and with a sense
of light-­heartedness and amusement. Taskwise, they are making progress in attaining
their instrumental goals (e.g., achieving their MBA degree or acquiring new business
skills). They are beginning to form new friendships and social networks. These sojourn-
ers eventually arrive at the next stage.
At the in-sync adjustment stage, sojourners feel “at home” and experience identity
security and inclusion. The boundaries between outsiders and insiders become fuzzier,
and sojourners experience social acceptance and support. From an identity negotiation
perspective, not only have they gained identity respect and identity validation but also
intergroup convergence and harmony. They are now easily able to interpret “bizarre”
local customs and behaviors from an isomorphic attribution viewpoint. They may be
savvy enough to speak the local language with flair, even catching some verbal jokes
and puns and perhaps responding with a one-up joke. They may now even act as role
models or mentors to incoming sojourners from their home cultures. During the in-
sync adjustment stage, sojourners develop a sense of trust and empathy and a wide
spectrum of other positive emotions. They become much more creative and adaptive
in the new environment. They are capable of making appropriate choices in any new
situations that may arise, being at a “comfort level” of their sojourn. However, they must
get ready to pack their bags and go home.
In the ambivalence stage, sojourners experience grief, nostalgia, and pride, with
a mixed sense of relief and sorrow that they are going home. They recall their early
awkward days when they first arrived, and they count all the new friends they have
made since then. They also look forward eagerly to sharing all their intercultural sto-
ries with their family members and old friends back home. They finally say goodbye to
their newfound friends and their temporarily adopted culture. They may already start
to miss them and are not sure when they will meet again.
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 91

At the reentry culture shock stage, sojourners face an unexpected jolt (see the
next section). Because of the unanticipated reentry shock, its impact is usually very
severe, and returnees usually feel more depressed and stressed than they did during
their entry culture shock stage. There is a sharp letdown (e.g., their friends or family
members have no time, patience, or vested interest or curiosity in hearing all their won-
derful overseas intercultural stories) and identity chaos occurs: the greater the distance
(i.e., on the cultural values and communication dimensions) between the two cultures,
the more intense the reentry shock. Additionally, the more integrated into and time
spent abroad, the more difficult this stage becomes. As the sojourners became more
integrated in their sojourning cultures, their identities accordingly underwent change
and perspective shift. But since most sojourners have become resourceful and resilient
individuals, having adapted to their changing social environments, they can recycle
some of the commitment strategies they used abroad to pull themselves through to the
next stage.
In the resocialization stage, some individuals (i.e., the resocializers) may quietly
assimilate back into their old roles and behaviors without making much of a “wave” or
appearing different from the rest of their peers or colleagues. They bury their newly
acquired ideas and skills together with the pictures on their Facebook and/or Insta-
gram pages and try not to look at them again. Looking at these pictures can only cause
identity dissonance and disequilibrium. Other individuals (i.e., the alienators), how-
ever, can never “fit back” into their home cultures again. They are always the first to
accept an overseas assignment. They feel more alive abroad than at home. For exam-
ple, Jenny, a college junior, has been to Spain, Italy, Mexico, and Hong Kong on study
abroad programs. She confessed feeling uneasy and restless at her own university and
will spend the next semester in Argentina. Jenny, an alienator, may eventually become
a global nomad who claims the global world as her home base rather than any single
place as her national cultural affiliation.
Yet other individuals (i.e., the “transformers”) are the ones who act as agents of
change in their home organizations or cultures. They mindfully integrate their new
learning experience abroad with the positive qualities of their own culture (Brown
& Brown, 2009; Brown & Holloway, 2008). They apply multidimensional thinking,
enriched emotional intelligence, and diverse angles to solve problems or to instigate
change for a truly inclusive learning organization. Geeta, from India, studied in the
United States for two and one-half years and reflects on the experience as she returns to
her home culture: “The U.S. has helped me become more assertive in a respectful way,
not aggressive though. The ways of the U.S., this whole concept about space, about indi-
vidualism versus collectivism, that certainly has merits. Although it has its demerits, it
has some merits, too. . . . Placing my own needs as important as the needs of others, and
considering my own wants and needs as a priority is an eye-­opening experience for me”
(Ting-­Toomey & Chung, 2012, p. 105; see also Hotta & Ting-­Toomey, 2013).
Transformers are the change agents who bring home with them a wealth of personal
and cultural treasures to share, actively and responsibly, with colleagues, friends, and
families. They do so with interpersonally sensitive and responsive skills—­something
92 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

they have learned in the foreign environment. They have no fears of acting or being
perceived as “different” or being situated in the “outgroup” category; they now have a
“taste” of what it means to be different. (However, this taste of difference is qualitatively
different from the “difference” that many minority members experience in their every-
day lives.) They are comfortable in experiencing the cultural frame-­shifting process, for
example, being individualists and becoming collectivists (and vice versa), interacting in
a low-­context style with one set of individuals and switching to a high-­context approach
with another set of folks. They practice a “third-­culture” approach in integrating and
activating the best practices of both cultures and creatively fuse them into a third-­culture
perspective in decision making and problem solving (Casmir, 1997). They are more com-
passionate and committed than before about global social justice and human rights issues.
Transformers are the interculturally competent individuals who have acquired (and are
always in the process of acquiring) mindfulness, compassion, and wisdom.
In sum, the revised W-­shaped cultural adjustment model basically emphasizes the
following characteristics, which can influence the progress of the sojourners’ identity
change process:

1. They must understand the peaks and valleys, and positive and negative shifts,
that constitute identity change in an unfamiliar environment, realizing that the
frustration-­and-­triumph roller-­coaster ride is part of the change-­and-­growth
process.
2. They must be aware and keep track of their instrumental, relational, and
identity goals in the new culture; success in one set of goals (e.g., making new
friends) can affect triumph in another set of goals (e.g., newfound friends can
help to solve a school-­related problem).
3. They must give themselves some time and space to adjust; they should keep a
journal or blog to express their daily feelings and random thoughts, and they
should also keep in touch with people in their home culture via letters, emails,
and/or social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and
Skype.
4. They must develop both strong ties (meaningful friendships) and weak ties
(functional social connections, for example, with supportive teachers, caring
counselors, or friendly grocers) to cushion themselves and seek help in times of
crisis.
5. They must reach out to participate in the host culture’s major cultural events—­
art and music festivals, parades, local museums, or national sports—­ and
immerse themselves in this once-in-a-­lifetime experience and learn to enjoy
the local culture as much as possible.

The patterns of the revised W-­shaped cultural adjustment model consist of back-
and-forth looping movements within and between stages. Length of sojourn, alone or
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 93

with family or companion, degree of adaptation commitment, degrees and types of com-
munication competence (e.g., linguistic competence), first-time visit versus repeated
visit, and realistic versus unrealistic goals are some other factors that will propel either
progressive or regressive loops along the W-­shaped model.
Church (1982) and Ward (2004), in reviewing the literature on these developmen-
tal models, observe that both the U-curve and the W-­shaped models appear to be too
general and do not capture the dynamic interplay between sojourners’ and host nation-
als’ factors in the adjustment process. In addition, sojourners adapt and learn at differ-
ent rates. The support for both models is based on one-time cross-­sectional data (i.e.,
one-time surveys of sojourners) rather than longitudinal data (i.e., collection of surveys
at different points during sojourners’ two-year adjustment). More controversial is the
debate as to the initial phase (i.e., the honeymoon stage) of adjustment. Research (Hotta
& Ting-­Toomey, 2013; McLachlan & Justice, 2009; Osland, 1995) indicates that both
international students and managers tend to experience severe identity shock (i.e., the
frustration/hostility stage comes very early, side by side with the fleeting honeymoon
stage) in the early phase of their sojourn abroad. However, the overseas stressors also
motivate them to become more resourceful and resilient in their search for new knowl-
edge and skills in managing the alien environment.
Overall, while previous objective-­based survey research studies (Chapdelaine &
Alexitch, 2004; Trice, 2004) on intercultural adjustment patterns have emphasized some
generalized patterns of international students’ adjustment process, recent interpretive
studies have uncovered some diverse intercultural adjustment patterns, including a
predominant uphill-­trend or M-­shaped adjustment pattern in some of the interviewees
(Hotta & Ting-­Toomey, 2013). Basically, the majority of the interviewees had only a
fleeting honeymoon/euphoria stage and quickly dipped into experiencing the frustra-
tion/hostility/self-doubt stage with a low degree of adjustment satisfaction. More specif-
ically, based on the INT framework and the hand-drawn cultural adjustment sketches
and narrative accounts of 20 international students, the research findings of Hotta and
Ting-­Toomey (2013) revealed that nearly three-­fourths of the interviewees (14 out of 20)
viewed their initial entry adjustment phases as filled with challenges, stress, and emo-
tional frustration. However, the longer the international students or sojourners stayed
in the host culture, the more likely they viewed their sojourning experience as going
uphill and pulling upward to the in-sync stage in a positive and productive direction.
Furthermore, the longer the international students stayed in the United States, the
more complex or differentiated their views of their adjustment experiences became
(e.g., they saw their sojourning processes as represented by multiple M-­shaped curves).
Another distinctive thematic pattern uncovered in this interview study concerns
the IINT’s identity dialectics of being included–­being differentiated. Some of the inter-
national student interviewees felt that U.S. host students perceived them as being too
different from them and, therefore, the international students felt interpersonal rejec-
tion. Concurrently, some of these international interviewees also craved some kind of
particularized identity recognition process as “worthy guests” (or cultural ambassadors)
94 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

inasmuch as they had rich intercultural resources to offer their roommates, classmates,
and professors. Unfortunately, more often than not, these international students did not
believe their “special guests’ status” was validated or welcomed. In the extreme case of
identity differentiation, international students often felt marginalized (e.g., being dis-
criminated). Desiring to belong to, and be accepted by, a group in their new environ-
ment, some emotionally secure international students are more likely to continue inter-
acting with dissimilar others and seek to establish intercultural friendships in the new
culture. Over time and contingent on the degree of satisfaction with their intercultural
friendships and adjustment, these international students may gradually undergo posi-
tive identity transformation.
Another intriguing finding from the interview data was the idea of compressed
time as a friendship motivator. Although most of the international student participants
were from predominantly collectivistic cultures, all of these students valued the amount
of time invested in their friendships in their homelands. Time allowed them to “grow
together” with their friends. Many individuals in the United States do not realize that
international students have a limited stay. The pressures of their compressed time in
the United States can negatively affect international students’ motivation to develop
quality friendships with others. Closing themselves off from friendship networks can
be detrimental to their psychological health and emotional growth.
Using Ting-­Toomey and Dorjee’s (2015, 2017) IINT lens to investigate the inter-
cultural adjustment experiences of international students was beneficial for several rea-
sons. Through the identity negotiation lens, it was possible to identify the international
students’ identity-­based emotional challenges, rewards, and difficulties pertaining to
their intercultural adjustment journey in the United States. With the identity security–­
vulnerability dialectical viewfinder, the researchers (Hotta & Ting-­Toomey, 2013) were
able to track the international students’ identity fluctuating process as they adjusted
to the host culture. With the identity inclusion–­differentiation sensitizing lens, they
were able to hear at first hand some of the culturally insensitive, hurtful comments and
discrimination stories of the international students on U.S. campuses. Finally, through
the identity consistency–­change dialectic, they were able to locate themes associated
with the importance of identity continuity and change processes taking place in some of
these interviewees; they were also able to explain why some of them preferred to stick
close to their “ingroup members” for emotional support, while others tried to branch
out to create intercultural friendship with U.S. American classmates.
Despite some of the limitations of the developmental models (such as the honey-
moon or identity shock in the beginning stage), there are positive implications: notably,
they offer a developmental portrait of the culture shock experience, they illustrate that
the culture shock process is filled with peaks and valleys, and they contribute to a holis-
tic understanding of the psychological, affective, behavioral, cognitive, and, ultimately,
identity transformations on both group membership and personal identity evolution
levels in the sojourners’ sojourning experiences. The spiraling tugs-and-pull and strain-­
and-­stretch experience in dealing with internal and external changes and struggles
form part of the larger human evolution story. Based on our integrative theorizing
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 95

on intercultural and intergroup communication competence (see Chapters 2 and 5),

sojourners can acquire and further their competency components to prepare and man-
age intercultural shock adjustment effectively.

Reentry Culture Shock: Surprises and Resocialization

At the outset, reentry culture shock seems counterintuitive because the sojourner
is returning to the home cultural environment in which the sojourner had primary
socialization and familiarity with culture values and role expectations. However, the
phenomenon of reentry culture shock has received increased attention from intercul-
tural researchers (Martin & Harrell, 1996, 2004; Sussman, 1986). In light of how cul-
tures and people change, reentry culture shock seems real. Reentry shock involves the
realignment of one’s new identity with a once-­familiar home environment. After living
abroad for an extensive period of time, reentry culture shock appears inevitable.
The identity realignment process can sometimes be more stressful and jarring than
entry culture shock because of the unanticipated nature of one’s own identity change
and the accompanying change of one’s friends and family.

Surprising Elements
According to research (e.g., Chang, 2009; Osland, 1995), the often unanticipated, sur-
prising elements that affect reentry culture shock include the following:

1. Sojourners’ identity change—­the newly acquired values, emotions, cognitions,

role statuses, managerial methods, and behaviors are, surprisingly, not a “good
fit” with the once-­familiar home culture.
2. Sojourners’ nostalgic and idealized images of their home culture—­sojourners
tend to remember the positive aspects of their culture and forget its negative
facets during their experience abroad, and thus, the reentry reality often pro-
duces a strong shock.
3. Sojourners’ difficulty in reintegrating themselves into their old career pathway
or career roles because of their new cultural lenses.
4. Sojourners’ letdown in their expectations as to close ties with family members
and friends who have become more distant because of the long separation.
5. Family and friends’ lack of interest in listening to the sojourning stories of the
returnee and their growing impatience with her or him.
6. The home culture’s demand for conformity and expectations for performing old
roles.
7. The absence of change in the home culture (e.g., the old system or workplace
looks stale and boring in comparison with the overseas adventure) or too much
96 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

change (e.g., political or corporate upheavals) which can also create immense
identity disjunction for the recent returnees.

Thus, reentry culture shock can be understood from the perspective of three
domains: the returnees’ readiness to resocialize themselves in the home environment,
the degree of change in the returnees’ friendship and family networks, and the home
receptivity conditions. Sussman (1986) recommends that, on the individual level,
awareness of change should be a major component of reentry training as individuals
face a wide range of psychological and environmental challenges. Pusch and Loewen-
thall (1988) further recommend that preparation for a successful return should include:
(1) recognition of what sojourners are leaving behind and what they have gained in
their assignments abroad; (2) the emotional costs of transition; (3) the value of worrying
(i.e., anticipating and preparing for difficulties that may occur); (4) the need for support
systems and ways to develop them; and (5) the necessity of developing one’s own strate-
gies for going home.

Resocialization: Profiles of Different Returnees

Adler (1997) identifies three profiles of returnee managers in relationship to the specific
transition strategies they employ: resocialized returnees, alienated returnees, and pro-
active returnees. Resocialized returnees are those who fit back into their home coun-
tries with moderate satisfaction. They try to blend themselves back into their previous
professional roles, and they are also psychologically distant from their international
experience. They try to use the fit-back-in strategy and resocialize themselves quietly
into the domestic corporate structure. They typically rate their reentry experience as
moderately satisfactory.
Alienated returnees, in contrast, are keenly aware of the new skills and innovative
ideas they gained in their experience abroad. However, they have difficulty applying
their new knowledge in the home organizations. Rather, they try to use the “distance–­
rejective” strategy of being onlookers in their home culture. Of all the three types, they
are the most dissatisfied. They find themselves “misfits” in their original home culture.
Proactive returnees (or transformers) are highly aware of changes in themselves
and the new values and skills they have learned overseas. They try to adopt a syner-
gistic perspective that can integrate the new values and practices learned from the
sojourning culture into the home culture, and they develop an integrated outlook in
their reentry phase. While abroad, the proactive managers tend to use proactive com-
munication to maintain close ties with the home organization via formal and informal
means. They also have a home-based mentor to look after their interests and pass on
important corporate information. Their mentor keeps the home-based headquarters
informed of the sojourner’s achievements while abroad.
Proactive managers might report the acquisition of the following skills in their
assignments abroad: alternative managerial skills, tolerance of ambiguity, multiple rea-
soning perspectives, and ability to work with and manage others. They further report
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 97

that their new intercultural communication skillsets improve their self-image and self-­
confidence. Not surprisingly, returnees who receive validation (e.g., promotions) from
their bosses and recognition from their colleagues in their home-based organizational
culture report higher reentry satisfaction than do returnees who receive no such vali-
dation or recognition (Adler, 1997). The notion of home is indeed an intriguing and
evolving phenomenon.

Where Is Home?
Home is a complex concept, and returning home is an elusive idea for many sojourners
(see also Chapter 4, on immigrants’ acculturation processes). Some returned sojourn-
ers may experience a sense of “reverse homesickness.” Just as in their overseas culture,
symbols and interaction rituals incrementally moved from perceived “strangeness” to
perceived “familiarity,” these returnees now have to find their way back into their own
home turf to feel connected, to experience a sense of familiarity and of identity belong-
ing. The more challenging the overseas assignments were, the more cognitive and emo-
tional resources expanded in the abroad culture and the more challenges the returnees
may face upon returning to their own homelands. Notably, men and women in uniform
stationed abroad, especially those who have participated in a war for their country,
find it very hard to return to civilian life. As LaBrack (2015) noted: “Globally, tens of
millions of men and women have served in their nation’s conflicts and returned home
to find positive readjustment elusive. Given the realities of war, it is not surprising that
not only does a return to civilian life often proven [sic] difficult to soldier[s], but it may
also require a significant amount of time and appropriate intervention to successfully
reintegrate” (pp. 726–727). It is obvious that for those experiencing reentry culture
shock, developmental training, timely mental and physical health support facilities, and
responsive network support groups and sacred dialogue spaces are needed to make the
returned military individuals feel welcomed and appreciated
Another group who struggles with the question “Where is home?”, involves the
TCK group. The young TCKs rarely know their home-based passport country as inti-
mately as their parents or older siblings do. They also may hold dual nationality pass-
ports, and their sense of “home-based country” boundary may be much more fluid and
elastic than their parents’ nostalgic “root-­country” connection. There are also ATCKs
living in countries not their own and numbering over two million.
According to Pico Iyer’s (2013, June) TedGlobal Talk, “Where Is Home?” the
British-­born, California-­raised essayist and travel writer referred to a growing tribe
of floating people “living in countries not their own numbering 220 million.” He fur-
ther mentioned: “The number of us who live outside the old nation-­state categories—­a
population that increased by 64 million just in the last 12 years—that soon there will
be more of us than there are Americans.” These are astounding numbers indeed about a
“portable tribe” who represent, in Iyer’s terms, “the fifth-­largest nation on Earth.” They
see themselves as global citizens, and their sense of home is not tied to any particu-
lar national boundary or map. From an intercultural and intergroup perspective, their
98 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

identity and communication styles are not necessarily tied to or shaped by either indi-
vidualism or collectivism or low-­context or high-­context communication socialization.
They flexibly crisscrossed intercultural boundaries and adapted nimbly to the expected
demands and norms of a particular cultural milieu. They tend to have a broader vision
of global social justice and global responsibility issues than their generational cohorts
who have not traveled as extensively.
Thus, the meaning and connection of a home-based culture are in increased fluc-
tuation and fluidity. Static notions of identity, nationality, and home culture may give
way to a fluid construction of the meaning of home boundary with clearly defined geo-
graphical or fixed spatial borders. By the mid-half of the 21st century, more individuals
will claim the global culture as their home ocean, and they will most likely see their
temporary locales as their transitional “home rafts.” They will also likely be the core
group who emphasizes secular ethics and all-­encompassing humanistic values (such as
compassion, forgiveness, and inclusive empathy; see Chapter 12) that guide their moral
well-being and their sense of global social justice direction. Indeed, for this fifth global
portable tribe, home is becoming more lithe and yet more cartable—­from one soulful
connection to another, and from one precious karmic meeting encounter to the next.
In the global encountering space–time continuum, what seems unfamiliar can become
instantaneously familiar, and what seems invisible can become immediately noticed,
affirmed, and reciprocally embraced.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

I n this chapter, we explored the motivations and expectations of sojourners crossing

diverse cultural boundaries. We defined culture shock and probed the pros and cons
of culture shock. We argued that culture shock is an inevitable experience but that the
sojourner’s affective attitude, behavioral adaptation, and metacognitive “sense-­making”
process in the new culture will help sojourners manage their culture shock process
and outcome competently. We examined the different factors of why some individuals
deal with their intercultural adjustment process effectively, while others have a miser-
able time. We also talked about the developmental ups and downs of the sojourning
adjustment experience across time and suggested concrete strategies to manage culture
shock responsively. Last, we emphasized the importance of paying attention to reentry
culture shock issues and considered the intriguing question “Where is home” in this
mobile, in-flux 21st century.
Here are some final mindful tools for managing sojourners’ culture shock
competently—­whether you are going overseas for business, study, enjoyment, or cul-
ture learning immersion purposes:

1 Newcomers should realize that culture shock is inevitable. It is an unavoidable

experience that most people encounter when relocating from a familiar envi-
ronment to an unfamiliar one.
 Sojourners’ Intercultural Adjustment Patterns 99

2 New arrivals should understand that culture shock arises because of the unfa-
miliar environment, when one is bombarded and saturated with unfamiliar
cues. Developing a realistic and positive-­oriented learning outlook in viewing
their new cultural environment may help to lower their stress level.

3 Making an effort to establish broad-based contacts with members of the host

culture and learning to communicate with them can increase local knowledge,
communication fluency, and reduce apprehension and vulnerability. Cultivating
some deep friendship ties with both coethnic nationals and host nationals can, in
the long run, ease loneliness and increase emotional vitality and connectiveness.

4 New media should be used with balance: maintaining online ethnic ties for
informational and emotional support is a good start in initial adjustment. For
long-term adjustment effectiveness, however, it is critical that sojourners mingle
with multicultural individuals from different identity sectors in order to under-
stand the cultural mosaic in the host society.

5 Likewise, the more members of the host culture extend a helping hand and the
more they attempt to increase their familiarity with the new arrivals, the more
they can increase the newcomers’ sense of security and inclusion. The more host
individuals learn about and associate with dissimilar others, the more they widen
their scope of the human experience.

6 Culture shock is induced partly by an intense feeling of incompetence. By

seeking out positive role models or mentors, newcomers may be able to find
reliable and competent cultural bridge persons in easing the stress level of their
initial culture shock experience.

7 Newcomers should realize that culture shock is a transitional affective phase of

stress that ebbs and flows from high to low intensity. New arrivals must hang
on to a resilient sense of humor and emphasize the positive aspects of the unfa-
miliar cultural environment. Rather than prolonged focus and concentration on its
negative aspects, it is important to realize that these “growing pains” may lead to
long-term personal and professional growth and development.

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. What are the ABCs of culture shock, and how have you experienced them in different
situations such as study abroad, abroad work assignment, or domestic relocation
(e.g., East Coast to West Coast in the United States or vice versa; different schools
and workplace situations), and international and intercultural collaborative initia-
tives?

2. Relating to the opening story, what advice would you give Tenzin to deal with or
reduce his cultural shock experience with the “Tea Interview” case story? How would
100 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

you explain to him the different treatment between tea drinker and coffee drinker and
the cultural values attached to tea drinking versus coffee drinking practices in the
larger U.S. society?

3. Which of the culture shock models—­the W-model or the M-model—­better explains

your experiences of culture shock? How did you deal with your culture shock, and
what has or has not worked well? How can you improve these models?

4. What do you think of reentry culture shock, and have you experienced it? Based on
research insight, your reentry culture shock experience, or observed reentry cul-
ture shock experiences of others, can you create a graphic model of reentry culture
shock and mark and connect all the essential concepts?

5. How would you answer “Where is home?” and how is your answer similar to or dif-
ferent from that of the floating-­tribe people like Pico Iyer? What lessons can we learn
from each other’s notions of “home” with regard to managing culture shock adjust-
ment issues?

6. Discuss how the competent intercultural and intergroup identity negotiation process
(review Chapters 1 and 2) can enable us to manage culture shock adjustment adap-
tively in different unfamiliar cultural community settings—­whether you are crossing
international boundaries or navigating domestic ethnic boundaries?
 C H A P TE R 4

Immigrants’ Acculturation Process

and Intergroup Contacts

„„Introduction
„„Intercultural Acculturation: Antecedent Factors
††Systems- ­Level Factors
††Individual-­Level Factors
††Interpersonal-­Level Factors
„„Intergroup Contacts and Adaptation Strategies
††Identity Change Models for Immigrants and Minority Members
††Intergroup Social Identity Complexity
††Intergroup Communication Challenges and Adaptation
††Intergroup Interaction Strategies: Strategic Adaptation
„„Immigrants’ Acculturation Outcomes
††Systems-­Level and Interpersonal-­Level Outcomes
††Personal Identity Change Outcomes
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

A n I ntercultural D ating D ilemma :

I mmigrants ’ I ntergenerational C lash Case S tory
Meena is a South Asian Indian American and has been dating Alex (a Caucasian male)
for two years. Her sister is getting married to a traditional North Indian Hindu boy this
December. Because most of Meena’s family and relatives live across different cities in
the United States, it is hard to find a common time when everyone is present. So, her
sister’s wedding seems like a perfect occasion for everyone to be together and meet her
boyfriend.

101
102 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Meena would like to invite Alex to the wedding, but her parents will not allow her
to do so. Her parents do not approve of the relationship, and they think that inviting her
boyfriend would bring “shame” to the family name. They say that they do not approve
of the religious differences, but she knows that they are color-­conscious because Alex is
Caucasian. Meena also understands that her parents’ friend circle will be shocked by
her dating preferences, and they will blame her parents for being so lenient with her and
not instilling traditional Indian values in her upbringing. She does not want her family to
be the center of all gossip at Indian events and bear this burden she has brought upon
them due to her dating choices.
Meena is facing a dilemma now because she is caught between both worlds that
are pulling her in opposite directions. Unfortunately, her sister does not have a say
because her in-laws are very close-­minded and they too do not approve. Meena’s boy-
friend, Alex, assumes that he would be invited to the wedding. She is having a hard time
telling him the truth. As you may know, Indian weddings can be very long, lavish, and
fun, and she wants her boyfriend to see the fun side of her family. Since Alex is aware
that Meena’s parents do not approve of the relationship, he has a negative perception
of them. But Meena thinks that the wedding celebrations and festivities will change her
boyfriend’s opinions about her family.
How should Meena address this intercultural relationship dilemma situation?
Should she be more assertive and forthright to approach her parents about it? What
should she tell Alex? Are there some creative ways to tell Alex to show up or not to show
up for this upcoming festive event? Should she break the news to Alex that her parents
do not want to invite him?

—Noorie Baig, graduate student

Introduction

Can you relate to Meena’s dating experience? Can you relate to Alex’s? Can you para-
phrase Meena’s dilemma in your own words? Can you paraphrase Meena’s immigrant
parents’ standpoint? Is this case story about intercultural–­interracial, interpersonal–­
romantic, or intergenerational–­family adaptation? Drawing from the different models
you have learned in Chapters 1 through 3, can you apply a model or perspective to
analyze the underlying adaptation issues in this “Intercultural dating dilemma” story?
In this chapter, we will provide you with several new conceptual and application tools
to analyze this opening case story from an identity responsive perspective.
In today’s globalized world, international movements, including pleasure and
business trips, study and work abroad, migration, and immigration, have become rou-
tine and much more convenient. All individuals who participate in these international
movements, especially sojourners and immigrants, must learn how to cross cultural
boundaries flexibly and adaptively. Sociocultural group memberships matter because
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 103

they influence how diverse individuals negotiate and manage group-based boundar-
ies, form intergroup perceptions, and use various intergroup strategies to adapt and
survive in their fluctuating cultural environments. While we use the term “adjustment”
for sojourners’ (e.g., international students or business folks abroad) short-term adjust-
ment process to a new environment (see Chapter 3), the term “acculturation” is used for
immigrants’ long-term transformative identity change-­and-­stretch process. Meanwhile,
for the purpose of this chapter, we use the term “adaptation” in reference to minority–­
majority group relationship building and also co-­culture group membership behavioral
contacts and their respective use of particular strategies to fit in or even outdo the
dominant cultural system.
More specifically, acculturation has been conceptualized as “the dual process of
cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two
or more cultural groups and their individual members. At the group level, it involves
changes in social structures and institutions and in cultural practices. At the individual
level, it involves changes in a person’s behavioral repertoire” (Berry, 2005, pp. 698–
699). In this chapter, we will use the term “acculturation” when referring to the broader
patterns of immigrants and refugees’ identity change process (on systems, individual,
and interpersonal contact levels) during their developmental settlement in their new
adopted homelands. From an intergroup contact outlook, both acculturation and
adaptation processes include the necessity of examining the immigrants’ attitudinal
or behavioral shifts and, concurrently, the host nationals’ accommodation or dismissal
stances (Berry, 2008, 2009; Kim, 2005, 2007).
Intercultural acculturation, however, does not happen overnight. It is a gradual
transformation process on both the group membership macro level and the psycho-
logical, interindividual level. The long-term acculturation process involves an oscil-
lating intercultural boundary-­crossing journey—­from identity security to insecurity
and from identity familiarity to unfamiliarity (Ting-­Toomey, 2005a; see Chapter 2). It
is a long-term process that takes years, generations, and even centuries. The journey
can be a turbulent or an exhilarating process. Many factors influence the intercultural
acculturation process—­from systems-­level factors (e.g., receptivity of the host culture)
to individual-­level (e.g., individual expectations) and interpersonal-­level factors (e.g.,
formation of social networks). It also involves managing identity and intergroup com-
munication challenges via strategic intergroup communication adaptation.
Immigrants or refugees and asylum seekers, for example, have to constantly nego-
tiate the theme of identity being-and-­becoming as they learn to acquire new roles and
new adaptive skills in their freshly adopted homeland. The new settlers need the appro-
priate knowledge and communication skills to deal with identity changes, intergroup
encounters, and adaptation. In the chapter’s opening story, Meena and her immigrant
family reflect these themes. The larger the cultural distance or difference between the
two cultures (such as Iran and the United States), the higher the degree of identity vul-
nerability immigrants will experience in the new culture (Chen, 2010; Halualani, 2008).
For most individuals, as Anderson (1994) comments, adaptation is “not only a cyclical
process where ends fade out into new beginnings, it is also often a . . . roller-­coaster ride,
104 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

with depression and elation, successes and failures in overcoming obstacles providing
the hills and valleys” (p. 307). Along with identity stress come possible identity stretch
and resourcefulness (Ting-­Toomey, 1993). Many complex factors, of course, influence
this identity tug-and-pull experience in the host intergroup environment.
This chapter is developed in four main sections. The first section examines the
antecedent factors that influence the newcomers’ acculturation process. The second
section explores immigrants’ identity change process, as well as intergroup communi-
cation challenges and behavioral (plus psychological) adaptation strategies. The third
section presents some of the findings related to immigrants’ acculturation outcomes.
The last section offers a chapter summary and a set of mindful guidelines to facilitate an
optimal co-­learning process between the co-­culture members and the host members.
The chapter ends with discussion questions promoting critical thinking and connective
application about intercultural and intergroup adaptation issues.

Intercultural Acculturation: Antecedent Factors

Strangers come to a new land in different roles—as visitors, sojourners, immigrants, or

refugees. Generally, tourists play the visitor role with an anticipated short span of stay.
Sojourners (e.g., businesspersons, military personnel, Peace Corps volunteers) play the
visitor–­resident roles with a medium span of stay. In comparison, immigrants and refu-
gees play the long-term inhabitant role, whereby they have uprooted and transplanted
themselves to their adopted homelands. Since the intercultural adjustment of sojourn-
ers was discussed in an earlier chapter (see Chapter 3), this chapter section focuses on
the long-term identity change process of immigrants as they attempt to acculturate to
their new homelands.
While the immigrant group comprises those who generally have voluntarily moved
across cultural boundaries, those in the refugee group often have involuntarily done so
(for reasons of political, religious, or economic oppression). Unlike tourists and sojourn-
ers, immigrants and refugees usually desire a permanent stay in their adopted country.
While there are some similar adaptation patterns (e.g., initial stress and culture shock)
in these diverse groups, there are also very different motivational patterns in these
newcomers’ means and goals of adaptation.
Generally, intercultural acculturation in this chapter refers to the incremental
identity-­related change process of immigrants and co-­culture groups in moving from
their outsider status to becoming insiders of their claimed homeland. While most immi-
grant and co-­culture studies focus on how minority group members should acculturate
to the dominant group’s values, norms, and practices, less attention is given to the host/
dominant culture’s responsibility to adopt an inclusive stance whereby they welcome
and aid cultural outsiders. Indeed, much less attention has been paid to the changing
fabric of the host society owing to the influx of immigrants and refugees. This chapter
emphasizes the need and responsibility of both the host society and newcomers to learn
from each other in order to create an inclusive, socially just multicultural society. We
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 105

contend that both acculturation and enculturation processes will influence immigrants’
adaptation to the new homeland. The change process of immigrants (hereafter, the term
“immigrants” will also include refugees and people in the diaspora) often involves both
subtle and overt change on the systems level and individual and interpersonal levels.

Systems‑Level Factors
On the one hand, acculturation involves the long-term conditioning process of new-
comers in integrating the new values, norms, and symbols of their new cultural envi-
ronment and developing new roles and skills to meet its demands. Enculturation, on
the other hand, often refers to the sustained, primary socialization process of strangers
in their original home (or natal) culture wherein they have internalized their primary
cultural traditions, values, and communicative practices. From a systems-­process per-
spective, three sets of antecedent factors typically influence newcomers’ acculturation
process: systems-­level factors, individual-­level factors, and interpersonal-­level factors
(see Figure 4.1).
Systems-­level factors are those elements in the host environment that influence
newcomers’ acculturation to the new culture (Kim, 2005). Based on the findings of
existing acculturation research, the following five observations were made.

ANTECEDENT FACTORS
Intergroup Contact
Systems-Level Factors: and Adaptation Process Strategies
Socioeconomic Conditions
Multicultural Stance
and Policies
Outcomes
Degree of Institutional
Support Immigrants’ Fourfold
Ingroup/Outgroup Definitions Identity Types
Degree of Cultural Distance
Systems-Level
Racial–Ethnic Encounter
Individual-Level Factors: and Interpersonal-Level
and Change Process
Newcomers’ Motivations Outcomes
Individual Expectations Social Identity
Cultural and Interaction Personal Identity
Complexity
Knowledge Change Outcomes
Personality Attributes Intergroup Contact
Demographics Variables and Strategic Adaptation

Interpersonal-Level Factors:
Contact Network Support
Ethnic Media
Social Media
Mindful Communication
Competence Skills

FIGURE 4.1. Immigrants’ acculturation systems-­process model: Underlying factors.

106 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

First, the host culture’s socioeconomic conditions influence the climate of adapta-
tion (Diaz et al., 2011; Esses, Brochu, & Dickson, 2012; Puentha, Giles, & Young, 1987).
When the host culture is operating under economically affluent conditions, its members
appear to be more tolerant and hospitable toward newcomers. When socioeconomic
conditions are poor, strangers become the scapegoats for local economic problems. For
example, during the Great Recession in the United States from the end of 2007 to mid-
2009, immigrants in California, especially the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants
from Mexico, became the scapegoats for scarce jobs and promotion opportunities, as
well as for social crimes and for the host members’ poor living conditions.
Second, a host culture’s attitudinal stance and its members’ attitudes toward
strangers affect newcomers’ adaptation process (Dandy & Pe-Pua, 2010; Mangan &
Borooah, 2009). The cultural assimilationist stance demands higher conformity from
strangers in adapting to the host environment (e.g., as urged by the U.S. “English-­only”
movement) than does the cultural pluralist stance. The dominant metaphor is that of
“the melting pot,” which holds that the immigrants’ sociocultural diversity is expected
to be melted into the host culture melting pot. For example, the British government has
enforced strict requirements for immigrants regarding English language competency
(D’Emilio, 2011). In France, French Muslim women have officially been banned from
wearing “niqab” or the traditional face veil in public. In contrast, the cultural pluralist
stance encourages a diversity of values (as supported by Canada’s “multicultural” poli-
cies) and hence provides strangers a wider number of norms from which to choose in
their newfound homeland. The dominant metaphor in Canada is that of a “salad bowl”
or “quilt” or “rainbow.” This montage of taste, fabric, or colored metaphor stands for
and communicates identity respect and valuation for distinctive sociocultural identity
preservation and, simultaneously, it also emphasizes unity through diversity. The “salad
bowl” metaphor, for example, signals that both host culture and immigrants’ sociocul-
tural memberships can retain their complementary cultural visibility and flavors and,
concurrently, are also united together to form something tasty, colorful, and captivat-
ing.
In an assimilationist society, ethnic identity formation is strongly influenced by
the dominant group’s values, and immigrants are often expected to conform quickly to
local cultural practices such as the case for Muslims in France. In a pluralistic society,
ethnic identity formation rests on the choices between maintaining the customs of the
heritage culture, on the one hand, and inventing a new identity, on the other. As Berry
(2005) aptly observes, at the cultural level: “We need to understand the key features
of the two original cultural groups (A and B) prior to their major contact, the nature of
their contact relationships, and the resulting dynamic cultural changes in both groups
and in the emergent ethnocultural groups during the process of acculturation” (p. 702).
It is plausible to assume that cultural newcomers can thrive more readily in a
pluralistic societal system than in an assimilationist societal system. In this pluralistic
or multicultural host environment, immigrants can be bicultural or multicultural with-
out being forced to shun their ethnic heritage and identity continuity. For example,
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 107

immigrants in Canada can be both culturally Tibetan and Canadian, Syrian and Cana-
dian, or French and Canadian. Societies with a pluralist stance tend to display more
responsive attitudes and inclusive acceptance toward immigrants’ ethnic traditions and
practices. Overall, in a true multicultural society, sociocultural diversity or distinctive-
ness is not perceived as a threat to the larger society but is recognized as a valuable
added resource, pride, and strength to the fabric of the nation’s vibrant cultural identity
landscape.
Third, local institutions (such as schools, workplaces, social services, and mass
media) serve as firsthand contact agencies that facilitate or impede the adaptation pro-
cess of immigrants (Mortland & Ledgerwood, 1988). For example, the government of
India established separate Tibetan communities and schools in different Indian states,
especially in Karnataka State, that facilitated the adaptation process of the Tibetan ref-
ugees and preservation of their cultural heritage, including the Tibetan language and
religion (Dorjee, 2006; Dorjee et al., 2011). Hardly any Tibetan child is left uneducated,
and the younger generation Tibetans can speak and write at least in three languages:
Tibetan, English, and Hindi or regional Indian language such as Kanada. Thus, Tibet-
ans in India have established themselves as successful refugees in their host environ-
ment and are able to preserve nearly all things Tibetan. Two possible primary reasons
for host India’s receptivity to the Tibetan diaspora are (1) centuries-­old sociocultural
ties between Tibet and India (i.e., Buddhism was imported from India to Tibet in the
seventh century; India is Guru and Tibetans are disciples—Chela), and (2) India’s sta-
tus as a truly multicultural, multilingual, and multireligious nation with a secular con-
stitution that allows for the peaceful and respectful coexistence of immensely diverse
peoples. Tibetan Buddhism is followed by millions in the Himalayan states of India,
including Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh.
Following the prevailing national policies, local institutions can either greatly facil-
itate strangers’ acculturation process (e.g., via language help programs or job training
programs) or produce roadblocks to the newcomers’ adaptive experience. For example,
at schools, varying degrees of receptivity and helpfulness of teachers toward immigrant
children can either help the children to feel “at home” or leave them to “sink or swim”
by themselves in their adopted homeland. Whether the attitudes of local teachers in the
classrooms are favorable or unfavorable can also produce a pleasant or hostile climate
for these immigrant children during their vulnerable adaptive stages. Getting used to
a strange language, unfamiliar signs, and different expectations and norms of a new
classroom can be overwhelming for recent immigrant children.
Fourth, the host culture’s meaning definition concerning the role of “strangers”
can profoundly influence immigrants’ initial adaptation process. Whether members of
the host culture perceive strangers as nonpersons, intruders, aliens, guests, others, or
adopted family members will greatly influence their attitudes and behaviors toward the
strangers. For example, in the United States permanent residents are officially issued
a card identifying them as “Resident Aliens.” Accordingly, they are treated as such in
social interactions at immigration offices, hospitals, educational institutions, and others.
108 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Another good example is the immigrants who are identified as “undocumented

immigrants” (altogether estimated at 11.2 million and including people of all ages)
residing and working hard in the United States for most of their lives. The largest num-
ber of “undocumented immigrants” (about 25% of the total group) resides in California
(Storlie, 2016). Out of the total identity membership group, it has been estimated that
there are 2.1 million college-­bound “undocumented students” in the country. Given
this status, they face legal uncertainties and limitations in academic institutions. Relat-
edly, members of host cultures that view outsiders as “intruders” are likely to be hostile
to them, whereas host nationals that use an adoptive family metaphor for the incorpora-
tion of newcomers are likely to display positive sentiments toward them. For example,
recently, the California Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of
2011 (the Dream Act) allowed qualified AB 540 (i.e., Assembly Bill 540) students to
access state and nonstate resourced funds to finance their college and university educa-
tion. Thus, some host nationals may offer proactive help, as opposed to reactive resis-
tance to the adaptation process of newcomers.
Although some cultures make greater intergroup distinctions between insiders
and outsiders, some groups have built-in mechanisms to facilitate the socialization of
newcomers. Immigrants often feel marginalized or alienated in a new culture. They
need help and coaching to learn a culture’s inner workings. To the extent that newcom-
ers are treated with dignity and respect by insiders of a new culture and a trusting
climate is developed, they experience identity validation and inclusion. To the extent
that newcomers (including second- or third-­generation families) are long treated as out-
siders (e.g., by asking third-­generation Asian Americans where they came from and
when they will return “home”—but the United States is their home), they experience
resentment, frustrations, and identity exclusion.
Finally, the cultural distance between the two cultures—­that of the newcomers
and that of the host—has a strong impact on the newcomers’ adaptation. Cultural dis-
tance refers to the degree of group membership effort and psychological adjustment
effort needed to bridge the dissimilarities between the culture of origin and the cul-
ture of entry (Ward, 2008). As cultural distance increases, newcomers and their fam-
ily systems need to use greater affective, cognitive, and behavioral resources to cope
with such differences. Cultural distance dimensions can include differences in politi-
cal, economic, social class, and religious systems, as well as cultural value distinctions,
self-­conception variations, and language and communication style discrepancies. The
wider the cultural distances, the more efforts and supportive resources the immigrants
will need to tackle such differences.
The combined systems-­level factors can create either a favorable or an unfavorable
climate for newly arrived strangers. Obviously, the more favorable and receptive the
cultural climate for strangers, the easier it is for strangers to adapt to the new culture.
The more help the newcomers receive during the initial cultural adaptation stages,
the more positive are their perceptions and evaluations of their new cultural environ-
ment.
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 109

Individual‑Level Factors
At the individual psychological level of acculturation, Berry (2005) notes that we need
to pay close attention to the “[p]sychological changes that individuals in all groups
undergo, and their eventual adaptation to their new situations. Identifying these
changes requires sampling a population and studying individuals who are variably
involved in the process of acculturation. These changes can be a set of easily accom-
plished behavioral shifts (e.g., in ways of speaking, dressing, eating . . . ) or they can be
more problematic [changes], producing acculturative stress as manifested by uncer-
tainty, anxiety, and depression” (Berry, 2005, p. 702). The following individual-­level
factors have been found to influence intercultural acculturation: individual motivations,
expectations, cultural and interaction-­based knowledge, and personality attributes.
Newcomers’ motivational orientations, allowing them to leave their home coun-
tries and enter a new culture, have a profound influence on their adaptation modes.
Individuals (e.g., professionals such as academics and nurses) with voluntary motiva-
tions to leave a familiar culture and enter a new cultural milieu have fewer adaptive
problems than do individuals with involuntary motivations (e.g., refugees). Voluntary
immigrants can prepare themselves through research, reading, and social networking
for the new homeland adaptation. They can improve their language proficiency and
communication competence and do job search among other things for smooth adapta-
tion. However, involuntary immigrants such as refugees are often forced to enter a new
homeland (e.g., Syrian refugees who fled to Germany) with much anxiety and unpre-
paredness. They certainly need much help to adapt and acculturate to their newfound
homeland. For immigrants, permanent residence status produces a mixture of affective
and instrumental stressors. Involuntary immigrants often also have more family wor-
ries and identity dislocation problems than do voluntary immigrants.
Acculturation research indicates that many immigrants uproot themselves owing
to a mixture of “push” factors (e.g., political and economic reasons) and “pull” factors
(e.g., the host culture’s economic and academic opportunities) (Ward, 2008; Ward et
al., 2001; Van Oudenhoven & Ward, 2013). Many immigrants are forced to leave their
home countries because of cultural, religious, or political persecution, or because of
environmental calamities as well as economic strains. By immigrating, they strive to
create better opportunities for themselves and their families. Additionally, the new cul-
ture’s attractions (“pull” factors) include better chances for personal advancement, jobs,
educational opportunities for their children, improved quality of life for the family and
democratic cultural values. In sum, immigrants’ motivations can greatly affect their
expectations and behaviors in the new culture.
Individual expectations have long been viewed as a crucial factor in the inter-
cultural adaptation process. Expectations refer to the anticipatory process and pre-
dictive outcome of the upcoming situation. Two observations are indicated here:
realistic expectations facilitate intercultural adaptation, and accuracy-­based positive
expectations ease adaptation stress (Pitts, 2009; Ward, 1996; Ward & Kennedy, 1994).
110 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Individuals with realistic expectations are better prepared psychologically to deal with
actual adaptation problems than are individuals with unrealistic expectations. Further-
more, individuals with positive expectations tend to create a self-­fulfilling prophecy
in their successful adaptation (e.g., they think this is a great move and their thinking
affects their positive actions); negative expectations tend to produce the opposite effect.
Past research (McGuire & McDermott, 1988) indicates that immigrants often have
negative, apprehensive images regarding their major relocation move. Overall, realistic
and positively oriented expectancy images of the new culture can help to facilitate their
intercultural adaptation. Expectations influence the mind-sets, attitudes, sentiments,
and behaviors of newcomers. Research indicates that a positively resilient mind-set
helps to balance the negative stressors that newcomers may encounter in their adap-
tive efforts. The more realistic expectations the newcomers have concerning the new
environment, the more psychologically prepared they are to handle the external and
internal pressures of their new adventure.
Newcomers’ cultural knowledge and interaction-­based knowledge about the host
culture serves as another critical factor in their adaptation process. Cultural knowledge
can include information on cultural and ethnic diversity history, geography, political
and economic systems, religious and spiritual beliefs, multiple value systems, and situ-
ational norms. Interaction-­based knowledge can include language, verbal and nonver-
bal styles, diversity-­related communication issues (e.g., regional, ethnic, gender, and
age differences within a culture), and various problem-­solving and decision-­making
styles. Fluency in the host culture’s language, for example, has been found to have
a direct positive impact on sociocultural adaptation, such as developing relationships
with members of the host culture. In contrast, language incompetence has been asso-
ciated with increased psychological and psychosomatic symptoms (e.g., sleeplessness,
severe headaches) in Asian Indian immigrants to the United States (Krishnan & Berry,
1992). For many senior immigrants, language incompetence is correlated with social
isolation, feelings of insecurity, and difficulty in making friends (Mui, Kang, Kang, &
Domanski, 2007). Beyond language fluency, interaction-­based pragmatic competence
such as knowing “when to say what appropriately, under what situations” is critical in
adapting to a new environment. Last but not least, the option to access health care for
self and family members is also critical to alleviate immigrants’ acculturative stress
(Fassaert, Hesselink, & Verhoeff, 2009).
In regard to personality attributes, personality profiles such as high tolerance for
ambiguity (i.e., high acceptance of ambiguous situations; Cort & King, 1979), internal
locus of control (i.e., inner-­directed drives and motivations; Ward & Kennedy, 1993),
and personal flexibility and openness (Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Kim, 2005) have been
consistently related to positive psychological functioning in a new culture. Ward (1996)
suggests a “cultural fit” proposition that emphasizes the importance of a good match
between personality types (such as extraversion and introversion) of the acculturators
and the host cultural norms. For example, we can speculate that immigrants with inde-
pendent self-­construal may be more compatible with individualistic cultural norms,
whereas immigrants with interdependent self-­construal may be more compatible with
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 111

collectivistic cultural norms. The synchronized match between a particular personal-

ity type and the larger cultural norms produces a “goodness of fit” and may cultivate a
positive adaptive experience for strangers.
Demographic variables such as age and educational level have also been found
to affect acculturation experiences, with the younger children having an easier time
adapting to the new culture than adults. Individuals with higher educational levels
tend to adapt more effectively than do individuals with lower educational levels (Ward,
1996, 2004). Individuals with internal locus of control (i.e., a belief that events are
under one’s influence, internal drive, and control) appear to adapt more smoothly to
a new cultural setting and show less acculturative stress than individuals with exter-
nal locus of control (i.e., beliefs that events are situationally predetermined) (Leung
& Bond, 2004; Ward, 1996). Notably, most of the acculturation studies cited in this
book are based on immigrant and refugee experiences in Australia, Canada, New Zea-
land, and the United States. Thus, the research conclusions summarized in this sec-
tion generally reflect acculturation norms in individualistic rather than collectivistic
cultures. Obviously, more acculturation research needs to be conducted in other world
regions and on global dispersion and multiple identity complexity levels. Additionally,
interpersonal-­related factors affect newcomers’ adaptive change process.

Interpersonal‑Level Factors
Interpersonal-­level factors can include relational face-to-face network factors (e.g., social
network), mediated contact factors (e.g., use of mass media and social media), and inter-
personal skills factors (Kim, 2005; McKay-­Semmler & Kim, 2014a; McKay-­Semmler
& Kim, 2014b). Both relational contact networks and the mass media and social media
can enhance newcomers’ interpersonal coping skills in their culture-­learning journey.
By contact network, we mean a combination of personal and social ties in the new
culture in which affective, instrumental, and informational resources are exchanged
(Adelman, 1988). “Affective resources” include the exchange of identity support and
relational empathic messages (e.g., “It must be difficult for you, especially without your
parents and friends here”) in supporting the cultural strangers with caring words and
nonverbal tones. “Instrumental resources” include task-­related goal support, practi-
cal assistance (e.g., offering rides), and tangible resource support (e.g., finding jobs,
assisting tax preparation and filing, and mentoring/specific tangible coaching support).
Finally, “informational resources” include sharing knowledge and keeping the other
person informed of important host country and country-­of origin news (e.g., informa-
tion on financial aid, medical aid, immigration status change, and major news from
enculturated home countries; see Furnham & Bochner, 1986). Most personal or social
networks in the immigrants’ developmental acculturation process serve all three social
support functions.
Through supportive personal and social networks and supportive systems-­level
treatment, strangers’ vulnerable identities are incrementally protected. A supportive
social network serves as a buffer zone between a newcomer’s threatened identity on
112 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

the one hand and the unfamiliar environment on the other. Overall, studies on immi-
grants’ network patterns have yielded some interesting findings. Ethnic-­based social
and friendship networks provide critical identity support during the initial stages of the
immigrants’ adaptation process (Mortland & Ledgerwood, 1988). This observation is
based on the idea that the density (i.e., ethnic clusters such as Chinatown, Little India,
and Little Saigon in California) of the ethnic community is strong and is available as a
supportive network. For newcomers, established individuals from the same or similar
ethnic background can serve as successful role models because they have gone through
a similar set of culture shock experiences and have survived intact. These “established
locals” can engage in appropriate and affective identity-­validation messages (e.g., “I
experienced the same confused feelings and loneliness when I first came here, but I’m
doing very well right now”) that instill hope and confidence in newly arrived immi-
grants and refugees. They can also provide immigrants with mentoring, coaching, and
other vital instrumental and informational support.
Moreover, immigrants’ network ties with members from the dominant cultural
group facilitate learning of the mainstream cultural norms (Adelman, 1988). Research
studies (Kim & McKay-­Semmler, 2013; Searle & Ward, 1990) indicate a positive asso-
ciation between newcomers’ participation in dominant cultural group activities and
favorable attitudes toward the host culture. In sum, studies have revealed that in its
initial adaptation stages an ethnic-­based social/friendship network is critical to new-
comers in terms of identity- and emotional-­support functions. Similar ethnic friendship
networks (especially those with linguistic ties) in initial adaptation stages ease strang-
ers’ adaptive stress and loneliness (Furnham & Bochner, 1986). Researchers further
encourage such bonds to include eventually bicultural and multicultural networks in
order to enrich the mutual learning processes between host nationals and new arriv-
als. Research studies have also consistently found that the frequency and quality of
personal contacts between host nationals and newcomers increase adaptive satisfaction
and perceived competence (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). The higher the quality of personal
contact between locals and newcomers, the more the new arrivals experience adaptive
satisfaction. These contact networks are often viewed as the “healing webs” that nur-
ture the adaptive growth and inquiry process of cultural newcomers.
Ethnic media (such as ethnic publications and broadcasts) also play a critical role in
the initial stages of immigrants’ adaptation. Because of language barriers, immigrants
tend to reach out for ethnic newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV programs when such
media resources are available in the local community (Y. Y. Kim, 2005). For example, in
Little Saigon, California, Vietnamese Americans have their own ethnic media, includ-
ing Saigon TV, Vietbao Daily, radio, and multimedia stores, catering to the adaptation
needs of their immigrant community members. Similarly, Univision caters to the needs
of its Spanish-­speaking audience, which ranges in age from 18 to 49 and has a viewer-
ship surpassing that of NBC and CBS (Radio and Television Business Report, 2011).
Ethnic media tend to ease the loneliness and adaptive stress of the new arrivals. The
familiar language and images are identity affirming and offer newcomers a sense of
comfort and identity connection in their unfamiliar environment.
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 113

Research indicates that host media (such as radio and television) do play a critical
educational role in providing a safe environment for newcomers to learn the host lan-
guage and socialization skills (Chaffee, Ness, & Yang, 1990). Overall, the mass media’s
influence on newcomers’ adaptation process is broad but not deep. In comparison, the
influence of personal relationship networks is deep but not broad. Through the mass
media (especially television), immigrants receive a smorgasbord of information con-
cerning a broad range of host national topics but without much informational depth. In
contrast, through personal network contacts, newcomers learn about the host culture
from a smaller sample of individuals, revolving around a narrower range of topics, but
with more depth and specific personal perspectives.
According to research, of all the variables, language competence plays a significant
role in host media consumption (Chaffee et al., 1990; Kim, 1980). The more sophisti-
cated newcomers are in their host culture’s language, the more likely they will select
host-based media (i.e., host-based newspapers or TV news). While new immigrants
tend to watch more entertainment-­oriented television shows during their early stages
of acculturation, they veer toward more information-­oriented shows (e.g., TV news
and documentaries) during their later stages of acculturation (perhaps because of their
increased host language competence and incremental ingroup membership commit-
ment as well as their strong motivation to change from resident to citizenship status)
(Kim, 1988).
In terms of the role of social media in the acculturation process of immigrants,
here are some interesting research findings. Chen and Choi (2011) studied the role of
computer-­mediated social support (CMSS) in the context of Chinese immigrants’ accul-
turation process in Singapore. The survey asked how often the respondents sought, both
via face-to-face and CMSS, different types of social support (informational, emotional,
tangible, and companionship) and also asked about their satisfaction level in their new
adopted homeland. According to the findings, Chinese immigrants sought more online
informational support, followed by tangible, companionship, and then emotional sup-
port. Moreover, most of them were satisfied or very satisfied with the social support,
particularly informational and tangible support. Notably, regardless of the duration
of their stay, the Chinese immigrants continued to seek online informational support
while striving hard to adapt to their adopted Singaporean homeland. However, the
more immigrants had face-to-face personalized interactional opportunity for soliciting
these diverse support resources, the less frequently they relied on CMSS for outreach
purpose. The study also showed positive correlations among received CMSS, satisfac-
tion with CMSS, and future use of CMSS.
In a related follow-­up study, Chen and Kay (2011) examined the influence of online
social support on Chinese immigrants’ adaptation process in Singapore. They defined
intercultural adaptation in terms of both sociocultural adaptation (everyday adaptation,
including perceived interpersonal social support) and psychological adaptation (ability
to manage intrapersonal anxiety and frustration) and conducted telephone interviews
with their participants. They found that online social support (via the responses of
anonymous ethnic ingroup members), especially informational support, had a positive
114 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

impact on both sociocultural adaptation and psychological adaptation. Furthermore,

the longer the Chinese immigrants resided in Singapore, the more they increased their
sociocultural adaptation process. It appears that the online social media channel was
more effective in facilitating sociocultural relationship support in the initial adaptation
stage, while perhaps individual personality traits and the degree of perceived inter-
group contact play a greater role in the deeper psychological acculturation process for
these immigrants. Immigrants’ acculturation process involves a long-term adaptation–­
stress–­stretch growth trajectory (Kim, 2001, 2005, 2013). It is easier to first change
one’s individual behavioral repertoire on both the language/verbal and nonverbal level;
then cultivate the cognitive capacity to understand the logic or the cultural schema of
the adaptive behavior; and, finally, with increased competence, one may feel more emo-
tionally secure and psychologically more confident in navigating the intricate pathways,
detours, and overpasses of their adopted homelands.
In another notable recent study, Croucher and Rahmani (2015) explored the use
of Facebook among Muslim immigrants to the United States. The sample included
first-­generation Muslim immigrants, mostly women, who were adapting to Midwest
culture in the United States. All immigrants were residing in the United States for
the long term, and they completed online and paper questionnaires that measured
Facebook use, motivation to culturally adapt, perception of the U.S. dominant cul-
ture, and intergroup contact issues. The significant findings showed that the Muslim
immigrants (who arrived from 2006 to 2012) who used Facebook more frequently for
ingroup socialization and social interactions were less motivated to culturally adapt to
the larger U.S. dominant society. Simultaneously, this helped the Muslim immigrants
to maintain their ingroup membership vitality and sense of solidarity. These same
immigrants were also more likely “to have a negative perception of the US dominant
culture as their Facebook use increased” (Croucher & Rahmani, 2015, p. 339). The
findings also imply that these immigrants’ high-­volume Facebook usage with their
ingroup members results in their ratification of Berry’s (2005) ethnic-­oriented identity
or intergroup separation identity option. It appears that reliance on social media to
connect with one’s own ethnic ingroup can bolster one’s sense of ethnic-­based identity
connection and inclusion in the new society. However, overreliance on social media
and processing news exclusively from one’s own ingroup voices may cultivate further
biased intergroup stereotypes and also create further identity separation in the host
environment.
More importantly, in any successful and challenging intercultural co-­learning pro-
cess, members of the host culture need to act as gracious hosts and make a greater effort
to make strangers feel genuinely welcomed and embraced, while newcomers need to
act as the willing-­to-learn humbled guests. Without a collaborative handholding effort,
the hosts and new arrivals may end up experiencing great intergroup frustrations, mis-
communications, and identity misalignments and resentments. In learning from peo-
ple who are culturally different, both hosts and new arrivals can stretch their identity
boundaries to integrate new ideas, expand affective horizons, and respect alternative
lifestyles and practices with an open mind-set and transformational heart.
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 115

Intergroup Contacts and Adaptation Strategies

Intergroup contact and adaptation processes involve identity change and challenges for
both newcomers and host members in host societies. The challenges include: (1) dif-
ferences in core beliefs, values, and situational norms between the home and host cul-
tures; (2) intergroup communication challenges and adaptation; and (3) improvement
of immigrants’ status and situations in host environments through use of particular
intergroup adaptive strategies.
This section examines immigrants’ identity change experience and options (see
Figure 4.1); reviews intergroup communication challenges and adaptation; and dis-
cusses intergroup adaptation strategies (mobility, competition, and social creativity) for
situational and status improvement in host environment.

Identity Change Models for Immigrants and Minority Members

Intergroup contact between incoming immigrants and host members and their subse-
quent interactional adaptation is a multigenerational process that involves peaks and
valleys in systems- and individual-­level process change features. With regard to macro-
level systems change, the temporal dimension is reflected through the relationships
of immigrants and their subsequent generations with the dominant culture, and they
may ultimately perceive themselves to be part of the dominant-­mainstream culture
and becoming the host members. With regard to the individual process-­change level,
this individual transformation process can occur in either a monocultural or pluralis-
tic society. In a monocultural society with a high demand for conformity (e.g., Japan),
adaptation for long-term inhabitants (e.g., Korean Japanese) is typically unidirectional
(e.g., minority members attempting to assimilate into the dominant culture). In a plu-
ralistic society (e.g., New Zealand or Australia), acculturation can take many forms and
directions. Relatedly, the concept of intergenerational intercultural adaptation involves
issues such as ingroup–­outgroup contact boundaries, conformity pressure, majority–­
minority group attitudes and relationships, and ethnic heritage maintenance and larger
culture assimilation issues. Meena’s case story reflected some of these issues.
Many majority–­minority group identity models (e.g., Berry, 1994, 2004; Cross,
1991; Helms, 1993; Parham, 1989; Phinney, 1989; Ruiz, 1990; Sue & Sue, 1990; Waters,
1990) have been developed to account for the developmental stages of identity con-
sciousness in majority and minority group members. Berry and associates’ fourfold
typological model seems to capture the essence of immigrants’ acculturation process
(Berry, 1994, 2004; Berry, Kim, & Boski, 1987; Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki,
1989) (see Figure 4.2).
According to Berry et al. (1987; Berry, 1994, 2004), immigrants who tend to favor
maintaining ethnic tradition, while attaching low significance to the values and norms
of the new culture and having low contact with the dominant group members, practice
the traditional-­oriented or ethnic-­oriented option (i.e., strong ethnic identity and weak
cultural identity), which is sometimes also known as the “identity separation” option.
116 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Cultural Identity
Strong Weak

Bicultural Ethnic-Oriented
Strong
Identity Identity
Ethnic
Identity
Assimilated Marginal
Weak
Identity Identity

FIGURE 4.2. A cultural–­ethnic identity typological model.

Conversely, individuals who attach low significance to their ethnic values and norms
but tend to view themselves as members of the larger culture and consider the domi-
nant group as their reference group, or even ingroup, practice the assimilation option
(i.e., weak ethnic identity and strong cultural identity). Interestingly, individuals who
favor maintaining ethnic traditions while displaying patterned movements (i.e., on the
cognitive, affective, and/or behavioral level), becoming an integral part of the larger
society, and who have social peers and close friends from both their ethnic network and
the dominant societal group practice the bicultural-­oriented or “integrative” option
(i.e., strong on both ethnic and cultural identity). Finally, individuals who attach low
significance to both their own ethnic group and the larger dominant cultural group,
and who also do not feel that they belong to either group and, concurrently, experience
a high degree of intergroup disconnection practice the marginal identity option (i.e.,
low on both ethnic and cultural identity) (see Figure 4.2).
Immigrants often face the dual challenges of adapting to their new culture while
preserving their ethnic heritage. They also have to think about whom they want to be
associated with and in what languages they should express themselves. For example,
Dorjee et al. (2011) discussed these challenges faced by Tibetans in diaspora India
and found that young Tibetans who have received both traditional and modern educa-
tion are usually proficient in multiple languages (i.e., Tibetan, English, and Hindi) and,
thus, their intergroup contacts often are also more wide ranging and all-­encompassing,
including Tibetan and Indians friends. Therefore, for Tibetans who transplant their
ethnic roots to the Indian context, thanks to India’s strong governmental and bicul-
tural local community support, it is easier for them to retain their ethnic identity
heritage and also move toward a bicultural identity option: to be both Tibetan and
Indian simultaneously. Comparatively speaking, however, in Western countries such
as in the United States, Tibetans often face incredible challenges to preserve their eth-
nic identity traditions and also move toward a bicultural identity option. The reasons
lie partly in the distinctive host culture’s socially mobile membership groups (e.g., in
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 117

the United States) and its widespread geographical landscape. More importantly, the
very low Tibetan population density and vitality in the United States, and the lack of
institutional and educational support resources, hamper the active development of the
Tibetan immigrants’ bicultural or integrative identity option. For example, in the U.S.
host environment, teaching all things Tibetan is left to the Tibetan families and the
Sunday schools if available.
Relatedly, at the individual level, immigrants may differ in terms of their orienta-
tion toward issues of ethnic identity maintenance and larger cultural identity mainte-
nance. In developing an alternative perspective to conceptualize Berry’s (1987, 2004)
typological model, Ward (2008) advocates paying closer attention to ethnocultural iden-
tity conflict and the motivation for ethnocultural continuity in future research into the
intergenerational acculturation process. Ward (2008) argues that intergroup conflict
factors such as “perceived discrimination, poor intergroup relations, infrequent contact
with national peers, perceptions of impermeable ingroup boundaries, and threats to
cultural continuity are significant predictors of cultural–­ethnic identity conflict” (Ward,
2008, p. 108) and can impact on an individual’s ethnic-­cultural identity self-­struggling
issues. Perceived favorable or unfavorable intergroup contact factors and the actual
intergroup contact opportunity itself contribute significantly to the interactional adap-
tation of immigrants in their new cultural abodes. In addition, parental and individual
motivational factors to maintain (or dismiss) their ethnocultural traditions and celebra-
tions, language maintenance, and ingroup membership continuity issues also play an
integral role in immigrants’ communicative adaptation to their new cultural habitat.
Thus, within multigenerational immigrant communities, for example, a second-­
generation Vietnamese American or a Colombian American can commit to one of the
following four cultural–­ethnic identity salience categories: Vietnamese or Colombian
primarily, American primarily, both, or neither. However, rather than viewing Berry’s
(2004) four identity options as four static boxes that are equal in sizes, future accultura-
tion researchers may want to parse out the perceived intergroup boundary factors and
family/individual motivational factors in immigrants’ cultural–­ethnic identity concep-
tualization processes. Furthermore, an immigrant or a co-­culture member can adapt
strategically on the behavioral level and conduct a double-­swing dance of different
communication styles and appear to be biculturally oriented, but affectively and cog-
nitively she or he can be ethnically or marginally affiliated with a particular member-
ship group. Systems-­level antecedent factors, individual and interpersonal factors, and
identity-­based process-­related factors—­all add together as a net influence on immi-
grants’ adaptive experience and identity change process.
Alternatively, from the racial–­ethnic identity development perspective, various
models have been proposed to account for the racial or ethnic identity formation of
African Americans (e.g., Cross, 1991, 1995; Helms, 1993; Parham, 1989), Asian Ameri-
cans (Sodowsky, Kwan, & Pannu, 1995; Sue & Sue, 1990), Latino/a Americans (e.g.,
Ruiz, 1990), and European Americans (e.g., Helms & Carter, 1993; Rowe, Bennett,
& Atkinson, 1994). Racial–­ethnic identity development models tend to emphasize the
oppressive-­adaptive nature of intergroup relations in a pluralistic society. From their
118 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

perspective, racial–­ethnic identity salience concerns the development of racial or eth-

nic consciousness along a linear, progressive pathway of identity change. For example,
Cross (1971, 1991) has developed a five-stage model of African American racial iden-
tity development that includes preencounter (stage 1), encounter (stage 2), immersion–­
emersion (stage 3), internalization (stage 4), and internalization–­commitment (stage
5). Helms and her associates (e.g., Helms, 1986, 1993; Parham & Helms, 1985) have
amended and refined this five-stage model (i.e., integrating the concept of “worldview”
in each stage) into four stages: preencounter, encounter, immersion–­emersion, and
internalization–­commitment (see Figure 4.3).
The preencounter stage (before any polarized intergroup encounter with dominant
group members) is the high cultural identity salience phase wherein the self-­concepts
of ethnic minority group members are influenced by the values and norms of the larger
culture and they believe they are also members of the larger mainstream national cul-
ture. The encounter stage is the marginal identity phase when new racial–­ethnic real-
ization is awakened in the individuals because of a “racial shattering” prejudiced event
(e.g., encountering racial slurs and racism) and minority group members realize that
they cannot be fully accepted as part of the “White world.” The immersion–­emersion
stage is the strong racial–­ethnic identity salience phase when individuals withdraw to
the safe confines of their own racial–­ethnic groups and become ethnically conscious
and want to search and reconnect with their ethnic heritage and similar peers. They also
become active spokespersons for their own distinctive ethnic groups and racial–­ethnic
rights. Finally, the internalization– ­commitment stage is the phase during which indi-
viduals develop a secure racial–­ethnic identity that is internally defined and, at the same
time, are able to establish genuine intergroup contacts with members of the dominant
group and other co-­culture groups. They also now form productive alliances with mem-
bers from other identity groups and commit to promoting social justice and equality

Inclusive Internalization–Commitment
High Immersion–Emersion
Encounter
Pre-Encounter

Racial
and Ethnic
Identity
Awareness

Low

FIGURE 4.3. Racial–ethnic identity development model.

 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 119

for diverse disenfranchised groups on either a domestic diversity or global level. At

this stage, individuals’ racial–­ethnic identity awareness is inclusive of other co-­culture
members’ struggles and challenges. In fact, in our visual model, we renamed this phase
the “inclusive internalization-­commitment stage” to reflect the all-­encompassing inclu-
siveness of individuals (perhaps from a diverse co-­culture group and also a dominant
group) who identify with this particular stage and advocate for social justice for all.
Racial–­ethnic identity, mentioned above, refers to the quality or manner of identifica-
tion with the respective racial or ethnic groups and also branches out to develop identity
resonance for other marginalized identity groups (Cross, 1991; Helms, 1993).
In addition, Phinney (1992) has delineated four common themes of ethnic identity
crystallization that are relevant to different group members at any stage of racial–ethnic
identity development: ethnic belonging (i.e., positive affiliation with one’s own ethnic
group), ethnic identity achievement (i.e., active search for ethnic identity knowledge),
ethnic practices (i.e., participation in ethnic traditions and activities), and other-group
orientation (i.e., attitudes and feelings toward members of other ethnic groups) via posi-
tive or negative intergroup contacts. The different combined factors (i.e., a sense of eth-
nic belonging or larger cultural belonging or both, and the negative or positive attitudes
between immigrant groups and host members) will shape the outlook of immigrant or
minority members in experiencing a strong ethnic-­oriented identity emphasis or an
assimilated, bicultural, or marginal identity stance.
The foregoing typological and stage perspectives provide a good framework that
will help us begin to understand the role of ethnic/cultural identity salience in a plu-
ralistic society. Neither model, however, fully explains the ethnic/cultural identity
salience issue or the ethnic/cultural identity content issue. To summarize, it appears
that the study of ethnic identity salience has both ethnic-­specific and ethnic-­general
elements (Phinney, 1990, 1991). As a specific phenomenon, ethnic identity encompasses
the unique history, traditions, values, rituals, and symbols of a particular ethnic group.
As a general phenomenon, ethnic identity in a pluralistic society is a composite con-
struct that involves ethnic group belonging and the larger cultural identity intergroup
contact issues. Thus, in order to understand the role of ethnic identity salience in a
pluralistic society, both ethnic identity maintenance and the larger cultural identity
maintenance should be taken into consideration.
To gain a more complete understanding of the influence of ethnic/cultural identity
on behavior, the content (e.g., individualistic and collectivistic values, individual power
ideology, intergroup expectations and perceived distance, and actual contact opportu-
nity) and salience (e.g., degrees of importance and commitment) of both ethnic identity
maintenance and larger culture contact experience should be integrated more closely
into these models. Moreover, individual motivational and situational factors (i.e., on
both immigrants’ and host society members’ levels) and the individual’s operational
skills in evoking strategic adaptation in different situations need to be incorporated in
these intergroup identity formation and contact models.
Nevertheless, these models portray the broader trends of intergenerational and
minority group members’ experience in a multicultural environment and depict the
120 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

ebb and flow of their struggle for identity and sense of belonging. Some of the anteced-
ent factors discussed earlier in this chapter can also account for the wavelike or oscil-
lating movements between stages. From an intergroup perspective, adapting to a host
environment involves communicating with individuals not only from different cultural
and ethnic heritages, but also from diverse social identity groups.

Intergroup Social Identity Complexity

According to social identity complexity theory (SICT; Brewer, 2010), social identity
formation can be complex with four patterns: dominance, intersection, compartmental-
ization, and merger. Dominance refers to individuals adopting one major social identity
such as doctor, nurse, and professor from among many social identities and performing
a particular identity in a consistent manner across contexts; other identities become sec-
ondary or subordinated to the main social identity. Intersection consists of two or more
social memberships forming a singular, unique social identity such as a first-­generation
college student, first female firefighter in town, or first Latina CEO president and also
performing this intersecting identity set in a regular manner across situations. How-
ever, others may decode or infer a different identity set when witnessing the inter-
secting identity performance. Compartmentalization refers to the enactment of various
contextual social identities in different settings such as professor at a university, mother
at home, chair at a committee meeting, and social activist at a rally, and concurrently
performing in an optimally fluid and code-­switching manner. Finally, merger refers to
being keenly aware of and recognizing crosscutting multiple social identity member-
ships surrounding others and the individual is able to integrate these multiple identities
into a holistic, genuine self. Other eyewitness individuals also discern these integrative
multiple identity enactments as sincere, compelling, and authentically conveyed.
For example, Malala Yousafzi is a Pakistani Muslim and a social activist who fought
for girls’ education and became the youngest Nobel Peace Laureate. In this regard,
Malala’s merger pattern of highly complex social identity is constituted by six social
identity memberships—­Pakistani (nationality), Muslim (faith), girl (gender), education
activist (social activism), youngest (age), and Nobel Laureate (exclusive social group).
Her Indian counterpart, Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarthi, also has a highly complex
merger pattern of social identity constituted by six social identity memberships—­
Indian (nationality), Hindu (faith), male (gender), children education activist (social
activism), older (age), and Nobel Laureate (exclusive social group). Malala and Kailash
at least shared two crosscutting social group memberships—­children education activ-
ism and Nobel Peace Laureate.
Relatively speaking, SICT contends that dominance and intersection reflect low
cognitive identity complexity and exterior role projection, whereas compartmental-
ization and merger reflect high cognitive identity complexity, with a stronger sense
of intrinsically driven selves, and reflect adroit communicative accomplishment. Low
social identity complexity individuals tend to carry their one dominant identity or two
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 121

(to three) intersecting identities as their projective personas across a variety of com-
municative situations and behave quite consistently. Comparatively, high social identity
complexity individuals are keenly aware of their intrinsic multiple selves and also well
aware of their attending audience. Thus, they choose to either adapt and address their
audience responsively in different situations or execute an authentic multidimensional
merger identity that appeals to manifold identity groups simultaneously.
Drawing from these socioemotional cognitive identity patterns, individuals may
project consistent or different social identities in and across various situations and navi-
gate them accordingly. Based on either or both self-­avowed and other-­ascribed social
identity, immigrants may find it challenging to communicate between generations (e.g.,
based on age identity stereotypic perceptions) and individuals with stigmatized social
identity (e.g., individuals with disability) with the normative group members. Reflect-
ing more deeply about one’s own social identity complexity and also according respect
and understanding to a dissimilar other’s social identity complexity may start the gate-
way to further intergroup membership dialogue and inclusive empathy.

Intergroup Communication Challenges and Adaptation

Immigrants encounter people from diverse social group memberships in the host cul-
tural environment, especially from different generations and stigmatized groups. Con-
currently, beyond the one-­dimensional label of being “an immigrant” or “refugee,” each
home-­seeker also possesses complex social identity facets and has distinctive stories to
tell. For example, from an intergroup perspective, immigrants may experience commu-
nication predicaments in intergenerational and ability differential contexts. Intercul-
tural acculturation scholars have not paid much attention to the communication chal-
lenges and elastic adaptation required in such situations. Informed by research studies
in the intergroup communication arena, this section will discuss challenges related to
intergenerational communication and stigmatized social identity in sequential order.

Intergenerational Communication Challenges and Models

Communicating with same-age peers is different from communicating with individuals
from different age groups. Intergenerational communication can be defined in terms of
generation-­based age differences such as Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Genera-
tion Y or the Millennial Generation, and so on. Immigrants from these different gen-
erations may face intergenerational communication challenges in interpersonal interac-
tions, workplaces (e.g., hospitals, and senior and assisted living apartments), and social
gatherings. Identity and communication challenges among these generations are due to
the fact that each generation’s life experiences have primarily been informed or influ-
enced by different sociohistorical-­cultural trends, socioeconomic conditions, life span
developmental perspectives, and many other factors experienced during their lifetimes
(Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010).
122 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

Intergenerational communication research (Giles & Gasiorek, 2011; Hummert,

2010) and the communication predicament of aging model (CPA) (Ryan, Giles, Bar-
tolucci, & Henwood, 1986) indicate that younger generation immigrants are likely to
communicate to elders mediated by stereotypical expectations, mostly negative. Elders
also tend to stereotype the young as naïve, disrespectful, and less caring. Across inter-
generational cultural contexts, both the young and elders reported much communica-
tion dissatisfaction in their acculturation process in their newly adopted homelands and
emphasized a negative trajectory. The CPA model (Ryan et al. 1986) shows how this
negative trend is perpetuated and how the communication dissatisfaction cycle often
remains unbroken. Alternatively, age stereotypes in an interactional model show a posi-
tive outlook on intergenerational communication (Hummert, Garstka, Ryan, & Bon-
nesen, 2004). For example, elders can initiate positive changes in the verbal feedback
cycle and, thus, intentionally switch the negative tonal quality of the verbal exchange
process to the positive tonal quality mode. This action could ultimately result in a more
coordinated intergenerational communication process and increase mutual communi-
cation satisfaction.
Interestingly, in intergenerational conflict situations, intercultural and intergroup
communication scholars have identified the value gap as a common locus for conflict
facework clashes among immigrants and their younger generation offspring (e.g., Gal-
lois et al., 2005; Ting-­Toomey, 2005b). Many immigrant parents seek to retain and
transmit the traditions and values of their native homelands to their children through
ethnic-­specific parenting techniques (e.g., Pham, 2007), such as filial piety and izzat
or face-­honoring (Baig, Ting-­Toomey, & Dorjee, 2014). Comparatively, members of the
younger generation are often fully immersed in the host culture’s and pop culture’s social
environment and have frequent interactions with their host social peers. For example,
one research study indicated that older and younger Asian Indian American women
differed in their narratives of bicultural experiences (Inman, 2006; Inman, Constan-
tine, & Ladany, 1999). While the older ones reported “selective acculturation,” choos-
ing certain aspects of American culture (e.g., individual competitiveness and personal
freedom) and Indian culture (e.g., food and religious activities) that appealed to them,
the younger women reported struggling to maintain bicultural or integrative identity
based on their combined American socialization and traditional Indian upbringing,
and also striving hard to satisfy their Asian Indian ethnic community expectations.
Notably, Baig et al. (2014) found, among other things about intergenerational izzat or
face-­honoring maintenance, incremental identity shifting and value shifting as the
repeated stories of older South Asian Indian Americans (SAIAs). In their host environ-
ment, while the older SAIAs felt pressure to maintain izzat or face honor among the
immediate family, they felt less so with the Indian casual friends’ circle and community
who are geographically dispersed. They also have more realistic cultural expectations
of their offspring growing up in an individualistic cultural environment. Thus, both
generational group members need to spend more time listening to each other’s identity
stories and struggles and also expressing their “common ground” understanding and
empathy for each other’s identity pain, change, and metamorphosis process.
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 123

Stigmatized Social Identity Challenges and Adaptation

In general, immigrants may face stigmatized identities, especially when host members
are unwelcoming. For example, Mexican immigrants are often stigmatized as illegal
immigrants, and the influx of Asian students into prestigious American universities may
be labeled AIs (Asian Invaders) by some dominant White students. These perceptions
and ascribed stigmas negatively affect communication interaction between individuals
from these social groups and dominant members in the host society. Perhaps, the two
more prominent stigmatized social identity challenges faced by immigrants that need
more attention in acculturation research literature are related to sexual orientation and
disability.
Recent studies on sexual orientation issues affecting immigrants indicate two
trends in host environments: (1) discrimination and mistreatment and (2) recognition
and protection. Gonzales et al. (2008) interviewed, in depth, 20 self-­identified hetero-
sexual Mexican immigrant men in Los Angeles and found that they had become victims
of economic exploitation and potential sexual harassment by their employers (e.g., by
White gay males). In contrast, Murray’s (2014) interview study found that immigrant
refugees to Canada are grateful that their gendered and sexual orientation is accepted
and protected in the new homeland. Their feelings about the countries of origin are
complex, however, as they continue communicating with families and friends living in
their natal countries.
Many intergroup communication research studies focus on immigrants’ sexual-­
orientation stigmatization and discrimination (Hajek, 2012; Hajek, Abrams, & Murach-
ver, 2005) and can inform the intercultural acculturation literature. The umbrella term
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) includes sexual minorities; however,
heterosexuals often use labels such as “gay” in a derogatory fashion (Thurlow, 2001).
When heterosexuals communicate negative attitudes toward gays in social interactions,
they threaten the gays’ social identity and undercut their social self-­esteem (Hajek et
al., 2005). Heterosexuals’ negative attitudes may be related to their own perceived iden-
tity threat to a strongly held traditional gendered belief system (Whitley & Egisdottir,
2000). Overall, research studies (e.g., Hajek & Giles, 2005; Kite & Whitley, 1996) indi-
cate that gays are recipients of negative stereotypes, communicative divergence, and
intergroup discrimination. More studies are needed to address these issues confronted
by immigrants with complex social identity in the host societies. Beyond the stigma-
tized immigrant–­outsider identity status, each individual with multiple stigmatized
social identities carries additional emotional burdens and scars, identity vulnerable
sore spots, and perpetual identity wariness and fatigue that cannot be shaken off easily.
To illustrate, in South Asia, specifically in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, trans-
gender people called Hijras are stigmatized based on their gender. While they have
officially received the recognition of Third Gender (individuals who are neither males
nor females), Hijras on the one hand are ascribed to have spiritual power, but on the
other hand, they are stigmatized and ostracized in social settings. Traditionally, many
Indians believe Hijras have the power to bless desired couples with fertility or success
124 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

in business, or if they are displeased to curse them with infertility and failure in their
business ventures. Hijra communities in South Asia are discriminated against, hav-
ing scarce access to education, jobs, and good housing. Many of them are forced to
earn their livelihoods through begging, prostitution, and extortion. In comparison, in
most Western cultures, “sex” is defined in terms of distinctive “maleness” and “female-
ness” binary categories, and transgender people have not yet received the unique third
gender acknowledgment and inclusive recognition that has been given in some other
cultural locales or sites.
Immigrants also face stigmatized social identity issues related to perceived ability-­
difference orientations that require dynamic adaptation and a fast learning curve. In
the health context, for example, immigrants need to deal with complex disability inter-
views and disability written reports (Newbold & Simone, 2015), raising children with
disability (Jennings, Khanlou, & Su, 2014), and children with learning disabilities (Bar-
ton & Wolery, 2010) among myriad other disability-­related stressors. Not all forms of
disability are the same, and therefore, different types of accommodation or adaptation
are needed, such as physical adaptation (e.g., wheel chair and wheel chair access), cog-
nitive adaptation (e.g., teaching and learning style adaptation), aging process adaptation
(e.g., assisted living and care giving), sociocultural adaptation (e.g., learning English as
a second language), and communication adaptation (e.g., adaptive verbal and nonverbal
code switching between immigrants and host members), to name a few. Indeed, the
term “disability” is problematic and value laden and is perceived as using the dominant
cultural perspective to define what constitutes “disability” or even “deficiency.” This
may be an area of research inquiry that critical, interpretive, and functional paradigm
scholars can examine more deeply and broadly in interdependent collaboration.
To put the above idea succinctly, intergroup communication research indicates that
able-­bodied individuals often perceive disability as the central identity marker for indi-
viduals with disabilities and disregard their other unique personal traits (see Duggan,
Robinson, & Thompson, 2012). They may view them as sick, incompetent, unproductive,
overly dependent, and a family burden. These biased attributions often manifest them-
selves through unfavorable attitudes and dismissive communication in the intergroup
contacts (Duggan et al., 2012; Fox & Giles, 1996). In many ways, able-­bodied individuals
do not know how to interact with individuals with disability. For example, even health
care professionals lack knowledge and expertise to communicate with and treat patients
with disabilities (e.g., with culturally sensitive assessment tools) responsively and empa-
thetically. Patients with disabilities often have difficulty finding primary care physicians
who can tend to their underlying adaptation problems holistically.
Furthermore, their negative intergroup attitudes about individuals with disabil-
ity are positively related to patronizing communication (Harwood & Williams, 1998).
Grounded in the communication accommodation theory (CAT; Ryan, Giles, Bartolucci,
& Henwood, 1986), the communication predicament of disability model (CPDM; Ryan
et al., 2005; Ryan, Bajorek, Beaman, & Anas, 2005) focused on explaining interactions
between able-­bodied individuals and individuals with disabilities. CPDM explicates
the communication predicament with disability via four stages: stigmatization (of those
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 125

with disability); modified communication in both able-­bodied individuals and individu-

als with disability; resistance or stereotypical reinforcement reaction by individuals
with disability; and negative consequences of stigmatized social identity. The negative
outcomes may include social isolation and loneliness, communication dissatisfaction,
and health issues.
Encouragingly, intergroup communication scholars suggest that the negative
feedback loop in CPD model can be actively modified through empowering commu-
nication strategies such as selective assertiveness, impression management strategies,
self-­disclosure regulation, social creativity, and competition strategies (see Duggan et
al., 2012). Studies are needed to determine the efficacy of these intervention strate-
gies and their outcomes. Of course, it is also vital that able-­bodied individuals take
a proactive learning stance to learn how to be culturally responsive and sensitive to
individuals with disabilities on both verbal and nonverbal communication coordination
levels. Based on CAT, it can also be suggested that changing intergroup orientation to
interpersonal orientation in interactions (e.g., through personalized self-­disclosure and
sharing) can improve communication between able-­bodied individuals and immigrants
with disabilities and their adaptation to the host cultural environment. Although this is
easier said than done, the able-­bodied can try harder to increase their knowledge about
stigmatized others; and stigmatized others need not give up too easily and should be
tenacious in becoming strong advocates or educators for their own and other stigma-
tized identity groups.

Intergroup Interaction Strategies: Strategic Adaptation

The above sections clearly delineate the multitude of challenges that immigrants
encounter in the host social environment. These challenges, related to identity and
culture, exist at macro, individual, and interpersonal levels. Immigrants need to employ
psychological, sociocultural, and communication strategies in adapting to their host
setting. From an intergroup communication research and applied perspective, immi-
grants or co-­culture members could use three intergroup strategies to improve their
stigmatized situations in the dominant cultural milieu: social mobility, social creativ-
ity, and social competition (Harwood, Giles, & Palomares, 2005). These strategies are
applicable to various intergroup contexts for identity and status improvement (e.g.,
Hajek et al., 2005). Individual mobility strategy is basically a strategic passing strategy
that individuals can use to fit into the dominant group or host environment for identity
and status upgrade, such as by working very hard and becoming successful profession-
als, having resources with which others would like to align. Social creativity strategy is
a strategy that a group can use to improve their status by way of redefining a negative
aspect of their social identity (e.g., being undocumented is not a crime) or changing
intergroup comparison referents (e.g., there are other groups that are worse off), or stra-
tegically highlighting certain positive aspects of their identity (e.g., compassionate and
nonviolent), or creating a new dimension of comparison altogether (e.g., one of a kind
initiative or naming label such as the DREAMers). Finally, social competition strategy
126 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

is a group strategy that can be used to fight for a group’s rights and identity recognition.
For example, gays and lesbians use social competition strategy to gain legal recognition
such as civil union and property rights in different state courts in the United States.
They also organize and participate in Gay Pride parades as a social creative strategy
for positive identity recognition. Some gays also conceal their gay identity as individual
mobility strategy to prevent social ostracism and gain social approval and status recog-
nition from the dominant heterosexuals.
Conceivably, immigrants can use these intergroup strategies to improve their sta-
tus in host environments. Immigrants can use individual mobility strategy (e.g., higher
education degree or excellent linguistic and communication skills) for adapting to and
improving their status in host environments. Immigrants who have acculturated lin-
guistically and culturally to the greatest extent possible have acquired an assimilated
identity in their new homeland (Berry, 1994, 2004). Anecdotal evidence strongly indi-
cates that these assimilated immigrants (or bicultural) who used social mobility strat-
egies have gained access to higher socioeconomic status and power; many of them,
facilitated by their demographic characteristics, have also passed as members of the
dominant host culture and environment (i.e., if their physical features and skin color
are similar to the dominant cultural group). From an intergroup analytical perspective,
while these immigrants have successfully adapted to and improved their status and
power on the individual level, their group membership status on the macro level may
remain as it is. In comparison, social creativity and social competition strategies can be
used to improve not just individuals but their group membership status as well.
Immigrant group members can use social creativity strategies to gain or improve
their status recognition. For example, Tibetan immigrants are among the smallest
groups of immigrants in North America and Europe based on their demography, sta-
tus, and institutional support (Giles & Johnson, 1987). Using social creativity strategies,
Tibetan immigrants around the world have promoted the stature of His Holiness the
Dalai Lama as their undisputed leader as well as the culture of peace and nonviolence
based on Buddhism. They also widely promoted the international recognition of His
Holiness the Dalai Lama, including the Nobel Peace Prize (1989), Congressional Gold
Medal (2007), and Templeton Prize (2012). These strategies contributed to the unique
status recognition and adaptation of Tibetans to host environments. Adopting the non-
violence and middle-­way approaches of Buddhism to resolve conflict issues, Tibetan
Middle Way Policy has gained support from the leaderships of India, the United States,
and the European Parliament (Dorjee, 2013). This policy espouses a win–win solution
to Sino-­Tibetan conflict issues.
Immigrants can also participate in multicultural pride parades to highlight the
positive distinctiveness of their groups. To effect status recognition, immigrants can
redefine the negative portrayal of their group memberships into positive images such
as “Black Is Beautiful” and “Islam Is a Religion of Peace.” Alternatively, they can also
change social comparison groups to achieve favorable outcomes. For example, Nepalese
and Bhutanese immigrants in the United States can compare themselves to Tibetan
immigrants in terms of ethnolinguistic vitality for high status. Immigrants can also use
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 127

websites and social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) and social networks as
part of a creative strategy to improve their status recognition and solidarity empower-
ment.
Moreover, immigrant groups can use social competition strategies to achieve status
improvement when they perceive the intergroup status quo as unstable and illegitimate
(Harwood et al., 2005). Such strategies include political activism, marches, protests,
vigils, lobbying, campaigns, and strikes to gain equal and equity rights and social jus-
tice. History abounds with examples of social competition strategies used by minority
groups for social justice and equal rights—­most notably, the civil rights movement and
women’s rights movement. In recent times, LGBT movements have fought for their civil
union and property rights and have campaigned to stop discrimination based on sexual
orientation. In general, immigrant groups struggle to preserve their cultural and ethnic
heritage on the one hand and acculturate to host environment for intercultural adapta-
tion on the other. Immigrants fear the loss of their cultural and ethnic heritage in host
environments as attested to by the second generation of immigrants and more so by the
third generation. In this regard, immigrant groups that are ethnically oriented (Berry
et al., 1987) are likely to use social competition strategy to challenge the status quo of
the dominant host group and fight for equality and equity. Metaphorically stated, they
prefer the colorful salad bowl or quilt metaphor over the “one size blends all” melting
pot identity metaphor. From an intercultural and intergroup perspective, their cultural
identity distinctiveness (e.g., their ethnic values, religious traditions, languages, and
nonverbal rituals) is rooted in preserving their ethnic heritage alongside intercultural
acculturation to the host environment. In this regard, they are likely to use social com-
petition strategies to fight for bilingual education, multicultural training, equal repre-
sentation in power positions, and equal access to resources for their status recognition
and improvement.
In short, the dynamic, adaptive strategies immigrants and immigrant groups are
likely to use depend on their perceptions of intergroup boundary permeability and status
quo legitimacy. If the intergroup boundary is perceived to be permeable, many immi-
grants may use social mobility strategies to upgrade their status and power. However, if
the intergroup boundary is regarded as impermeable along with the illegitimacy of their
status, then immigrant groups are likely to use social creative and social competition
strategies for their status recognition and improvement (Harwood et al., 2005). Together
with considering the antecedent factors in shaping immigrants’ entry acculturation pro-
cess and the perceived intergroup membership boundary and adaptive strategies that
are being enacted, all these factors shape the immigrants’ acculturation outcomes.

Immigrants’ Acculturation Outcomes

Overall, systems-­level and interpersonal-­level antecedent factors, together with per-

ceived and actual intergroup contact experiences, shape immigrants’ acculturation out-
comes. This section discusses unfavorable versus favorable systems-­level conditions and
128 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

interpersonal support systems that prompt immigrants’ identity vulnerability versus

identity security states. We then discuss some evolving outcome strategies that both
immigrants and host nationals can practice to move toward cooperative intergroup best
practice and harmony.

Systems‑Level and Interpersonal‑Level Outcomes

As discussed in Chapter 1, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States is
now a nation with increased multicultural complexities and nuances: of the nation’s
approximately 307 million people, 65% are Whites/non-­Hispanics, 16% are Latinos/
Hispanics, 13% are African Americans/Blacks, 4.5% are Asian Americans, and 1 per-
cent Native Americans/Alaskan Natives/Pacific Islanders. According to these same cen-
sus data, the number of foreign-­born nationals is increasing at an accelerated pace: it
is now 12% of the total U.S. population. Current and future generations in the United
States include many individuals whose parents or grandparents were born in a Latin
American or Asian region.
When systems-­level and interpersonal-­level factors are consistently hostile to new-
comers, then newcomers lose their motivation to pursue their instrumental task or
socioemotional goals. They also develop a high sense of acculturation vulnerability and
ambivalence because of their outsider disorientation identity status. Simultaneously,
their mental and physical health may be affected by these overloaded stressors. Identity
confusion and identity dislocation across time can compound their emotionally fragile
state. In such situations, friends and networks of the newcomers ought to provide them
with timely identity support so that they do not feel alone. They can also balance the
bleak identity outlook of these newly arrived immigrants with realistic positive images
and constructive reminders. Institutions (e.g., school teachers and counselors) might
well devote more attention and display empathy to the newcomers to buffer their psy-
chological stressors. As for the new arrivals themselves, they should put themselves in
situations in which they can achieve some degree of success and identity confidence
and competence. They should learn to ask for help when things in the new culture
become overwhelming and exhausting. They can also use different adaptive commu-
nication strategies to change their individual or group membership status if they so
choose. Finally, they should mindfully learn to balance their negative intergroup con-
tact experiences with the positive individuals and resources they encountered in their
newly resided homelands.
When systems and interpersonal levels lend a helping hand and are responsive
and welcoming, cultural strangers can start building their self-­confidence and establish
interpersonal trust with members of the host society. They can also gain a sense of
increased acculturation security and confidence in their newly acquired home. In order
to promote positive intergroup contacts and acculturation confidence, newcomers and
host members need to heed these four positive intergroup membership contact condi-
tions: strive hard to see each other on an equal-­status inclusive level, engage with each
other to develop a cooperative dialogue process, move forward affirmatively to achieve
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 129

mutually beneficial interdependent goals, and appeal for strong institutional support
(Allport, 1954). In building on these four positive intergroup contact conditions, Kien-
zle and Soliz (2017) also recommend that cultural strangers tend to the following impor-
tant features: the group salience outlook, friendship potential, the common ingroup
identity model, intergroup contact via self-­disclosure, and extended contact through
mediated friendship. The first added intergroup contact feature, group salience, refers
to the idea of using group membership features to add more depth of knowledge and
complexity (versus shying away from self-group membership stereotypes) in the inter-
group interaction process. The last four updated intergroup contact features focus more
on developing personalized close friendships, cultivating common “third-­culture” over-
lapped identity, engaging in quality group membership-­based and interbeing-­based
sharing, and widening one’s network of friends to include diverse connective friendship
experiences.

Personal Identity Change Outcomes

Immigrants’ acculturation outcome is an oscillating, dialectical process among anteced-
ent, process, and outcome factors. The antecedent, process, and outcome acculturation
factors are interdependent and are constantly co-­evolving and involved bidirectional
feedback loops. Newcomers at each acculturation stage have to learn to experiment and
reinvent new ways of coping, thinking, feeling, and behaving on a daily basis. The costs
of such internal and external struggles and constant reinvention can include everything
from identity disorientation and exhilaration to identity malfunction and emotional
shutdown.
Furthermore, immigrants have to realize that their sense of “identity in-­
betweenness” may stay with them for a long time and even through multiple genera-
tions (Yoshikawa, 1988). The affective struggle of identity rootlessness versus rooted-
ness, especially in immigrants and subsequent generations, is part of the global history
movement, with settlers moving from one spatial locale to another across the historical
and generational time span. Although this chapter focuses primarily on immigrants’
acculturation issues in the United States, the accelerating global movements and influx
of immigrants and refugees throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and the
Middle East cannot be overlooked. Many of the immigrants’ sense of rootlessness and
identity chaos may also help them see the ideas and practices of their adopted home-
land with greater clarity. Their sense of developmental rootedness may propel many
immigrants and their children to commit themselves more fully to social change and
to correction of social injustice in both their adopted homeland and the wider global
landscape.
Some immigrants may utilize a “third-­culture perspective” (Casmir, 1997) when
viewing the pros and cons of their culture of origin and the new culture. With deep
intercultural understanding and empathy, both host members and immigrants can also
co-­create a unique “third-­culture” outlook and put the best composite parts of each
cultural system into cooperative best practice. Starosta and Olorunnisola (1998) also
130 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

propose that to develop a convergent third-­culture approach to problem solving, cul-

tural members need to be keenly aware of their distinctive cultural differences and the
capacity to suspend ethnocentric judgments in order to work collaboratively. Alterna-
tively, research on cultural frame switching provides insights that immigrants may use
to adapt to the host environment.
Cultural frame switching (CFS) means using “two or more cultural interpretative
frames or schemas. . . . These cultural schemas guide behaviors only when they come
to the foreground in one’s mind and only when they are applicable to social events that
need to be judged” (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-­Martinez, 2000, p. 742). According
to several research studies, immigrant groups or second-­generation immigrant ado-
lescents can use cultural frame switching elastically to negotiate bicultural and mul-
ticultural identity issues in their adopted homelands. Many of them also take culture-­
sensitive responsibilities for generating synergistic solutions to bridge intergenerational
family conflicts or for helping the older generation to navigate their new cultural work-
place setting (Benet-­Martinez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Benet-­Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris,
2002; Hong et al., 2003).
In sum, to be a resourceful communicator in a new culture, one has to walk judi-
ciously on a warbling suspension bridge while balancing multiple identity acts in two
hands. One has to forgo stability in order to regain stability. One has to experience
differentiation in order to regain inclusion. One has to experience unpredictability in
order to rebuild and regain predictability or trust. Finally, a newcomer has to be will-
ing to “become” anonymous in the unknown territory in order to “be” a full-­fledged,
recognized member of the new culture. While some travelers view the journey as dif-
ficult and risky, others take advantage of traversing the hills and valleys along the way
as part of a long-term acculturation and co-­learning process on both intergroup and
interindividual levels.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

T he United States of America prides itself as the land of immigrants, yet immigrants
encounter many challenges of acculturation and adaptation. In this chapter, we
explored and discussed these challenges under three main points. First, we explained
antecedent factors, from the systems level to the individual level to the interpersonal
level, that influence immigrants’ entry acculturation process to the host cultural envi-
ronment. Then we discussed intergroup contact encounters and social identity com-
plexity issues and relatedly discussed intergroup interactional challenges such as inter-
generational challenges and stigmatized social identity challenges. We also explored
and discussed intergroup communication strategies of social mobility, social creativity,
and social competition to adapt to the host environment. Finally, we discussed the unfa-
vorable and favorable systems-­level acculturation outcomes and individual-­level accul-
turation outcomes such as developing a “third-­culture” perspective and also engaging
in “cultural frame switching.” Based on the research discussion in this chapter, here are
 Immigrants’ Acculturation Process 131

some recommendations for effectively managing identity transformation and accultura-

tion in the host environment:

1 Immigrants should realize that culture shock is an inevitable experience that

most people encounter when relocating from a familiar environment to an
unfamiliar one. Culture shock is induced because of identity fear or threat in the
unpredictable environment.

2 Acculturation is a process influenced by multiple factors from the systems

level to the interpersonal level, and it involves incremental identity shift and
changes for having to learn and adopt new roles and skills to adapt to the host
culture. The host national attitudinal stance and local institutional support can
facilitate immigrants’ acculturation process.

3 The greater the cultural distance factor between immigrants’ culture and the
host culture, the greater the need for immigrants to be provided with optimal
affective, cognitive, and behavioral resources to cope with such differences to feel
at home in the new environment.

4 Establishing personal and social networks in the host environment can afford
affective, instrumental, and informational resources for effective intercultural
adaptation and making the host environment one’s new home.

5 From an intergroup perspective, three strategies can be used for host environ-
ment adaptation based on immigrants’ perceived permeability of the boundary
crossing. These strategies are social mobility, social creativity, and social competi-
tion (Harwood et al., 2005).

6 From the identity negotiation theory lens, the immigrants’ fundamental need
in an unfamiliar culture is to address the sense of insecurity and vulnerabil-
ity. The more competent immigrants are at managing their identity threat level,
the more they are able to induce effective adaptation outcomes. New arrivals can
defuse their identity threats by: (a) increasing their motivations to learn about the
new culture; (b) keeping their expectations realistic and increasing their familiar-
ity with the diverse facets of the new culture (e.g., conducting culture-­specific
research through readings and diverse accurate sources, including talking with
people who have spent some time in that culture); (c) increasing their linguistic flu-
ency and learning why, how, and under what situations certain phrases or gestures
are appropriate, plus understanding the core cultural values linked to specific
behaviors; (d) working on their tolerance for ambiguity and other flexible personal
attributes; (e) developing strong ties (close friends) and weak ties (acquaintance-
ships) to manage identity stress and loneliness; (f) using a wide range of mass media
and social media to understand the symbolic complexity of the host culture; and (g)
being mindful of their interpersonal behaviors and suspending snap evaluations of
the host or newly adopted homeland culture.
132 Conceptual Foundations and Contex tual Settings

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. In regard to the opening case story, what do you think of intercultural dating rela-
tionships? Can you think of persuasive ways to support and promote intimate–­
intercultural relationships? How can parents and cultural communities support
intercultural relationships? What can parents do to raise their children bi- or multicul-
turally?

2. Among the three levels of antecedent factors that influence intercultural accultura-
tion, which of them do you think impacts and creates the most stressors in immi-
grants’ acculturation process? In what ways can host receptivity at the systems level
(e.g., immigration policy), individual level (e.g., expectations), and interpersonal level
(e.g., social network and support) positively impact immigrants’ acculturation to the
host environment?

3. Which of the identity change process models in your view help explain better immi-
grants’ integration into the host environment? What can the host country members
do to show respect and support to the social identity complexity of the immigrants?

4. To what extent do immigrants encounter intergenerational communication chal-

lenges and stigmatized social identity challenges in interpersonal and workplace
situations? What strategies can enable us to face these challenges? What are the
pros and cons of using social mobility, social creativity, and social competition strat-
egies?

5. Based on research findings on effective outcomes, what future research directions

would you suggest intercultural and intergroup scholars should focus on in promot-
ing bicultural frame-­switching and bicultural code-­switching processes in both host
and immigrant intergroup contact experiences?
PA R T II

Navigating Intercultural
and Intergroup
Communication
with Mindfulness
 C H A P TE R 5

Developing Intercultural and Intergroup

Communication Competence
A Mindfulness Lens

„„Introduction
„„Integrative Identity Negotiation Competence: Criteria
††Intercultural Competence Criteria: Interaction Yardsticks
††Intergroup Competence Criteria: Interaction Yardsticks
„„Culture-­Sensitive Competence Components
††Acquiring Culture-­Sensitive and Identity-­Sensitive Knowledge Component
††Developing the Flexible Mind-Set and Open-­Hearted Attitudes Component
††Sharpening Intercultural–­Intergroup Communication Capacities
and the Skillsets Component
††Intercultural–­Intergroup Desired Outcomes: Transformative Movements
„„Mindfulness: Linking Criteria, Components, and Outcomes
††The Connective Hook
††The Threefold Facets
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

F riendly T easing or Verbal H arassment?: A Case S tory

A few months ago, Jessica Martinez had just graduated from a well-­respected, local
university with a degree in mass communications. She had several offers, but the most
exciting and the one closest to home was with TechnoloComm. She was hired in the
human resources office to work on internal newsletters and publicity.

135
136 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Everything went well for the first week or two, and then something happened that
made her question her job and the organization. It was last Monday morning, and she
joined a conversation with her coworkers, Peter and Alex. They were working together on
other projects. So, seeing them in the coffee room, she thought this was a great chance
to get to know them.
First Episode: “Hi, Jessica,” said Peter enthusiastically. “We were just talking about
the big street party last weekend.” “Yeah,” chimed in Alex. “I was really frustrated
because I couldn’t get into my neighborhood. Did you experience the same problem?”
After pausing, he added, “I guess not, since you probably don’t live on the north side of
town.”
“Yeah, you must live in el barrio, right?” questioned Peter, making sure he had
given a Latin twist to “el barrio.” Jessica felt her face flush; she nodded slightly and faked
a laugh. Jessica lived with her family in a traditionally Hispanic area of town and would
never want to live anywhere else. Her neighborhood was home. It was where she had
grown up and where she knew everyone.
Before she could think of a good response, the men headed back to their desks. Jes-
sica’s gut reaction was, “Why do they assume I live in the barrio? I could live anywhere;
I just don’t want to and my family doesn’t want to either.” After thinking about the conver-
sation for a while, though, she decided to try to forget it, thinking, “It might be a verbal
misunderstanding; I just need to focus on my own job.”
Second Episode: A week later, the three of them bumped into each other again in
the coffee room on a Monday morning. Peter asked, “Hey, guys, how was your week-
end?” Alex replied, “Great! I got together with my family and had a surf and turf bar-
becue.” Jessica responded, “Sounds yummy. I love barbecue!” Peter commented, “I’m
surprised to hear that.”
With a surprising and innocent tone, Jessica asked, “Why’s that?” Peter replied,
“Well, you know, I’ve always heard that Hispanics don’t like to barbecue.”
Jessica responded with an irritated voice, “And, pray tell, why not?” “Well,” Peter
said, “because the beans fall through the grill!” At this point, both Peter and Alex started
laughing as Jessica responded with total disgust, “You guys are totally hopeless!” and
she walked away with her heart pounding.

—Adapted from Meares and Oetzel (2010, pp. 270–277)

Introduction

What do you think about the communication dynamics described in the story? To what
extent can you relate to Jessica’s experience? What communication concepts do you
have in your toolkit to dissect Peter and Alex’s verbal and nonverbal messages and Jes-
sica’s “heart-­pounding” reaction and decoding interpretation? Do you read the story as
a workplace friendly teasing episode or a workplace (or more specifically interethnic
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 137

and intergender) harassment episode? This opening story reflects the complex intersec-
tion of sociocultural membership and sociorelational professional role issues, perceived
power and privilege dynamics, ingroup/outgroup boundary maintenance and separa-
tion, and biased intergroup communication filters. After reading this chapter, we hope
you can apply some of the core competence components (such as knowledge, attitudes,
and skillsets) and competence criteria (appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability),
and we also hope that you will incorporate the essential role of mindfulness in analyz-
ing this case story with enhanced intercultural and intergroup reflexivity.
Intercultural and intergroup communication competence is of vital importance
to establish and maintain quality intercultural and intergroup relationships. Intercul-
tural relationships are constituted through communication; incompetent communica-
tion usually derails or damages relationships, while competent communication usually
nurtures relationships and enhances the richness of understanding on deep belief-­value
and identity levels. Mindful intercultural and intergroup communication can cue the
use of an ethnorelative mind-set by linking the other person’s cultural and personal
value orientations and lived experiences to explain the problematic interaction. It also
prompts timely use of a culturally adaptive verbal communication style, and the adop-
tion of appropriate and effective nonverbal gestures in accordance with the intercul-
tural or intergroup situation.
Several theoretical approaches to intercultural communication place a pri-
mary emphasis on competence, including anxiety/uncertainty management theory
(Gudykunst, 2005a, 2005b), and INT (Ting-­Toomey, 2005a). In Chapter 2, we exten-
sively discussed IINT and the core composite identity domains, including culture, eth-
nicity, religion, gender, family/generation, intimate-­professional role relationships, and
individual personal attributes. In Chapters 3 and 4, we offered the contexts in which
the identity negotiation processes of international sojourners and also immigrants and
refugees can play out in mindful or mindless interactional manner. In this chapter, we
contend that intercultural and intergroup communication competence is essential for
fulfilling instrumental/task and relational goals for sociocultural membership identity
interaction, sociocultural relational role interaction, and interpersonal–­individualized
interaction.
Traditionally, whereas the intercultural communication competence domain tends
to draw from theories and research concepts from the international management, inter-
personal communication, and intercultural competence fields, the intergroup commu-
nication domain tends to base its theorizing effort on social group processes, social
psychology, and intergroup relations arenas. While there are some clear distinctive foci
in each domain, some fascinating overlaps also exist in which these domains can mutu-
ally inform how to develop communication competence optimally. We explore some of
these intersectionalities here.
Sociocultural group memberships and other identity diversity issues are central to
understanding both intercultural and intergroup communication in our everyday work-
place and relationship development (Giles, 2012; Ting-­Toomey, 1999, 2005a). Under the
current IINT version (see Chapter 2), competent communication is conceptualized as
138 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

integrating the necessary intercultural–­intergroup knowledge, mindfulness, and inter-

action skills to manage identity-­based and communication-­based issues appropriately,
effectively, and adaptively.
This chapter is organized in four sections. The first section probes the criteria
of what constitutes a competent intercultural–­intergroup communicator. In particu-
lar, the criteria of communication appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability are
addressed. The second section offers a working model on intercultural–­intergroup com-
munication competence and covers the content components and desired outcomes of
developing intercultural–­intergroup competence capacities. The third section explores
the role of mindfulness in connecting with competence criteria, content components,
and desired outcomes. The fourth section offers a chapter summary and recommends
some initial guidelines for developing a mindfulness state in becoming an astute inter-
cultural and intergroup communicator in diverse interactional settings.

Integrative Identity Negotiation Competence: Criteria

The first part of this section emphasizes the implicit standards or yardsticks that assess
intercultural communication competence; and the second part stresses the yardsticks
that appraise intergroup communication competence. Here we also emphasize that
both intercultural and intergroup communication competence are situational-­based
concepts and are intersubjectively derived based on the assessments of both insiders
and outsiders’ outlooks. While insiders or ingroup members would often compute the
ingroup members’ behaviors as manifesting appropriate and effective interaction, out-
siders or outgroup members would just as often gauge the problematic behaviors as
improper and ineffective.

Intercultural Competence Criteria: Interaction Yardsticks

According to Wiseman (2003), intercultural communication competence refers to the
“the knowledge, motivation, and skills to interact effectively and appropriately with
members of different cultures” (p. 192). When viewed from the INT lens (Ting-­Toomey,
2005a), the criteria for evaluating intercultural communication competence have been
borrowed from the field of interpersonal competence, especially concerning the crite-
ria of appropriateness and effectiveness (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, 1989, 2011). These
two criteria, together with the added feature of adaptability (Ting-­Toomey, 1999), can
serve as evaluative yardsticks of whether or not an intercultural or intergroup commu-
nicator has been perceived as behaving competently in an interaction episode.
Communication appropriateness refers to the degree to which the exchanged
behaviors are regarded as proper and match the expectations generated by the culture’s
insiders. To behave “properly” in any given cultural situation, competent negotiators
need to have the relevant value knowledge schema of the larger situational norms that
guide the interaction episode (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2002). They also need to acquire
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 139

the specific knowledge schema of what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate lan-

guage/verbal and nonverbal style patterns that can promote quality intercultural inter-
action and a synchronized relationship-­building process. For example, knowing how to
address senior persons (whether status-­related or age-­related seniors) by their proper
titles and honorifics and with the proper nonverbal intonations and bowing postures is
a sign of appropriate and respectful behavior in Japanese and Korean cultures.
Communication effectiveness refers to the degree to which communicators
achieve mutually shared meaning and integrative goal-­related outcomes in the inter-
action episode (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2011). To engage in effective communication
strategies, intercultural negotiators need to have a wide range of verbal and nonverbal
repertoires to make mindful choices and create the momentum needed to move their
individual or interdependent goal outcomes forward. Communication effectiveness has
been achieved when multiple meanings are attended to with accuracy and in a cul-
turally sensitive manner, and when personal and mutually desired goals have been
worked out strategically (Canary, Lakey, & Sillars, 2013; Hannawa, 2015). For example,
in many Asian cultures such as the Thai and Vietnamese, individuals would not like
to say a direct or blunt “no” to a friend’s request (e.g., for a ride to the airport at an
early morning hour such as 5 A.M.), and the friend in turn would make the request in a
very tactful way. They would meander around the issue, and the friend would already
decode the “implicit rejection answer” and would retreat graciously from the request
statement by engaging in some mutual face-­saving response. Although the outcome of
the airport ride request was not successful, on the meaning decoding level, both com-
municators discerned the content meaning level with accuracy and coordination. Thus,
the outcome was partially effective and not awkward. More importantly, the twin crite-
ria of communication appropriateness and communication effectiveness are positively
interdependent. When both communicators display appropriate verbal and nonverbal
behaviors in accordance with the culturally situated expectancies, the “good-faith” pro-
cess behaviors can induce interaction and outcome effectiveness. When both intercul-
tural members try hard to understand the multiple meanings in the communication
transaction process, their attentive understanding posture can prompt collaborative
intercultural movements and possibly lead to effective conjoint outcomes.
To behave both appropriately and effectively in managing a diverse range of inter-
cultural situations, one needs to be mentally and behaviorally nimble and flexible.
Communication adaptability refers to our ability to change our interaction behaviors
and goals to meet the specific needs of the situation (Arasaratnam, 2007; Arasarat-
nam & Doerfel, 2005; Molinsky, 2007; Ting-­Toomey, 2004). It implies mental, affective,
and behavioral flexibility in dealing with the minute-­to-­minute unfolding intercultural
scene with litheness and communication elasticity. To move toward behavioral adapta-
tion, mindful communicators would need to integrate identity-­sensitive knowledge con-
cerning self and others and infuse their knowledge base with open-­minded attitudes
and open-­hearted wonderment. For example, bicultural and bilingual individuals can
often code-­switch between languages seamlessly (e.g., between Spanish and English,
or Tagalog and English when communicating with their grandparents versus with their
140 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

siblings in the U.S. family setting). The same applies to multicultural and multilingual
individuals negotiating strategic communication convergence and divergence in differ-
ent intergroup communicative situations.

Intergroup Competence Criteria: Interaction Yardsticks

From the lens of intergroup communication theorizing frameworks, intergroup com-
munication is defined in terms of how social contexts and group memberships affect the
ways in which individuals communicate with members of their own ingroups and per-
ceived outgroups and how their sense of group membership solidarity or distance shape
their communication patterns and meaning negotiation processes (Giles, 2012). In the
opening case story, Jessica, Peter, and Alex’s interactions exemplify intergroup commu-
nication clashes, especially Peter and Alex who behave in an unconscious incompetent
manner while interacting with Jessica. Furthermore, Peter and Alex are presumptuous
about where Jessica lives and about Hispanics’ taste for barbecue. The intersectionality
of power and privilege and sociocultural group memberships in the case story shapes
Peter and Alex’s jostling accommodative demeanor (acting as ingroup members) with
each other, while they engage in an exclusionary nonaccommodative stance with Jes-
sica (perceived as an outgroup member). However, from the perspective of a meaning–­
intention–­decoding analysis process, both Peter and Alex may think they are being
quite welcoming and accommodating to Jessica as the newcomer to the organization. In
reality, they totally dismiss her interpretive lens and emotional reactions. They also use
mindless and rigid stereotypes to typecast her ethnic background and also minimize
her professional and personal identity attributes.
Whereas intergroup communication incompetence means communicating inap-
propriately, ineffectively, and unproductively, intergroup communication competence
can be defined as individuals engaging in appropriate, effective, and adaptive interac-
tion in a given social context and informed by knowledge, attitudes, and skills about
diverse group membership and personal identity issues. Thus, this latter definition dif-
fers from the general conceptualization of interpersonal communication competence
(Canary et al., 2013; Spitzberg, 2009, 2015; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2011), with a strong
emphasis on promoting productive intergroup contact and interactional issues. Practi-
cally speaking, no interpersonal communication is totally devoid of sociocultural mem-
bership influence during the course of a relationship development trajectory.
Most importantly, from the intergroup communication framework, social contexts
are very different from interpersonal contexts. For example, those with interpersonal
(i.e., individuated–­personalized) communication skills may competently relate to each
other as individuals, but they may lack competent communication skills to relate to each
other as members of different social groups such as elders and adolescents, or health
care providers and patients (Hecht & Lu, 2015; Hummert, 2010; Villagran & Sparks,
2010). From a U.S.-centric research viewfinder, interpersonal communication (i.e., rec-
ognizing and valuing the unique, distinctive personal identity features of the individu-
als) often connotes “better quality” communication than intergroup communication.
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 141

However, the intergroup perspective recognizes the critical importance and the perva-
sive influence of social group membership contexts on the minute-­to-­minute dynamic
shifting of the communication processes between the two or more individuals from
diverse membership communities (see Giles, 2012; Giles et al., 2010; Harwood &
Giles, 2005). Thus, to engage in competent intergroup communication, one needs to be
responsive to sociocultural membership identity and dialogue issues and also develop
an attuned ear to listen for important data sources that are being underscored in the
intergroup interaction process. Intergroup communication is ubiquitous in everyday
life. Group membership issues or topics should not be minimized in quality intergroup
and interpersonal communication.
To accentuate our scholarly ideas in this book, we firmly believe that in the field of
human communication studies, it is equally important to probe the conceptualization
of “quality intergroup communication” on a par with the study of “quality interper-
sonal communication” in multiple interactional arenas. Intergenerational communica-
tion, for example, aptly illustrates the extent to which communication between elders
and young adults has been mediated by stereotypical perceptions of each other’s social
group memberships (Hummert, 2010; see later section of this chapter (under the head-
ing “Sharpening Intercultural–­Intergroup Communication Capacities and the Skillsets
Component”). Mindful communicators will utilize knowledge-­based identity informa-
tion for productive dialogue or meaningful convergence but will not rigidly adhere
to the preconceived “stereotyped” knowledge categories that mindless communicators
would.
Intergroup communication competence involves mindfully communicating appro-
priately, effectively, and adaptively to each other in social contexts. Intergroup appro-
priateness refers to the extent to which the exchanged communicative behaviors accord
with or match the social group expectations of the message’s recipients. For this pur-
pose, intergroup interactants need to acquire the knowledge schema of what is regarded
as proper or improper behavior according to the social expectations of the respective
group membership. For example, in the social context of North American universities,
students may call their professors by their first names, whereas in other social contexts
such as in India and Tibet students address their professors by their respectful titles
Sir, Madam, Professor Raman, or Gen la (Respected Teacher in Tibetan). Appropri-
ate intergroup address is determined by the normative expectation standards of the
respective social contexts. Students must learn about these appropriate behaviors and
then mindfully practice them when relating to their professors in the particular social
context.
Intergroup effectiveness refers to the extent to which communicators assign shared
meaning to the exchanged communicative behaviors in social contexts and achieve
interactional goals such as instrumental and relational goals. From an intergroup per-
spective, meanings are socially constructed and consensually agreed upon by members
both within and between groups. For example, Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists regard
the swastika (in its original form it was associated with the Indus Valley civilization) as
a symbol with positive and sacred meanings, whereas European peoples in particular,
142 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

tormented by memories of Hitler and the atrocities of the Nazi regime, regard the same
symbol (placed diagonally on the Nazi flag) with totally negative meaning. In 2010, in
Pretend City—a Children’s museum—­in Irvine, California, a Hindu swastika woven
on a tapestry was displayed as part of the East Indian Heritage Exhibition and caused
a great uproar among diverse group members. Some voiced negative criticism of the
symbol on the ground of insensitivity and demanded that the symbol be removed from
the exhibit. The museum did so, but others, opposed to the removal, emphasized that
the swastika was a sacred symbol to the East Indians and so they demanded respect
for it. This case vividly illustrates the need for effective intergroup communication and
meaning coordination when addressing intergroup conflict issues.
This real-life scenario illustrates that intergroup communicators from both com-
munities need to be sensitive to the situational context of proper and improper actions.
They also need to learn to effectively negotiate the attributed meanings of verbal and
nonverbal symbols and the associated sociohistorical contexts in order to understand
each other’s group membership identity issues. Competent intergroup communication
involves mindfully attuning to the situational dynamics and also negotiating the con-
flicting meanings of such symbols in a conjoint effective manner. Furthermore, inter-
group communication competence also requires adaptability.
Adaptability refers to communicators’ abilities to be cognitively, affectively, and
behaviorally agile in attuning to each other’s identity signals (and also instrumental or
task goals) in particular contexts. Cognitively, intergroup communicators need to be
constantly “minding their minds” in creating identity differentiations and identity com-
plexities in observing and assessing the multifaceted identities of an unfamiliar other
in situ. Affectively, they need to be empathetic to each other’s mind-sets, heart-sets,
worldviews, and perspectives. Behaviorally, they need to change or adjust their actual
behaviors in order to reach desired intergroup outcomes and situational needs. For
example, in resolving the case about the swastika, members from both communities can
mindfully attune to the contrasting meanings of the symbol in different sociocultural
contexts and interpret its meaning accordingly. Adaptive intergroup communication
involves being mindful of when to converge toward or diverge from the distinctive style
of the other group member, or when to maintain one’s style in particular social contexts.
Intentional code switching or dialect switching, or a caregiver converging toward an
elderly family member with dementia (e.g., via the use of simple sentence structure or
reassuring nonverbal convergent gestures), is an excellent example of mindful inter-
group communication adaptability.
On a general level, intercultural–­intergroup communication competence can be
conceptualized along the following four stages of the staircase competence model (see
Figure 5.1; Howell, 1982): (1) unconscious incompetence—the blissful ignorance stage
in which an individual is unaware of the communication blunders he or she has com-
mitted in interacting with a cultural stranger in the intercultural or intergroup scene;
(2) conscious incompetence—the stage in which an individual is aware of her or his
incompetence in communicating with a cultural stranger but either lacks the necessary
knowledge and skills to fix the problem or does not feel the necessity to change her
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 143

Unconscious
Competence Stage

Conscious Competence Stage

Conscious Incompetence Stage

Unconscious Incompetence Stage

FIGURE 5.1. Four-stage intercultural communication competence: A staircase model.

or his habitual way of thinking and behaving in the encounter situation; (3) conscious
competence—the stage when an individual is fully aware of his or her intercultural–­
intergroup communication “nonfluency” or awkwardness and is committed to integrate
the new knowledge, ethnorelative attitudes, and skills into appropriate and effective
practice; and (4) unconscious competence—the phase when an individual is natu-
rally or spontaneously practicing her or his intercultural knowledge and skills to the
extent that the intercultural–­intergroup interaction process flows smoothly and “out-
of-­conscious awareness.”
While the first stage of “unconscious incompetence” can take place for many indi-
viduals because of cultural ignorance or interpersonal obliviousness, the second stage,
“conscious incompetence,” is the most intriguing stage to contemplate in considering
its communication implication. At this particular stage, some individuals can be cog-
nitively aware of their cultural blunders but behaviorally still remain awkward due to
the lack of cultural or identity-­sensitive knowledge. However, in many cases too, some
individuals can be “semiconscious” of their behavioral blunder or identity-­insensitive
remarks but remain steadfast in not wanting to change their behaviors due to a strong
ethnocentric attitude or a prejudiced mind-set at work. The third stage, the “conscious
competence” stage, refers to the “full mindfulness” phase in which communicators are
fully aware of their own systems of thinking, reacting, and experiencing and, simultane-
ously and intentionally, attending to the systems of thinking, feelings, and behaviors of
their interaction partners in the problematic intergroup situation. In other words, they
try to “perspective-­take” from the viewpoint of the other conversational partner’s frame
144 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

of reference. They mindfully or intentionally connect their newfound cultural or group

membership knowledge sets and put them into appropriate, effective, and adaptive
practice in accordance with the social contexts. The fourth stage, “unconscious com-
petence,” is the “zen-like mindlessly mindful” phase in which communicators move in
and out of “spontaneous mindfulness” and “reflective mindlessness” in communicating
with dissimilar others. They practice a sense of intuitive “out-of-­conscious awareness”
interactional flow with seamless rhythms and movements. At this stage, intercultural or
intergroup communication competence functions like second nature due to daily dili-
gent practice and a fluent figure-­eight double-­swing mind-set and heart-set. It is likely
that bicultural or third-­culture kids and seasoned international sojourners (see Chapter
3), and co-­culture members who have to deal with tremendous identity diversity in
their family and workplace situations (see Chapter 4), are more attuned to navigating
the multiple cultural worlds with conscious to unconscious competence than individu-
als who stay in their monocultural enclaves.
In one sense, competent intercultural and intergroup communicators often rotate
between the conscious competence and the unconscious competence stage—for the
purpose of refreshing and sharpening their knowledge and interactional skillsets in
communicating appropriately, effectively, and elastically with cultural strangers (see
also Spitzberg, 2015). The staircase model of developing communication competence is
also a situational-­based and culture-­based model. Some intercultural–­intergroup com-
municators can be very competent in dealing with certain particular cultural situations
(e.g., negotiating formal business deals and contracts), yet behave totally awkwardly in
other cultural scenes (e.g., in informal rapport-­building social settings).
To accomplish both the internal and external desired outcomes of intercultural–­
intergroup competence development, communicators need to acquire the necessary
culture-­sensitive and identity-­sensitive knowledge, cultivate their ethnorelative mind-
set, and practice flexible operational skillsets relevant to the given context. We now
turn to a discussion of these three key content components of intercultural–­intergroup
communication competence and the momentum needed to practice internal frame
switching and external code switching as desired processes and outcomes.

Culture‑Sensitive Competence Components

If individuals desire to operate competently in a new cultural setting, they should pay
close attention to the three content components of culture-­sensitive competence devel-
opment: acquiring culture-­sensitive and identity-­sensitive knowledge; developing flex-
ible mind-set and open-­hearted attitudes; and sharpening their communication compe-
tence capacities and skillsets.
We start our discussion with the importance of acquiring culture-­sensitive knowl-
edge and the intentional acquisition of enhancing our awareness on how group mem-
bership identity and personal identity shape our communication contours with others
(see Figure 5.2).
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 145

Intercultural and Intergroup

Social Ecological Social Ecological
Macro–Exo Systems
Communication Competence
Macro–Exo Systems
Criteria:
Meso–Micro Systems Appropriateness, Effectiveness, Meso–Micro Systems

Intercultural Competence Context

Adaptability
Intercultural Competence Context

MINDFULNESS
Mindful Choices and Decisions

Culture-Sensitive Intercultural–
Developing
and Identity- Intergroup
Flexible Mind-Set
Sensitive Communication
and Open-Hearted
Knowledge Skillsets
Attitudes

Internal Frame Shifting: External Code Switching:

Process and Outcome Process and Outcome

FIGURE 5.2. Intercultural and intergroup communication competence: A mindfulness model.

Acquiring the Culture‑Sensitive and Identity‑Sensitive

Knowledge Component
In the context of developing intercultural communication knowledge content compe-
tence, Ting-­Toomey and Dorjee (2015, 2017) propose that the following knowledge ele-
ments should constitute the baseline cognitive knowledge structures of a competent
intercultural communicator: understanding sociocultural membership, socio­relational
role, and personal identity issues (see Chapter 2); developing deep knowledge contents
of the cultural worldviews and value variation dimensions (see Chapter 6); mastering
language proficiency and distinctive verbal interaction styles; and appreciating com-
monalities and differences of cross-­cultural nonverbal codes (see Chapters 7 and 8).
Additionally, the following intercultural knowledge structures are critical: comprehend-
ing culture shock and adjustment/reentry issues (see Chapter 3); recognizing immi-
grants’ and refugees’ complex acculturation processes in a diverse society (see Chapter
4); realizing the filters of ethnocentrism–­stereotypes–­prejudice–­power dynamic issues
between co-­culture groups (see Chapter 9); practicing flexible intercultural conflict
styles and collaborating on common-­interest goals (see Chapter 10); grappling with
146 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

diverse forms of intercultural–­intimate relationships (see Chapter 11); and developing a

meta-­ethics principled stance (see Chapter 12).
On the intergroup membership communication level, a plethora of meta-­analytic
studies investigated intergroup contact—­real or imagined—­to reduce intergroup prej-
udice and improve intergroup relations among other things (Beelmann & Heinemann,
2014; Miles & Crisp, 2014; Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011). Taken together,
many of these studies indicate that intergroup contact involving positive attitudes and
positive interaction (accommodative behaviors) and moderators (e.g., lowering anxiety
about intergroup contact and enhancing empathy and perspective taking) reduce inter-
group biases and further productive and trusting intergroup relations. For example,
recently, thousands of Israeli and Palestinian women walked together for peace, send-
ing a powerful positive message counteractive to the usual Middle East conflict mes-
sages. Intergroup researchers also pointed out that communicative factors such as self-­
disclosure and relational solidarity, among others, can enhance intergroup contact’s
effects (Harwood & Joyce, 2012).
Intergroup communication competence involves understanding and competently
negotiating identity orientations, motivations, and communicative strategies between
communicators in social contexts. While recognizing the significance of sociohistori-
cal context, communication accommodation theory (CAT) maintains that effectively
communicating with each other at interpersonal and intergroup levels requires accom-
modation (Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005). For example, divergent or consensual interpre-
tations of the history of race relations between African Americans and European Amer-
icans in the United States can change the dynamics of communication between two
individuals from these ethnoracial backgrounds (Hecht, Jackson, & Ribeau, 2003). In
general, when people want to increase attraction and approval, they choose to converge
or accommodate toward the other’s interactional style in the interdependent social con-
text (Dorjee et al., 2011). Competent intergroup communicators need to attend to these
matters from a co-­orientation standpoint and from both a situated social identity and
personal identity lens. Furthermore, realizing one’s own and others’ motivations in an
intergroup communicative situation can also shape and change the dynamics of the
process and outcome of communication.

Developing the Flexible Mind-Set and Open‑Hearted

Attitudes Component
Dominant models of human competence since the 1950s assume that knowledge,
motivation, and skills are the core components of competence (Hannawa & Spitzberg,
2015; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). We prefer to use the term “flexible mind-set”—
a richer term to connote the need for a broader ethnorelative mind-set and the need
for a deeper soulful heart-set—to discuss intercultural and intergroup communication
competencies. Flexible mind-set includes motivational drives (both cognitive and affec-
tive predispositions) as well as a host of other concomitant attitudes (e.g., intergroup
attitudes and mindful attunement) that could affect intercultural–­intergroup commu-
nication competencies.
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 147

From a motivational point of view, willingness to interact and place oneself in

culturally diverse situations is vital to competent interactions among individuals from
different sociocultural backgrounds. Additionally, how individuals perceive each other
can affect social interaction and communication outcomes. Arguably, willingness to
interact and perceptions are filtered through intercultural–­intergroup interpretations,
ethnocentrism, and stereotypes (see Chapter 9). While the cultivation of an ethnorela-
tive mind-set means seeing things from the other person’s holistic identity angle, an
open-­hearted attitude implies the combination of compassion for self and the develop-
ment of affective empathy and resonance for others. In essence, an open-­hearted atti-
tude is to sit without judgment and to acknowledge things as they are, with equanimity
and transparency. Concurrently, to engage in an open-­hearted attitude, an individual
needs to exercise due perceptual wisdom and balance between self and others. The
Dalai Lama, for example, connects with people from all walks of life with an open-­
hearted attitude and emphasizes the deep commonality and interdependent fate of
humanity on physical, mental, affective, ethical, and ecological levels. Often he said
publicly, “We are same human beings who want happiness, but do not want suffering.
We are physically, emotionally, and mentally same—no difference.” His Holiness the
Dalai Lama treats all individuals equally without being judgmental, and he emphasizes
being transparent in all interactions, with courage and without fear. In sum, competent
intercultural and intergroup communicators need to be in touch with their cluttered
hearts, opening their hearts to all forms of identity diversity, engage in active multiple-­
identity inclusion practices, and suspend snapshot reactive ethnocentrism.
The term “ethnocentrism” comes from two words originating from the Greek:
ethno, which refers to “one’s own ethnic or cultural group,” and centrism, which means
that “one’s own group should be looked upon as the center of the world.” Ethnocen-
trism, then, refers to considering the views and standards of our own ingroup as more
important than those of any outgroup. Peripheral outgroups (especially if they are in
a “powerless” position and without tons of assets or resources) are constantly at a dis-
advantage because we constantly judge them based on our own “mainstream” group’s
standards and values. Examples of such standards include beliefs that one’s own group
practices the correct religion, employs the best ways of educating their children, and
votes for the most qualified political candidates. Ethnocentrism is a defense mecha-
nism that elevates our own culture above other cultures. Ethnocentrism is reinforced
and learned through a deep cultural conditioning and immersion process. It can be
both a conscious and an unconscious social learning process. Ethnocentrism consists
of both implicit and explicit attitudes toward outgroup members’ customs or behaviors.
We display ethnocentric tendencies for three reasons: (1) we tend to define what
goes on in our own culture as natural and correct and what goes on in other cultures as
unnatural and incorrect; (2) we tend to perceive ingroup values, customs, norms, and
roles as universally applicable; and (3) we tend to experience psychological (to physi-
cal) distance from the outgroup, especially when our group identity is threatened or
under attack (Stephan, Stephan, & Gudykunst 1999). Our ethnocentric tendencies may
be blurred by our perception of privilege—­an “invisible package of unearned assets”
(McIntosh, 2002, p. 424)—that one is oblivious to, and it can be based on the group
148 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

membership’s skin color, ethnicity, gender, social status, and geographical location. By
assuming even on an unconscious level that we “deserve” certain rights or advantages
over others, we develop a state of ethnocentric attitude toward outgroup members. For
example, remember the opening case story’s narrative? In the case story, Peter com-
plained about the street party blocking his way to the neighborhood and said (sarcasti-
cally) to Jessica: “I was really frustrated because I couldn’t get into my neighborhood.
Did you experience the same problem?” After pausing, Peter added, “I guess not, since
you probably don’t live on the north side of town,” a remark that reflected Peter’s domi-
nant white power, race privilege, and intergroup bias.
Intergroup attitudes based on group vitality can also affect perceptions of commu-
nication competence among members of different social groups. The vitality of a group
can be measured on three levels: demography, status, and institutional support (Giles,
Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977; Giles & Johnson, 1987). Demography includes population,
immigration, emigration, birth, and mortality factors. Status includes social standing
and economic status. Institutional support includes governmental, school, university,
and organizational support to sustain and promote group vitality factors such as lan-
guage, arts, cultures, and education. In social interactions, these group vitality fac-
tors influence intergroup relations and communication (Clement, Baker, & MacIntyre,
2003). A society or nation consists of many groups referred to by terms such as domi-
nant versus subordinate or co-­culture groups (Orbe et al., 2013). For example, in the
United States, European Americans constitute the dominant group while others (e.g.,
African Americans, Latino/Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans) are subordi-
nate or co-­culture groups (Orbe et al., 2013). These groups differ widely across the
previously mentioned group vitality dimensions, shaping intergroup communication
dynamics and competence perceptions. For example, subordinate or co-­culture group
members who perceive low ingroup vitality may defer to asymmetrical power distance
interaction and accommodate to the interaction styles of dominant group members.
Conversely, co-­culture members who perceive high-­status group vitality or pride and
solidarity may enact, or even dramatize, ingroup interaction styles or speech dialects.
The default mind-set appears to be that individuals who experience high group
vitality on a consistent daily basis would more likely expect individuals with low group
vitality to accommodate to them in most social interactions. Anecdotal evidence indi-
cates that in the U.S. multicultural society, which is considered the land and home of
immigrants, many individuals from the dominant group do demand or expect recent
immigrant group members to learn English fluently in a relatively short time and to
speak it in any social setting. Theoretically, communication accommodation can come
from either side in social interaction, but, in reality, dominant group members tend to
expect minority or co-­culture group members to accommodate to their communicative
needs due to their sometimes unearned cultural/societal privilege of birth, inherited
wealth, namesake, or the fact of their being white (McIntosh, 2002). Thus, the greater
the perceived ingroup vitality and intergroup distance, the greater the group’s status
and power influence on intergroup interactions.
In particular, intergroup attitudes can hamper or facilitate intergroup communica-
tion competence (e.g., Giles & Rakic, 2014). CAT argues that social-­historical contexts
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 149

and intergroup perceptions are critical to intergroup communication and accommoda-

tive practices (Gallois et al., 2005; Soliz & Giles, 2014). For example, during World
War II, many mainstream U.S. Americans harshly stereotyped and engaged in direct
prejudice and racism against Japanese Americans based on intergroup fear and anxi-
ety. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 and thus officially
uprooted and imprisoned more than 120,000 first-­generation, second-­generation, and
third-­generation Japanese Americans, sending them to internment camps in Arizona,
Colorado, Utah, and remote parts of California and elsewhere. Many of these native-­
born Americans of Japanese descent experienced at firsthand direct institutional preju-
dice and discrimination from their mainstream American cohorts. Fast forward to a
contemporary event, 9/11. Since then, many mainstream U.S. Americans have devel-
oped negative stereotypes of Muslims, including Muslim Americans. These stereotypes
and intergroup hostility between many Muslim countries such as Iran and Iraq and the
United States hinder intergroup communication competence among members of these
groups.
Unfortunately, much of the communication among people from these groups is
filtered through ethnocentrism and stereotypes. Members from these groups tend to
perceive others’ identity and existence as threats to their own identity (e.g., the Middle
East conflict). Conversely, intergroup attraction and approval among friendly nations
and groups such as the United States and the United Kingdom facilitate intergroup
cooperation and, concurrently, more opportunities to practice competent communica-
tion processes and outcomes. Positive intergroup attitudes such as intergroup apprecia-
tion and win–win benefits and rewards help to enhance further intergroup dialogue
and attunement, and promote inclusive communication practices. In fostering more
intergroup cooperative opportunities, intergroup differences are attenuated, whereas
intergroup commonalities are accentuated. As a result, ethnorelativism prevails in
favorable intergroup settings. Thus, favorable intergroup attitudes promote intergroup
relations and competent interactions (e.g., Bennett, 2004, 2013; Ellis & Moaz, 2012;
Kim, 2013).
In sum, intergroup attitudes matter for intergroup communication competence.
While negative or unfavorable intergroup attitudes such as intergroup hostility, ethno-
centrism, and stereotypes hinder intergroup communication competence, positive or
favorable intergroup attitudes such as ethnorelative mind-set, together with an open-­
hearted posture, promote intergroup communication competence. These attitudes are
related to practicing competence communication skillsets.

Sharpening Intercultural–Intergroup Communication Capacities

and the Skillsets Component
Dynamic and flexible intercultural and intergroup attitudes have to be translated
and connected to concrete verbal and nonverbal behavioral practices. Intercultural–­
intergroup communication competence skillsets refer to the operational skills needed
to negotiate appropriately, effectively, and adaptively on multiple levels of content, rela-
tionship, and identity issues coupled with accurate meaning encoding and decoding
150 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

processes (Afifi & Coveleski, 2015; Cupach, 2015). While host nationals need to increase
their knowledge, open-­hearted attitudes, and culture-­sensitive skills in dealing with
the macro–micro interactional issues that impact incoming strangers, immigrants, refu-
gees, and co-­culture group members also need to learn to swing between the various
identity dialectical poles creatively and elastically in crafting their strategic identity
negotiation processes and desired outcomes.
According to Figure 5.2, the desired outcomes revolving around competent
intercultural and intergroup communication include the capacity to frame-­ switch
(an internal cognitive-­affective transformation process moving from the ethnocen-
tric to ethnorelative state) and code-­switch (an external language/dialect convergence
and divergence adaptive process in conjunction with verbal and nonverbal stylistic
alteration process). Hopefully, through adaptive and dynamic frame-­switching and
code-­ switching processes, competent intercultural and intergroup negotiators can
move forward productively to attain instrumental goals and also derive communica-
tion satisfaction on multiple intergroup contact levels. According to IINT, which was
presented in Chapter 2, satisfactory identity negotiation outcomes on the broad level
include the feeling of being understood, respected, and affirmatively valued between
the local hosts and incoming guests, and among sojourners, transplanted immigrants,
and minority identity or co-­culture members (Ting-­Toomey, 2005a). All these important
external and internal factors affect the activation of general and particular intercultural
and intergroup communication identity–­supportive skillsets. Identity–­support commu-
nicative strategies such as mindful listening and dialogue, shared empowerment and
alliance formation strategies, identity confirmation and empathetic inclusion behaviors,
and social justice advocacies are some productive identity interaction moves that can
promote satisfactory intergroup and interpersonal relationships. In particular, in order
to convey our understanding of another intercultural partner, we can do well to practice
mindful listening skills such as the following: (1) Using an ethnorelative perspective to
listen deeply to create more adaptive choices in our interaction; (2) display a respectful
nonverbal posture; (3) aim to “struggle with” rather than “struggle against” our inter-
cultural ally and cultivate common ground and common interest; (4) learn to reframe
our understanding to interpret things from the other person’s viewpoint, and (5) share
some of our emotional vulnerability and fear if appropriate (see Table 5.1).
Identity–­rejection strategies such as mindless attendance or mindless listening,
ego-­focused monologue versus dialogue, power dominance or patronization, indiffer-
ent attitudes or identity-­minimizing messages can maximize intergroup distancing (see
Chapter 9). Unfortunately, in most emotionally aggravating situations between polar-
ized identity groups, individuals’ sociocultural memberships or personal identities are
often disrespected and actually bypassed or inadvertently stepped on, even without
malicious intent. Our ethnocentric attitudes and biased stereotyped filters may direct
us to see things from a narrow-­tunneled angle for self-­identity preservation and protec-
tion.
From an intergroup theorizing standpoint, as social beings, all individuals gener-
ally seek social approval from each other in interactions. CAT (Gallois et al., 2005)
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 151

TABLE 5.1. Mindless versus Mindful Listening Characteristics

Mindless listening Mindful listening
Ethnocentric lens Ethnorelative lens
Reactive approach Proactive/choice approach
Selective hearing Attentive listening
Defensive posture Supportive posture
“Struggle against” “Struggle with”
Judgmental attitude Mindful reframing
Emotional outbursts Vulnerability shared
Positional differences Common interests
Fixed objectives Creative options

contends that the extent to which social approval is sought can shape communicative
accommodation in interactions. CAT provides three communicative strategies for
effectively communicating in intergroup and interpersonal contexts: convergence or
accommodative strategy, divergence or nonaccommodative strategy, and maintenance
strategy (Gallois et al., 2005; Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991). In general, these
strategies are used in social interactions such as how elders and youngsters relate to
each other. Group memberships influence their perceptions and situated communi-
cation strategies. In the following discussion, these ideas are defined and clarified
through more specific CAT terms.
Convergence or accommodation is a communicative strategy through which inter-
actants adjust or converge toward each other’s communicative behavior (e.g., matching
the other’s accents, paralinguistic qualities, or use of phrases). Conversely, divergence
or nonaccommodation is a communicative strategy through which interactants accen-
tuate their differences in communicative behaviors (e.g., code-­switching, speaking
mixed languages or accents, and avoiding interaction). Maintenance is a communica-
tive strategy through which interactions persist in their original communication style
regardless of each other’s communicative behavior (e.g., speaking Indian English as
usual, speaking American English as usual, or speaking the native language as usual).
For example, according to Hummert (2010), individuals who belong to intergenera-
tional groups perceive each other as members of different social groups while relating
to each other. For competent communication to take place, both generational members
need to be mindful of what is regarded as appropriate, effective, and adaptive com-
munication from an ethonorelative point of view. For example, if elders have a hearing
problem (which may happen due to aging), then young adults should speak louder to
promote effective communication, but if they hear well, then speaking loudly would
152 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

be perceived as incompetent and patronizing communicative behavior. Elders appre-

ciate neither overaccommodation nor underaccommodation by young interactants
in particular situational scenes. Overaccommodation—­such as verbal message over-
simplifications, verbatim repetitions, and artificial nonverbal posturing—­is a case of
patronizing behavior that is perceived negatively. In contrast, underaccommodation is
a failure to adapt to the communicative needs and styles of others and reflects commu-
nication insensitivity and incompetence (e.g., nonaccommodative to hard-of-­hearing or
impaired vision problem).
In other words, young adults’ accommodative strategies for elders should be
appropriate to the situation and, concurrently, should promote effective intergroup
and interpersonal communication goals. Likewise, elders should adopt intergroup-­
sensitive convergence or sometimes even maintenance communicative strategies if
they are appropriate to the particular elder–­youngster social interactive situations. It is
important to note here that perceived accommodation or nonaccommodation is often
much more important than actual behavioral accommodation or divergence. Overall,
competent intergroup communicators must attend to the influence of social-­historical
relationships, the actual ongoing interpersonal relationship formation, and intersubjec-
tive perceptions of communication, especially in problematic intergroup–­interpersonal
conflict situations.
For the last two and half decades, intercultural communication scholars have
attached much research importance to the phenomenon of intercultural communication
competence as supported by extant theorizing and substantive research work (see Dear-
dorff, 2009; Wiseman & Koester, 1993). An added nuanced intergroup communication
perspective with its emphasis on intergroup identity motivations, filtered perceptions,
situations, and practice of strategic intergroup communicative strategies can greatly
enhance our theorizing of intergroup–­intercultural communication competencies.

Intercultural–Intergroup Desired Outcomes:

Transformative Movements
According to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) and Deardorff (2009), one of the future
directions for theorizing about intercultural–­intergroup communication competence
is to include the component of desired outcomes in framing the various competence
issues. We concur with their viewpoint and believe that mindfulness of both internal
process outcomes such as cultural frame switching (Hong et al., 2000) and external
process outcomes such as goal achievements and face identity support will propel indi-
viduals forward to complete the intercultural–­intergroup communication competence
cycle. We also emphasize here the tight interconnection between the terms “process”
and “outcome” as dynamic processes of transformation—­from appropriate and adap-
tive internal frame shifting to external code switching, in attunement with the mul-
tiple identities and needs of the communicators, the interactional process, and the
situational goals. We view “competence outcomes” as the continuous development of
internal mental agility, flexibility, and an open-­hearted ethnorelative attitude, and the
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 153

“external outcomes” as identity, relational, and situational goal accomplishments, and

a general sense of instrumental productivity and communicative satisfaction (Hecht et
al., 2003; Hecht, Warren, Jung, & Krieger, 2005).
For example, Nguyen and Benet-­Martinez (2010) showed that bicultural or mul-
ticultural immigrant individuals can utilize a cultural frame-­switching strategy by
switching between two or more cultural cognitive schemas or frames to guide the appli-
cation of appropriate and effective behaviors in diverse cultural settings—­depending
on whom they are interacting with and the conversational goals and contexts. They
often utilize their sensitivity to decode sociocultural membership cues and to “shift”
between the two cultural interpretive schemas—­for example, from small to large power
distance respect–­deference attitudinal dimensions. They can also cognitively “put
forth” one cultural interpretive frame (e.g., utilizing a collectivistic reasoning frame
versus an individualistic reasoning frame) in the foreground over another to negoti-
ate their identity strategically in intercultural–­intergroup interactions. They can also
integrate both cultural cognitive frames in synchronicity (Benet-­Martinez & Haritatos,
2005; Benet-­Martinez, Lee, & Leu, 2006). In fact, Toomey et al.’s study (2013) pro-
vided additional evidence that competent bicultural individuals (i.e., Asian-­Caucasian
bicultural–­biracial individuals) can swing adaptively in a fluid cultural code-­shifting
manner and do a behavioral double-­swing dance in criss-­crossing between the prob-
lematic collectivistic–­individualistic communication divide.
For example, in the interpersonal–­ intercultural conflict competence research
realm, desired external outcomes often emphasize the achievement of instrumental,
relational, and/or self-­presentation interactional goals (Canary & Lakey, 2013; Spitz-
berg & Changnon, 2009; Ting-­Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Interculturally stated, the sat-
isfaction and active negotiation of face identity issues constitute one of the premium
interactional goals in managing intercultural–­intergroup conflicts competently (see
Chapter 10). While face is about a claimed sense of favorable interactional identity in
a particular situation, facework is about verbal and nonverbal communication behav-
iors that protect/save self, other, or mutual face (Ting-­Toomey, 1988; Ting-­Toomey &
Kurogi, 1998). Thus, from the integrative framework of the intergroup–­intercultural
competence lens, the satisfaction of group membership interactional approval, inclu-
sion, and acceptance, and the satisfaction of ingroup/outgroup membership identity
respect or face validation issues may constitute some core desired external (and also
internal) outcome scopes. The more mindful communicators can satisfy multiple face
needs (e.g., autonomy face, inclusion face, status face, competence face, and moral face),
the more they are likely to be perceived as competent and dynamic communicators
within a given situational context. Finally, according to the IINT lens, all human beings
crave the broader needs to be understood, respected, and affirmatively valued on the
core humanistic level. Beyond tending to cultural and group membership identity dif-
ferences, mindful communicators should work hard to internalize the universal human
needs that exist on the supra-deep level of the cultural iceberg metaphor (see Chapter
1). In other words, they work hard at also connecting with culturally different others on
the humanistic common goal level and in taking good care of themselves and families,
154 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

neighbors, and the larger community, and they take a nonviolent, harmonious approach
in how they treat the ecological planet Earth.

Mindfulness: Linking Criteria, Components,

and Outcomes

To promote competent intercultural and intergroup communication, an attuned com-

municator needs to develop a sense of mindful orientation to the complex and multilay-
ered self-­identity and other-­identity issues in the intergroup contact process, pay astute
attention to the emergent intercultural–­intergroup communicative situation, and inten-
tionally connect her or his identity-­sensitive knowledge, elastic mind-set, and heart-set,
and co-­create supportive outcomes that satisfy the needs of both members from the
different membership groups.

The Connective Hook

According to Figure 5.2, mindfulness is the critical link that promotes increased
culture-­sensitive and identity-­sensitive knowledge, open-­hearted attitudes, and com-
munication skillsets, and vice versa. The general characteristics of mindfulness as
derived from both the Eastern and Western notions of mindfulness have been dis-
cussed in Chapter 1. Briefly stated, mindfulness practice is rooted in the contemplative
practices common to both Eastern and Western traditions. According to Eastern Bud-
dhist practice, mindfulness means attending to one’s own internal assumptions, arising
emotions, intentions, cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors (Ting-­Toomey, 1999). Mindful
reflexivity requires us to tune in to our own cultural, situational, and personal habitual
premises in scanning a communication scene and decluttering the cultural noises or
biases deep within ourselves (Nhat Hanh, 1991; Kabat-Zinn, 1994) without evaluative
judgment. From a Western psychological lens, mindfulness means attuning to the other
person’s cultural and identity worldviews, assumptions, attitudes, emotions, and com-
munication orientations. It also means the capacity to view the problematic interaction
situation from multiple angles and learning to create new categories through which
the unfamiliar behavior may be understood (Langer, 1989, 1997). While the Eastern
orientation to mindfulness tends to focus on the development of a reflexive and fully
awakening self and then extend an emotional resonance state to others, the Western
orientation to mindfulness tends to emphasize interpersonal perspective-­taking and
a cognitive complexity viewpoint in seeing things from the other person’s cognitive
viewfinder and standpoint.
In a recent theorizing effort, a threefold-­faceted prism of mindfulness was intro-
duced (Ting-­Toomey, 2014): the being in-the-­moment present orientation; affective
attunement orientation; and meta-­cognition awareness orientation. Its core ideas have
been derived from an integration of three strands of research studies: research on mind-
fulness (e.g., Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004; Brown & Ryan, 2003; Hoskins, 1999; Siegel,
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 155

2007), research on cultural intelligence (e.g., Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Peterson,
2004; Thomas, 2006), and research on intercultural-­interpersonal conflict competence
(Canary et al., 2013; Ting-­Toomey, 2009a, 2009b, 2011).

The Threefold Facets

The Being in-the‑Moment Present Orientation Facet
The key to cultivating mindfulness is being fully present to attend to the self, oth-
ers, and the communicative situation within multilayered socioecological contexts,
including the sociocultural membership context. On the micro-level, there are two
foci of practicing “being present”: in-the-­moment orientation to experience and in-the-­
moment self-­regulated judgment (Baer et al., 2004; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer,
& Toney, 2006; Brown & Ryan, 2003).
The first idea, in-the-­moment orientation to experience, refers to developing an
acute sense of awareness of one’s bodily and emotional sensations, such as physical
stress and anxiety, toward the problematic intercultural encounter situation. Accord-
ing to Nagata (2004), the term “body-­mindfulness” refers to the ability to tune into
one’s own state of being and to manage one’s own energy through conscious breathing.
In-the-­moment orientation to experience connotes sustained awareness and attention
of one’s ebbs and flows of emotional states, bodily sensations, moods, and behavioral
swings. It means not being swamped by our own physiological anxiety or stress or our
urge to want to flee the interaction scene. Rather, it means mindfully managing one’s
bodily and emotional sensations and getting our physical and emotional well-being
ready for competent communication dialogue.
The second idea, in-the-­moment self-­regulated judgment, means being aware of
our own ethnocentric judgments and intentionally suspending our reactive lens and
shifting to an ethnorelative viewfinder. Countless intercultural studies have provided
evidence that open-­mindedness, cultural curiosity, and high tolerance for ambiguity are
some of the key features of an ethnorelative mind-set. In fact, according to Baer et al.
(2004), mindfulness has four factors: observing internal and external stimuli, describ-
ing and labeling phenomena nonjudgmentally, acting with awareness and undivided
attention, and accepting event and experiences without judging them. Another study
on mindfulness emphasizes the “sustained attention to the present moment” as a core
component of mindfulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Thus, the radiant facet of “being
fully present and observing without judgment” may undergird the other two mindful-
ness facets—­for example, being nonjudgmentally proactive rather than reactive to an
intercultural event.

The Affective Attunement Orientation Facet

Identity negotiation work in vulnerable intercultural–­intergroup encounters is funda-
mentally an affective arousal experience (e.g., in perceived intergroup identity threat or
156 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

loss-of-face situations). Bolls (2010) states that emotion is the fuel that energizes human
communication. More specifically, according to Nabi’s (2010) research, human emotion
is a psychological construct with five defining characteristics: (1) a subjective feeling
state, (2) the physiological feature of arousal, (3) cognitive appraisal or assessment of a
situation, (4) a motivational feature (including behavioral intentions or action readiness),
and (5) motor actions. Two dimensions generally undergird the motivational base of
human affective experience: an emotional arousal dimension (intensity: high/low acti-
vation) and a valence dimension (direction: pleasure/displeasure; approach/flee). Con-
curring with Nabi’s work, Bolls (2010) also argues that our brains are equipped with an
embodied affect system that codes the encounter episode as a high or low emotional
arousal episode and a pleasant or unpleasant interpersonal experience.
When an emotional arousal episode is triggered (e.g., the swastika story identified
earlier), emotions such as surprise, fear, anger, pain, or contempt may be experienced
and aroused, and particular patterns of thoughts are instantaneously recalled or formed.
Such patterns of thoughts and reactive emotions are usually subconsciously acquired
from our sociohistorical contexts, past experiences, religious identity, everyday social
surroundings, social media, peer group influence, and family socialization upbringing.
In a typical intergroup stereotyped or prejudiced scenario, the short-cut social emotive
and social cognitive appraisal process often primes our motivation to react in either a
pouncing or a fleeing mode.
Alternatively, competent intergroup communicators can choose to mindfully
attune to their own arising emotional states, practice some body-­mindfulness, and
develop affective empathy for the cultural stranger’s plight by recalling similar emo-
tional experiences, such as identity vulnerability, which they had experienced in a new
cultural situation. They can also practice a “parallel thinking” projective process by
substituting the plight of the cultural stranger with an “ingroup member” (such as a
beloved sister or brother or romantic partner) and imagine how this ingroup member
would react emotionally to the problematic words or nonverbal gestures directed to her
or him in a similar intergroup biased situation.

The Metacognition Awareness Orientation Facet

Thomas (2006) uses the concept of mindfulness as the metacognitive strategy that
links metathinking, knowledge, and behavioral flexibility. The “cultural intelligence”
research team of Van Dyne et al. (2012) also emphasizes the concept of metacognition
as a higher-­order cognitive process of “thinking about thinking” (i.e., awareness, check-
ing, and planning) and the importance of monitoring and modifying reactive cognitive
schemas to understand the new cultural interactional environment. Thus, for host soci-
ety members and sojourners and co-­culture members coming together, they all need
to cultivate metacognitive awareness facets in co-­creating a common hybrid cultural
space to relate, to communicate, and to make oneself vulnerable, and yet also to have
the courage to realize when one makes a cultural mistake and to ask for forgiveness.
To enhance metacognitive awareness practice, one needs to heighten one’s awareness
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 157

of one’s own encoding words and nonverbal postures and their implications for others.
For example, co-­cultural members should be metacognitively aware that they cannot
use the “N” word as African Americans may do when they are with each other or the
“F” word at a religious event.
Awareness in this context refers to the real-time consciousness in understanding
how the role of cultural or identity membership community influences own and others’
mental processes and verbal and nonverbal behaviors, in association with the actual
cultural performance situation. Checking connotes the intentional review of precon-
ceived mental maps and the adjustment of habituated mental patterns to acquire or
substitute new mental maps to understand the unfamiliar others. For example, accord-
ing to Devine’s research (1989), both high-­prejudiced and low-­prejudiced individuals
activated their emotionally reactive cultural stereotypes in the presence of the ste-
reotyped group, but the low-­prejudiced individuals were able to exercise intentional
self-­monitoring in replacing their stereotypes with alternative mental images more so
than the high-­prejudiced individuals. They substituted their preconceived stereotyped
images with a more nuanced and differentiated outlook in understanding cultural
strangers.
Lastly, planning refers to thinking “strategically” ahead and being aware of the
short-term and long-term implications of any reactive behaviors or mindless outbursts.
Mindful communicators use an intentional self-­checking process and then engage in an
intentional planning process to learn how to deliver certain news or messages in a cul-
turally sensitive and culturally adaptive manner. They also develop imaginative mul-
tiple visions and use diverse creative strategies to handle the challenging intercultural
or intergroup situation responsively, and they may even use a “middle-­way” approach in
coming up with a win–win hybrid solution (Dorjee, 2013, 2017). Out of respect and con-
cern for each other’s aspirations, they can divert their attention from extreme polarized
positions to discovering a middle position that best serves both their needs and goals.
Holding onto extreme polarized positions perpetuates the vicious cycle of intractable
conflicts and destructive communication patterns that yield disastrous outcomes for
both conflict parties.
Finally, drawing from the coordinated management of meaning (CMM) model
(B. Pearce, 2005), K. Pearce (2012) outlines the following four paths to active social
engagement: be mindful of yourself—­what you say and do matters; be mindful of the
“making/managing meanings” through the stories that we tell; be mindful of how we
coordinate with others through the conversations we have with others across time; and
be mindful and intentional in making better social worlds and practice mystery as a
lens “for developing compassion, humility, and awe and wonder for the complexity of
our social worlds” (Pearce, 2012, p. 4).
In sum, the cultivation of mindfulness is an art form involving the reconciliation
of several communication paradoxes: being strategic versus being spontaneous; being
focused versus being expanding; and digging in versus reaching out. Harnessing mind-
ful communication practice relies heavily on intersubjective perceptions: from reflexive
self-­perception to introducing perception shifts about others to being aware of how one
158 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

is being perceived by others in a stigmatized or nonstigmatized manner. Intercultural–­

intergroup competence/incompetence perception is often formed based on the criteria
of perceived communication appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability and is fil-
tered through the threefold facets of mindfulness.
This threefold prism of mindfulness is also directly linked to the developmen-
tal acquisition of identity-­sensitive knowledge, ethnorelative attitudes, and competent
operational skillsets. Reciprocally, increased knowledge, open-­hearted attitudes, and
competent skills also concomitantly enhance the mindfulness quotient and “being-in-
the-­moment” situationally sensitive practice. We believe that the paths between mind-
fulness and the various competency components are bidirectional as opposed to a one-
way linear trajectory.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

T his chapter presented an extensive discussion of the complementary nature of

intercultural and intergroup communication competence issues—­from identify-
ing particular criteria to evaluating intercultural and intergroup competence to the
skillsets that are needed to become a competent intercultural–­intergroup negotiator.
We have also offered an integrative working model (see Figure 5.2) as a guiding frame-
work to thread through the various criteria, components, mindfulness, and outcomes of
intercultural–­intergroup communication competence.
We have elaborated on the importance of understanding the three competence
criteria of appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability, acquiring culture-­sensitive
knowledge, developing an ethnorelative mind-set and open-­hearted attitudes, and
activating competent intercultural–­intergroup communication skillsets. We have also
expanded on the particular threefold facets of mindfulness connecting the three com-
petence components and final outcomes.
The forthcoming chapters will present specific mindful suggestions at the end of
each chapter to help you to pay close attention to the particular topics of intercultural or
intergroup communication competence. The following five general guidelines, drawn
from this chapter, will facilitate your commitment to a mindful communication practice
in your everyday workplace, family interaction, intimate relationship interaction, and
classroom interaction:

1 Understand that each individual has a composite identity outlook—­ from

sociocultural membership identity to personal identity. Practice some mindful
attunement skills, such as identity respect and support, while paying close atten-
tion to the core composite and symbolic interaction identity features others deem
important and sacred.

2 Make a conscious effort to cultivate mindfulness in playing the roles of both

speaker and listener in interpersonal, intercultural, and intergroup interactions
 Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence 159

while becoming attuned to the transactional process of communication for desired

outcomes.

3 Express and share your own identity vulnerability spots with trusted others.
Share your own authentic self with reliable others and also extend your active
support, understanding, and respect to cultural strangers who often feel distinctly
excluded or marginalized.

4 Remember that the practice of intercultural and intergroup communication

competence is an intentional and situational-­choice phenomenon. The four
yardsticks of communicating appropriately, effectively, adaptively, and ethically
(see Chapter 12) can help you to decide how to frame-­switch or code-­switch flex-
ibly in different cultural situations.

5 Internalize the threefold facets of mindfulness: the being present orienta-

tion facet, the affective attunement facet, and the metacognitive awareness
facet. By attuning to the present moment and by being fully present with the one
with whom you are interacting, by developing affective empathy and perspective-­
taking with the culturally different other’s plight, and by being able to mindfully
select a constructive verbal and nonverbal script to communicate with the cultural
stranger, you are making good progress on the path to becoming a conscious com-
petent intercultural–­intergroup communicator.

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. Let’s revisit the opening story for critical insights. In both conversations, were Peter
and Alex merely engaging in friendly teasing or casual jokes? Were both episodes
involving language misunderstandings? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 = strongly
disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how would you rate either or both episodes as
verbal harassment? How so? Given what you know about the transactional model of
human communication (see Chapter 1), what would you say to Peter, Alex, and Jes-
sica? Having learned about the identity complexity and interplay of intercultural and
intergroup communication (see Chapter 2), what would you say to Peter, Alex, and
Jessica?

2. Now that in this chapter you have learned about the threefold prism of mindless
versus mindful communication, how would you apply the prism to analyze this prob-
lematic case story from multiple angles? What mindful dialogue strategies can you
recommend to help Jessica, Peter, and Alex promote deeper understanding of each
person’s communication lens?

3. Can you think of specific intercultural or intergroup interaction examples to illus-

trate the four stages of the staircase model: unconscious incompetence, conscious
incompetence, conscious competence, and unconscious competence? Can you
analyze and critique the pros and cons of the staircase competence model?
160 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

4. Which do you believe is the most important competence component: knowledge,

attitudes, or skillsets? Which of the components is easier or toughest to apply and
why?

5. Mindfully reflect on your own strength and weakness in regards to the three criteria
of communication competence—­appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability.
Which criterion will you emphasize the most and why? Do you think there are cultural
differences in emphasizing the priority of these three criteria?

6. How easy or difficult do you think it is to apply the threefold facets (i.e., the being
present orientation facet, the affective attunement facet, and the metacognitive
awareness facet) of mindfulness? Which one facet do you think you are good at, and
which facet do you think you need to pay more attention to when communicating
competently with intercultural or intergroup strangers?

7. If you are invited to design a “promoting quality intercultural–­intergroup relation-

ship” training workshop at your workplace, how would you sequence your train-
ing design? For example, would you use a knowledge–­attitude–­skillset design or a
skillset–­attitude–­knowledge sequence? Justify your selection.
 C H A P TE R 6

Cultural Value Dimensions

and Intercultural Encounters

„„Introduction
„„The Cultural Value Variability Framework: Culture-­Level Systems Analysis
††Functions of Cultural and Personal Value Assumptions
††Individualism–­Collectivism Value Spectrum: The Core Value Dimension
††The Power Distance Value Variability Dimension
††The Uncertainty Avoidance Value Variability Dimension
††The Masculinity–­Femininity Value Variability Dimension
††Additional Cultural Value Variability Dimensions
„„Self-­Conceptions, Personal Dispositions, and Situational Considerations
††Independent Self-­Construal versus Interdependent/Relational Self-­Construal
††Horizontal versus Vertical Personality Attributes
††Uncertainty-­Oriented versus Certainty-­Oriented Personality Type
††Androgynous Gender Identity versus Traditional Sex Role Identity
††Culture × Personality × Situational Condition Considerations
„„Classical Value Orientations and Intercultural–­Intergroup Encounters
††Classical Value Orientations and Basic Assumptions
††People–­Nature Value Orientation
††Temporal Orientation
††Human Nature Orientation
††Activity Orientation
††Relational Orientation
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

161
162 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

R espectful G estures and Value P robes : A Case S tory

My first travel abroad was to Missoula, Montana. I was a visiting Tibetan Buddhist
scholar at a small Tibetan Buddhist Center. During my visit, I had an opportunity to
attend a Counseling Psychology Seminar at the University of Montana (UM). I saw a
student leaning back in his chair and his stretched legs propped on another chair. He
had the soles of his shoes pointed to his teacher (a professor) and talked while eating his
food. All of his behaviors violated my cultural norms regarding teacher–­student interac-
tion.
Growing up in India, I observed that teachers were highly respected and obeyed.
When my teachers in high school called my name to ask questions, I would stand up
straight like a good soldier and answer their questions respectfully, addressing them as
“Sir” or “Madame.” Never could we call them by their first names or even their names
without titles such as Sir or Madame. And we would not dare to eat in class when class
was in session. Given this socialization, I was shocked to witness the behavior of this
American student in the seminar. I thought he was very disrespectful to his teacher;
interestingly, she did not seem to mind it at all.
Now I realize that students in American schools respect their teachers in a different
way. In actuality, I was shocked more by the student pointing his feet at the teacher than
by his eating in the classroom. In many cultures, feet and shoes are considered dirty
and, therefore, pointing the soles of your shoes directly to a person, especially your high-­
status teachers, is considered very disrespectful.

—Tenzin Dorjee, college instructor

Introduction

Cultural values are shared principles or ideas about what counts as important or unim-
portant, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, and what counts as ethical or unethi-
cal conduct in a sociocultural community. Cultural values confer a sense of shared
identity and community among groups of individuals. We live and breathe our own
cultural values every day through the norms and rules we have consensually devel-
oped within our culture. In many cultures such as that of India, as the opening story
illustrates, students stand up when teachers walk into their classrooms and greet them
formally with Sir and Madam, and sit down after the teachers sit down or tell them to
sit down. Teachers are highly respected, and the power distance between student and
teacher is quite large. In India, students touch the feet of their teachers, and members
of the younger generation touch the feet of older people to show respect and to receive
their blessing. Therefore, showing feet or the soles of one’s shoes to teachers and par-
ents and high-­status individuals is regarded as very disrespectful. However, if we never
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 163

venture away from our milieu, we may not detect its importance to us until we, like
fish in a pond, are removed from our familiar and comfortable surroundings. Being in a
new sociocultural environment, Tenzin experienced intercultural challenges, including
entry culture shock (see Chapter 3).
Although all of us develop our unique set of personal values based on our distinc-
tive socialization and life experience, there are also larger values at work on a cultural
system level. Cultural values are relatively stable and enduring and, concurrently, also
evolve and change in adaptation to the fluctuation of time and societal innovations (e.g.,
iPad, iPhone, 3-D printers, android wears, robotic nurse assistant, self-drive hydrogen
cars). Sociocultural group membership values guide and sustain a cultural community
in times of crisis, changes, and stressful situations. Cultural traditions and values exist
on the deeper level of the iceberg metaphor (see Chapter 1). It is important to dive
deep and understand the operational structure of the intersecting and complex value
dimensions of the iceberg because they provide the emotional fuel that drives affective
reactions and judgments, sense-­making processes, and verbal and nonverbal behavioral
tendencies in a given situation.
Cultural value patterns form the basic criteria through which we evaluate our own
behaviors and the behaviors of others. They cue our expectations of how we and others
should behaviorally relate to each other during an interaction. They serve as implicit
guidelines for our motivations and expectations, perceptions, and communicative
actions. They also set the emotional tone for interpreting and evaluating the “bizarre or
uncivilized” behaviors of cultural strangers. For example, child labor or animal cruelty
is a controversial global topic, and what is appropriate in one country may be consid-
ered totally inappropriate or unacceptable in another. In Mexico, for instance, school-­
age child bullfighters receive top billing across the country; these mini-­matadors are
wildly popular across Mexico. While cultural outsiders may condemn this practice with
strong outrage, cultural insiders may view this as distinctive part of their long-held cul-
tural traditions and customs.
This chapter is organized in four sections. The first detailed section discusses the
functions of values in guiding our everyday communicative lives. It then addresses
the four value variability dimensions: individualism–­collectivism, small/large power
distance, weak/strong uncertainty avoidance, and feminine/masculine value. It ends
with identifying two additional value dimensions: short-term versus long-term time
value and indulgence–­ restraint value. The second section adds more complexity
and depth to the understanding of various value dimensions attending to individual
self-­
conceptions, personality attributes, and situational considerations that shape
intercultural–­intergroup communication. The third section explains the basic assump-
tions of the classical value orientations. It then highlights the classical value orientation
framework of five value patterns. The final section summarizes the key ideas in the
chapter and recommends some “doable” mindful guidelines and critical thinking ques-
tions concerning the clarification process of responsive value patterns, both introspec-
tively and interpersonally.
164 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

The Cultural Value Variability Framework:

Culture‑Level Systems Analysis

Cultural values are frames of reference or patterned ideas we hold either subcon-
sciously or consciously about what is important or unimportant, right or wrong, fair or
unfair, and proper or improper behavioral conduct. We can think of values as existing
on two levels: the cultural aggregate group membership level and the individualized
personal level of analysis. While cultural value analysis exists on a group membership
level, personal value analysis exists on a unique individual’s value preference level. We
can term the value patterns on the culture level as “normative cultural values,” and the
value patterns on the individual level as “subjective cultural values” (Triandis, 1972,
1994a). On the normative cultural level, cultures can clash over eating habits (e.g., eat-
ing whales in Japan vs. the Australian stance; or Hindu attitude toward beef vs. that
of mainstream U.S. Americans) to ideological levels (e.g., the contention over human
rights issues between the United States and China).
Variation exists within every culture. For example, based on empirical research
data, the Korean or Mexican culture has strong group-­oriented ideals and communal
value focus. But readers should also recognize the outlier factor: some Koreans or some
Mexicans can be very individualistic, whereas other Koreans or Mexicans can go into
overdrive and be extremely communally focused in their value subscription (e.g., see
Shim, Kim, & Martin, 2008). The same point can be made about the larger U.S. culture.
While some researchers (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Triandis,
1995) have identified the larger-­mainstream U.S. culture as an individualistic-­based
culture, some U.S. Americans (e.g., from diverse ethnic heritage groups) exist on both
ends of the prototypical central tendency curve (running from an extremely high to an
extremely low individualistic tendency) (see Figure 6.1). The same principle applies to
members of collectivist cultures. Sociologists and social psychologists may regard such
group members as positive deviants and negative deviants within their society and
group.
For example, some East Asian Indians also carry outlier values and can reflect
the moderate to extreme spectrum of low to high collectivistic value tendency. The
more heterogeneous the culture or society (e.g., multilingual and multicultural diversity
as well as socioeconomic status differences), the more widespread the outliers at the
polarized ends. These outliers may either accentuate or blur intergroup boundaries,
depending on which end of the cultural spectrum they are located.
Despite the difficulties in generalizing about the diverse values in heterogeneous
cultures such as India, China, and the United States, it is imperative to engage in such
cultural value assessments as a starting point. Value assumptions are the driving force
in forming emotional reactions/defenses and also reflect implicit intentions, motiva-
tions, reactive affective evaluations, and ritualistic behavioral tendencies. Cultural val-
ues on a systems level do change but at a slower rate than an individual’s personal val-
ues change and evolve. Mindful value comparison on an aggregate group membership
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 165

Individualism Collectivism
German Culture Indian Culture

EHI EHC

High Low Individualism

Individualism Low Collectivism High
Collectivism

FIGURE 6.1. Central value tendencies of two comparative cultures. EHI, extreme high
individualism; EHC, extreme high collectivism.

level acts as a critical first step in achieving better understanding of potential cultural
differences and clashes at the deep submarine level of the iceberg.

Functions of Cultural and Personal Value Assumptions

Cultural and personal value patterns cue our expectations of how we and others should
act during an interactional situation. They serve as implicit guidelines for our inten-
tions, motivations, expectations, perceptions, and communicative actions. They set
the emotional tone and cognitive appraisal process for interpreting and evaluating the
behaviors of cultural strangers.
Cultural value patterns serve many functions, including the identity meaning,
explanatory, expectancy, motivational, and ingroup–­outgroup evaluative functions.

Identity Meaning Function

Cultural values provide the frame of reference for answering every human beings’ most
fundamental question: “Who am I?” Cultural beliefs and values provide the anchoring
points to which we attach meanings and significance to our complex identities. For
166 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

example, in the U.S. middle class, “American” values often emphasize individual initia-
tive and achievement. A person is considered “successful” or “self-­actualizing” when he
or she takes the personal initiative to realize his or her full potential. The result is rec-
ognition and rewards (e.g., a desirable career, six-digit income, a coveted car, or a dream
house) that are tangible and acknowledged by others. Likewise, a person who can real-
ize his or her dreams, after overcoming all odds and obstacles, is considered to be a
“successful” individual in the context of middle-­class U.S. society. For example, many
U.S. and British celebrities are admired for their “rags-to-­riches” stories: Tom Cruise is
admired for overcoming dyslexia, Oprah Winfrey is accredited for overcoming poverty
and sexual abuse, and J. K. Rowling is recognized for overcoming depression. Each
celebrity such as these finally makes it through personal hard work, individual initia-
tive, and determination to achieve success.
In contrast, in two-­thirds of the world’s cultures, identity function is largely based
on “we identity.” Successful individuals are those who put others before self and who
try to utilize their full potential to do good for the common good of family, commu-
nity, institution, country, and world. They become professionals and leaders (e.g., Liu
Xiaobo, Malala Yousafzai, and Kailash Satyarthi) not so much for themselves, but for
the greater good of others. Thus, the concept of being “successful” or an “irreplace-
able” person, and the meanings attached to such words, stems from a cultural com-
munity’s premium values. The identity meanings or primary value configurations that
we acquire within our cultural community are co-­constructed and co-­negotiated with
other cultural members through everyday communication interactions.

Explanatory Function
Within our own group, we experience the familiarity of comfort and acceptance, and
we do not have to constantly justify or explain our actions or values to our familiar oth-
ers. Our commonly shared values are implicitly understood and celebrated via promi-
nent or daily communication rituals. When we are interacting with people in unfamil-
iar groups, however, we have to be on constant alert and may also need to explain or
even defend our culture-­based interaction practices with more intentional effort. For
example, if your family (coming from a traditional Mexican ethnic heritage background)
is staging a quinceañera celebration for your little sister, you will readily understand the
importance of this ceremonial event. However, if you bring your international friends
along, you may have to explain each aspect of the celebration.
For example, you will have to explain to them that quinceañera is one of the most
important celebrations in Mexican culture. This full-day event is held on a girl’s fif-
teenth birthday to mark her passage to womanhood, to give thanks to God for His
blessings, and to present a young woman to the community. In Mexican communities,
the quinceañera honors not only the young woman for reaching maturity, but also the
girl’s parents and family, as well as her padrinos or godparents, all of whom play impor-
tant roles throughout the ceremonies. Thus, cultural values of “collectivism” and “large
power distance of respect and recognition” enter into the explanation of the communal
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 167

nature of the quinceañera celebration—­especially the interdependent constructs of

family, womanhood, and community.
When interacting with people from our own cultural group, we can mentally “fill
in the blanks” and use a “short-cut path” to comprehend why people behave the way
they do. However, when interacting with people from other cultural groups, we need
to gather more mental energy and affective fuel to figure out their behavior and in such
an unfamiliar manner. Intercultural misunderstandings may pile up if we are unable to
explain fully the “why” and “how” of people’s words or nonverbal actions on culturally
unfamiliar turf.

Expectancy Function
Cultural and personal values regulate our behaviors about gender-­related communi-
cation issues such as haptics or touch. For example, same-sex touch and handhold-
ing in Malaysia, China, Sudan, Japan, India, Nepal, and Saudi Arabia are considered
acceptable and part of daily life, whereas opposite-­sex touch in a stranger relationship
is considered inappropriate. This is better known as public display of affection (PDA).
If you’re an American college student on a one-­semester cultural exchange program in
China and India, you may be very surprised by your same-sex friends wanting to link
arms or hold hands with you.
In the United States, same-sex handholding is linked closely to the gay/lesbian/
bisexual community, whereas opposite-­sex handholding is considered normative PDA.
People from Latin America also tend to engage in more frequent touch behaviors than
do U.S. Americans and Canadians. However, it is important to remember that the
touch behaviors in both Arab and Latin American cultural zones are usually confined
to same-sex touching, not opposite-­sex touch. Since touch is a powerful form of nonver-
bal communication, it can easily spark violations of intercultural nonverbal expectancy
situations. Without an adequate value schema such as the “feminine/masculine value
dimension” to set up some initial “best guess” anticipations, problematic gender-­based
encounters can fuel further misunderstanding and mistrust.

Motivational Function
Cultural values also serve as the internal drives for self and others in terms of what
rewards are emphasized in the community and what punishments are awaiting you,
individually or collectively. For example, for cultures that have everyday sayings such
as “where there is a will, there’s a way,” “the person who stands alone excites our imagi-
nation,” and “the more chefs, the more spoiled the soup,” you will need to motivate
members in those communities with incentive messages that appeal to their personal
ambitions, drives, and needs for personal recognition. In the U.S. culture, for example,
when top-­ranked professional athletes are paid more than college professors or medical
doctors, the value priorities of fierce competition, personal drive, and the importance
of winning are in full display and are rewarded.
168 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

At the same time, other cultural communities may have everyday sayings or prov-
erbs such as “it takes a village to raise a child,” “one chooses one’s friends, but family
is from birth,” “when spider webs unite, they can tie up a lion,” and “one arrow can be
easily broken, but three arrows–­bundled together—­cannot be broken lightly.” If you
understand the primary group-­orientation values of such cultural communities, you
may want to connect with people in those communities by using team-based moti-
vational appeals or pay closer attention to their family or extended family needs and
interests.

Ingroup–Outgroup Evaluative Function

Culture and its accompanying shared values create a comforting buffer zone in which
we experience ingroup inclusion and outgroup differentiation. A shared common fate
or a sense of solidarity often exists among members of the same group. For example,
within our own cultural group, we speak the same language or dialect, we share simi-
lar nonverbal rhythms, and we can decode each other’s mood without being overly
verbose. However, with people from a dissimilar membership group, we may tend to
“stand out,” and our symbolic identity such as language accents or culture-­based non-
verbal habits may further provoke interaction awkwardness and group membership
identity distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991; Brewer & Miller, 1996).
Boundary arrangements (for example, language differences, national borders, and
club memberships) shape our ingroup and outgroup evaluative attitudes when dealing
with people who are culturally dissimilar. An attitude is a predisposed and learned
tendency that influences our thinking pattern. A positive or negative attitude toward
other groups is acquired through our cultural socialization, family socialization, school,
workplace, peer social media, mass media, and personal life experiences. We often dis-
play more favorable attitudes toward perceived similar ingroup members and unfavor-
able outgroup attitude towards “stranger others” when they deviate behaviorally from
our culture-­based normative expectations. Perceived polarized value patterns reinforce
our evaluative attitudes toward ingroup and outgroup membership interactions.
On one hand, ingroups are groups with whom we feel emotionally close and with
whom we share interdependence, such as family or extended family, sorority or frater-
nity, or own cultural or ethnic group. Outgroups, on the other hand, are groups with
whom we feel no emotional ties, and, at times, we may experience great psychological
distance from them and even feel competitive against them. These can be our rival
fraternity, our wartime enemy, or simply individuals who belong to another cultural
identity or ethnic group.
Overall, we tend to hold favorable attitudes toward ingroup interactions because of
our perceived shared values and behavioral comfort and similarities. Concurrently, we
tend to hold unfavorable attitudes toward outgroup interactions largely because of our
ignorance of their cultural values and norms, thus arousing communication fear. Value
patterns regulate ingroup consensus and set evaluative standards concerning what is
valued or devalued within a cultural community.
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 169

Values and Communication Implications: A Summary

Cultural values serve the identity meaning, explanatory, expectancy, motivational,
and ingroup–­outgroup evaluative functions. Communication, in essence, serves as
the major hook that links the various channels (e.g., family socialization, educational
institution, religious/spiritual institution) of value transmission systems in a coherent
manner. Drawing from the various functions of cultural and personal values as dis-
cussed earlier, we can now explore some core value dimension patterns that shape
the intercultural–­intergroup communication process. By peering into the window of
another culture, intercultural knowledge blocks can make individuals more reflective
of their own ingrained cultural beliefs and values. By understanding where major cul-
tural differences exist, learners can figure creative ways to connect the differences and
find common ground to work with individuals from diverse cultural groups.
The following sections introduce and examine the cultural value variability frame-
work of four value dimensions: the key value dimension of individualism–­collectivism
and the other three dimensions, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and femininity–­
masculinity. In addition, two other value patterns: short-term versus long-term ori-
entation and indulgence versus restraint are highlighted (Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede,
Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Based on comparative studies of wide-­ranging cultures
throughout the world, researchers have uncovered specific value patterns in different
cultures in the areas of anthropology, cross-­cultural psychology, sociology, international
management, linguistics, and intercultural communication. Cultural values form the
implicit standards by which we judge behaviors in a communication situation as appro-
priate and inappropriate. They constitute the larger content webs of a culture. They are
also the distinctive contents of the self that drive our thoughts, embodied emotions, and
everyday decision-­making processes. Cultural and personal values, as the underlying
parts of an iceberg, give rise to the meaning of “Who am I?” and “Who are you?”
Aggregate cultural membership value patterns are shaped by historical, socioeco-
nomic (e.g., open market vs. closed market, abundant vs. scarce agricultural crops),
political (e.g., people ownership vs. government controlled system), geographic–­
ecological location (e.g., weather patterns), and population density and mobility factors
(Triandis, 1995). Cultural-­level tendencies, however, do not explain the behaviors of all
members in a single culture. Family socialization, individual life experience, popular
culture, and immigration or intergroup contact experience will all have differential
effects on the individual’s value formation process.
Geert Hofstede (1980, 1991; see also Hofstede et al., 2010) empirically derived four
cultural variability dimensions in his initial large-scale study of a U.S. multinational
business corporation. The corporation has subsidiaries in 50 countries and 3 regions
(the Arabic-­speaking countries, East Africa, and West Africa). Altogether, 116,000 man-
agers and employees in this worldwide corporation were surveyed twice. Based on the
results of this research, Hofstede (1980, 1991) delineated four organizational value pat-
terns across a diverse range of cultures. Subsequently, Hofstede and Bond (1988) added
a fifth workplace value dimension—­short-term versus long-term orientation. More
recently, Hofstede et al. (2010) added a sixth value dimension, indulgent–­restrained.
170 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

As noted earlier, the first and most important dimension is individualism–collec-

tivism, and the other three are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculin-
ity–femininity. Indeed, an international research project, Global Leadership and Orga-
nizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE), which included 200 co-­researchers in 62
nations, has provided additional evidence that the foundational constructs of Hofstede’s
core four value patterns are pervasive in 62 countries. This study’s sample size included
17,370 middle managers from three industries—­telecommunications, financial ser-
vices, and food supply—­in each nation and at the societal, organizational, and indi-
vidual levels of analysis (House et al., 2004; Trompenaars & Hampden-­Turner, 2012).
Hofstede’s core cultural variability dimensions are related to business organiza-
tional values in different cultures and do not capture variations within each specific
country/culture. He also argues that ethnic and religious groups, gender, generation,
social class, and social structure exert a strong influence on the value patterns of a
particular culture. The four value dimensions should be viewed as a first systematic
empirical attempt to compare cultures on an aggregate group membership level. Each
culture also displays different value configurations along the four cultural variability
dimensions.

Individualism–Collectivism Value Spectrum:

The Core Value Dimension
While national cultures differ along many dimensions, one dimension that has received
consistent attention from both intercultural researchers and cross-­cultural psycholo-
gists is individualism–­ collectivism. Numerous cross-­ cultural studies (Fiske, 1991;
Gudykunst & Ting-­Toomey, 1988; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990; Tri-
andis, 1994a, 1995) have provided theoretical and empirical evidence that the value
orientations of individualism and collectivism are pervasive in a wide range of cultures.
Individualism and collectivism can explain some of the basic differences and similari-
ties concerning communication behavior between clusters of cultures.
Basically, individualism refers to the broad value tendencies of a culture in empha-
sizing the importance of individual identity over group identity, individual rights over
group rights, and individual needs over group needs. Individualism promotes self-­
efficiency, individual responsibilities, and personal autonomy. In contrast, collectivism
refers to the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasizing the importance of the
“we identity” over the “I identity,” group rights over individual rights, and ingroup-­
oriented needs over individual wants and desires. Collectivism promotes relational
interdependence, ingroup harmony, and ingroup collaborative spirit (Ting-­Toomey,
1988; Triandis, 1995) (see Table 6.1).
Individualistic and collectivistic value tendencies are manifested in everyday fam-
ily, school, and workplace interaction. Hofstede (1991) explains that individualism per-
tains to “societies in which ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to
look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family” (p. 51). Comparatively,
collectivism refers to “societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 171

TABLE 6.1. Value Patterns in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures

Individualistic cultures Collectivistic cultures
“I” identity “We” identity
Individual goals Group goals
Individual emphasis Ingroup emphasis
Voluntary reciprocity Obligatory reciprocity
Management of individuals Management of groups
Independent self personality Interdependent self personality
Examples Examples
United States Guatemala
Australia Ecuador
Great Britain Panama
Canada Indonesia
The Netherlands Pakistan
New Zealand Taiwan/China
Sweden/France Japan
Germany West/East Africa
Note. Data from Hofstede (1991). The cultures listed are based on the predominant tenden-
cies in the cultures.

strong, cohesive in-­groups, which throughout people’s lifetimes continue to protect

them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 51).
Hofstede’s (1991) research in 50 countries and 3 regions reveals that factors such as
national wealth, population growth, and historical roots affect the development of indi-
vidualistic and collectivistic values. For example, the wealthy, urbanized, and industri-
alized societies are oriented toward individualism, whereas the poorer, rural, and tradi-
tional societies are more collectivistic. However, there are some exceptions, especially
in East Asia: notably, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore appear
to have retained collectivism in spite of industrialization.
Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) and Triandis’s (1988, 1989) research indicates that indi-
vidualism is a cultural pattern that is found in most northern and western regions of
Europe and in North America. Collectivism refers to a cultural pattern common in
Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Central and South America, and the Pacific islands. Less
than one-third of the world population resides in highly individualistic cultures, and
a little more than two-­thirds in cultures that are highly collectivistic (Triandis, 1989).
172 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

More specifically, high individualistic index values have been found in the United
States, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Italy, Bel-
gium, Denmark, and Sweden. High collectivistic index values have been found in Gua-
temala, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, Colombia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Costa Rica, and
Peru (Hofstede, 1991, p. 53). Intercultural communication research (Gudykunst & Ting-­
Toomey, 1988; see also Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985) has consis-
tently identified the United States as a culture high in individualistic value tendencies,
and China, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan as high in collectivistic tendencies.
Triandis, Brislin, and Hui (1988) showed, for example, that when respondents were
asked to give 20 descriptions of themselves by completing 20 sentences that start with
“I am . . . ” people from individualistic cultures used only 15% group-­related attri-
butes to define themselves, whereas people from collectivistic cultures used 35–45%
group-­related attributes (e.g., “I am the third daughter of my family”) to describe their
sense of “selfhood.” In terms of specific value emphasis, the top individualist values
are freedom, honesty, social recognition, comfort, hedonism, and personal equity. The
top collectivist values are harmony, face-­saving, filial piety (respect and conformity of
parents’ wishes), equality in the distribution of rewards among peers (for the sake of
group harmony), and fulfillment of others’ needs (Triandis et al., 1988). Overall, differ-
ent kinds of individualism (e.g., emphasizing personal need in Australia or immediate
family need in Sweden) and collectivism (e.g., emphasizing extended family need in
Taiwan, work group need in Japan, or caste need in India) have been found to exist
in different cultures. For each culture, it is important to determine “the group with
which individuals have the closest identification. They could be keen to identify with
their trade union, their family, their corporation, their religion, their profession, their
nation. . . . The French tend to identify with la France, la famille, le cadre; the Japanese
with the corporation; the former Eastern Bloc with the Communist Party; and Ireland
with the Roman Catholic Church” (Trompenaars, 1994, p. 58).
Both Hofstede’s (2001) and House et al.’s (2004) international research studies
have been criticized for using overgeneralized value dimensions that are superimposed
on an entire national group and for treating national culture as a homogeneous entity
(Thomas & Peterson, 2015; Ting-­Toomey, 2010a). For example, cross-­cultural family
researchers Tamis-­LeMonda et al. (2008) challenged the bifurcation of individualism
and collectivism into two contrastive camps. They advanced the idea that individualism
and collectivism coexist on both the cultural and individual levels of analysis.
Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and Gelfand (1995) have sought to make the
individualism–­ collectivism value dimension more complex by adding on the fea-
tures of “horizontal” and “vertical” power distance orientations to the individualism–­
collectivism value spectrum. Thus, horizontal individualism means a cultural tendency
that emphasizes the “I identity” outlook and that views each individual as equal in
status or similar to each other. Vertical individualism stresses the “I autonomy” outlook
and views each individual as unequal to each other due to status distinction or “sticking
out” from each other. In comparison, horizontal collectivism refers to the “we identity”
of ingroup values, and members perceive equality or similarity among group members.
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 173

Vertical collectivism, however, emphasizes a strong “communal value” orientation by

members who perceive hierarchical status differences among different group types
or by perceived rankings (see McCann, Honeycutt, & Keaton, 2010). These variations
within a culture reflect intersections between individualism–­collectivism and the small
and large power distance factor.
In light of these variations within a culture (such as horizontal collectivism versus
vertical collectivism), together with multiple social ecological layers, cultural and eth-
nic identity differentiations can be probed in a heterogeneous society along with other
salient group membership identity facets in a more nuanced manner (Ting-­Toomey,
2010a; Ting-­Toomey et al., 2000). Thus, within each culture, different ethnic communi-
ties can also display distinctive individualistic and collectivistic value patterns, along
with horizontal and vertical power distance features. For example, first-­generation
Asian Americans and Latino/a Americans in the United States tend to retain more
group-­oriented values than individualistic values. Native Americans also tend to sub-
scribe to group-­oriented beliefs more than to individualistic beliefs. African Ameri-
cans, Middle Eastern Americans, and certain Americans of southern European origin
(e.g., Greek Americans) have been found to emphasize extended family solidarity above
and beyond individualistic values.
Overall, the dimension of individualism–­collectivism provides us with a concep-
tual grid in explaining why the meaning of self-­conception varies across cultures. Addi-
tionally, it clarifies our understanding of how the various “I” identity or “we” identity
orientations influence our everyday communication behaviors across cultures. Power
distance is another important value dimension we should consider in intercultural and
cross-­cultural interactions.

The Power Distance Value Variability Dimension

Hofstede and Bond (1984) define power distance as the “extent to which the less pow-
erful members of institutions . . . accept that power is distributed unequally” (p. 419).
Small power index values are found, for example, in Austria, Israel, Denmark, New
Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, and Norway. Large power index values are found in coun-
tries such as Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama, the Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela, and
Arab nations (Hofstede, 1991). Hofstede (1991) explains that the country’s geographic
latitude (higher latitudes being associated with a smaller power distance index), its
population size (larger size being associated with a larger power distance index), and
its wealth (richer countries being associated with a smaller power distance index) affect
the power distance dimension. Specific factors that are associated with national wealth
and with less dependence on others include less traditional culture, more modern tech-
nology, more urban living, more social mobility, a better educational system, and a
larger middle class (Hofstede, 1991) (Table 6.2).
In small power distance cultural situations, children can contradict their parents
and speak their own minds. They are expected to show self-­initiative and to learn verbal
articulation and persuasion. Parents and children work to achieve a democratic family
174 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

TABLE 6.2. Value Patterns in Small Power Distance and Large

Power Distance Cultures
Small power distance cultures Large power distance cultures
Emphasize equal distance Emphasize power distance
Individual credibility Seniority, age, rank, title
Symmetrical interaction Asymmetrical interaction
Emphasize informality Emphasize formality
Expect consultation Expect directions
Horizontal self personality Vertical self personality
Examples Examples
Austria Malaysia
Israel Guatemala
Denmark Panama
New Zealand Philippines
Republic of Ireland Arab Countries
Sweden/Norway India
Germany West Africa
Canada/United States Singapore
Note. Data from Hofstede (1991). The cultures listed are based on the predominant
tendencies in the cultures.

decision-­making process. In contrast, in large power distance cultural situations, chil-

dren are expected to obey their parents. The value of “respect” between unequal status
members in the family is taught at a young age. Parents and grandparents assume the
authority roles in the family decision-­making process. Likewise, students are expected
to obey and listen to their teachers in schools.
In small power distance work situations, power is evenly distributed. Students
are expected to share their ideas with teachers, and in business, subordinates expect
to be consulted, and the ideal boss is a resourceful, democratic leader. In large power
work situations, the power of an organization is centralized at the upper management
level. Subordinates expect to be told what to do, and the ideal boss plays the benevolent
autocratic role. While the United States scores on the low side of power distance, it is
not extremely low. Hofstede (1991) explains that “U.S. leadership theories tend to be
based on subordinates with medium-­level dependence needs: not too high, not too low”
(p. 42).
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 175

People in small power distance cultures tend to value equal power distributions,
equal rights and relations, and equitable rewards and punishments based on perfor-
mance. People in large power distance cultures tend to accept unequal power distribu-
tions, hierarchical rights, asymmetrical role relations, and rewards and punishments
based on age, rank, status, title, and seniority. For small power distance cultures, equal-
ity of personal rights represents an ideal to strive for in a system; for large power dis-
tance cultures, respect for power hierarchy in any system is a fundamental way of life.

The Uncertainty Avoidance Value Variability Dimension

Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which the members of a culture feel
threatened by uncertain and unknown situations and the extent to which they try to
avoid these situations. The stronger the uncertainty avoidance, the greater the feeling
of threat and the inclination toward avoidance in the face of uncertain, novel situ-
ations. Weak uncertainty avoidance cultures encourage risk taking, whereas strong
uncertainty avoidance cultures prefer clear procedures and guidelines in directing
members’ behavior in an organization. Weak uncertainty avoidance index values, for
example, are found in Singapore, Jamaica, Denmark, Sweden, Hong Kong, Ireland, the
United Kingdom, and the United States. Strong uncertainty avoidance index values are
found, among other countries, in Greece, Portugal, Guatemala, Uruguay, Belgium, El
Salvador, and Japan. Hofstede (1991) proposed historical/political change contexts and
national wealth as two preliminary factors that affect the development of uncertainty
avoidance work-­related values (Table 6.3).
While members in weak uncertainty avoidance family situations prefer informal
rules to guide their behavior, members in strong uncertainty avoidance family situations
favor formal structure and rules. Rules and laws are established to counteract uncer-
tainties in social interaction. In weak avoidance family situations, roles and behavioral
expectations are actively negotiated. Children are given more latitude to explore their
own values and morals. In strong uncertainty avoidance family situations, family roles
are clearly established and family rules are expected to be followed closely.
In weak uncertainty work situations, there is a greater tolerance of innovative
ideas and behavior. Conflict is also viewed as a natural part of organizational produc-
tivity. In strong uncertainty avoidance work situations, there is a greater resistance to
deviant and innovative ideas. Career mobility is high in weak uncertainty avoidance
cultures, whereas career stability is a desired end goal in strong uncertainty avoidance
cultures. In strong uncertainty avoidance organizations, conflict is viewed as a threat to
organizational effectiveness.
Hofstede (1980) uses the following statements to represent the basic characteristics
of strong uncertainty avoidance organizations: (1) most organizations would be better
off if conflict could be eliminated; (2) it is important for a manager to have at hand pre-
cise answers to most of the questions that his or her subordinates may raise about their
work; and (3) when the respective roles of the members of a department become com-
plex, detailed job descriptions are essential. Members of strong uncertainty avoidance
176 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

TABLE 6.3. Value Patterns in Weak–Strong Uncertainty Avoidance Cultures

Weak uncertainty avoidance cultures Strong uncertainty avoidance cultures
Uncertainty is valued Uncertainty is a threat
Career change Career stability
Encourage risk taking Expect clear procedures
Conflict can be positive Conflict is negative
Expect innovations Preserve status quo
Uncertainty-oriented personality Certainty-oriented personality
Examples Examples
Singapore Greece
Jamaica Portugal
Denmark Guatemala
Sweden Uruguay
Hong Kong Japan
United States/Canada France
Norway Spain
Australia South Korea/Japan
Note. Data from Hofstede (1991). The cultures listed are based on the predominant tendencies
in the cultures.

organizations tend to score high on these statements; members of weak uncertainty

avoidance organizations tend to score low on them.

The Masculinity–Femininity Value Variability Dimension

Distinctive male and female organizational behavior differences are found on the
masculinity–­femininity dimension (Hofstede, 1998). Masculinity pertains to “societ-
ies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct (namely, men are supposed to be
assertive, tough, and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be
more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life)” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 82).
Femininity pertains to “societies in which social gender roles overlap (i.e., both men
and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life”
(Hofstede, 1991, pp. 82–83). Japan, Austria, Venezuela, Italy, Switzerland, Mexico, and
Ireland, for example, have high masculinity value indexes. The United States ranks
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 177

15th on the masculinity continuum out of the 50 countries and 3 regions studied. Swe-
den, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, Costa Rica, Yugoslavia, and Finland, for
example, have low masculinity value indexes (implying a high femininity continuum).
While “feminine” cultures emphasize flexible sex role behaviors, “masculine” cultures
emphasize complementary sex role domains. Gender roles also differ by culture type
across time and history. According to Triandis (1995), for example, in nomadic cultural
communities where they have to move from place to place and hunt for their food, girls’
and boys’ upbringing are very similar, and they all have to forage for their next meals for
survival and ecological adaptation purpose. However, in agricultural or herding com-
munities, the socialization process for rearing boys and girls differs greatly: boys and
men tend to crops or livestock, and girls and women stay home and raise children, take
care of siblings, and cook (see Table 6.4).
Thus, historical roots and family socialization processes concerning gender roles
shape the development of the masculine–­feminine dimension. In “masculine” families,
boys learn to be assertive, tough, and ambitious, and girls learn to be modest, nurtur-
ing, and relational oriented. In “feminine” families, both boys and girls learn to be car-
ing and concerned with both facts and feelings. “Masculine” families are achievement

TABLE 6.4. Value Patterns in “Feminine” and “Masculine” Cultures

“Feminine” cultures “Masculine” cultures
Flexible gender roles Complementary gender roles
Emphasize nurturance Emphasize achievements
Quality of work life Economic growth
Work in order to live Live in order to work
Environmental issues Business performance
Androgynous-oriented personality Traditional gender-role personality
Examples Examples
Sweden Japan
Norway Austria
The Netherlands Venezuela
Denmark Italy
Costa Rica Mexico
Finland Philippines
Note. Data from Hofstede (1991). The cultures listed are based on the predominant
tendencies in the cultures.
178 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

and success oriented. “Feminine” families are consensus oriented and stress the impor-
tance of quality-­of-life issues. A “masculine” workplace differentiates male and female
roles clearly. A “feminine” workplace merges male and female roles fluidly. A “mascu-
line” organization also tends to emphasize business performance, whereas a “feminine”
organization tends to emphasize environmental issues above and beyond business per-
formance.
By implication, those who communicate in a “masculine” organizational culture
should be mindful of the norms and rules of complementary sex role behaviors in the
system. When one communicates in a “feminine” organizational culture, one should
be sensitive to the flexible sex role norms and roles in that workplace. In working for
a “masculine” culture, the focus should be more on business achievements and tan-
gible result-­based performance. In working for a “feminine” organization, one should
be more mindful of the importance of quality of work/life balance issues and learn to
be more concerned with community and environmental issues.
Moving beyond the four core value dimensions, Hofstede and his colleagues (see
the Chinese Culture Connection, 1987) identified a fifth work-­related value dimension,
Confucian dynamism. More recently, Hofstede (2011) called out this dimension as a
distinct dimension marked as “short-term orientation” versus “long-term orientation.”
Furthermore, based on Michael Minkov’s (2009; Minkov & Hofstede, 2012) World Val-
ues Survey data, the Hofstede Dimensional Value Model includes a sixth value dimen-
sion: indulgence versus restraint value.

Additional Cultural Value Variability Dimensions

The Short-Term versus Long‑Term Time Dimension
The fifth added value dimension has been previously identified as the Confucian
Work Dynamism dimension, especially concerning the East Asian long-term orienta-
tion spectrum (Bond, 1991, 1996; the Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Hofstede &
Bond, 1988) in connection with their distinctive behavioral patterns. These East Asian
cultures are China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Their primary val-
ues include having a dynamic long-term orientation, showing perseverance, ordering
relationships by status, being thrift centered, having a sense of shame, and emphasizing
collective face-­saving (Hofstede, 2001), thus, reflecting some of the traditional Confu-
cian doctrines of 500 B.C.E.
The value of tenacity in pursuing one’s goals (i.e., the perseverance value), together
with the availability of capital for investment (i.e., the thrift value), has helped shape
the economic growth of the Five Dragons (Hong Kong/China, Taiwan, Singapore,
Japan, and South Korea) in the Pacific Rim. In comparison, on this Confucian dyna-
mism dimension, members from cultures such as Pakistan, Nigeria, the Philippines,
and Canada score low. Some of the characteristics associated with the short-term ori-
entation include conducting short- to medium-­term planning, being spending centered,
and emphasizing individual face-­saving (see Table 6.5).
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 179

TABLE 6.5. Confucian Dynamism Dimension: Short-Term versus Long-

Term Value Patterns
Short-term orientation characteristics Long-term orientation characteristics
Personal survival/security Social order
Personal respect/dignity Hierarchical respect
Individual face-saving Collective face-saving
Short- to medium-term planning Long-term planning
Spending-centered Thrift-centered
Short- to medium-term outcomes Long-term outcomes
Examples Examples
Pakistan China
Nigeria Hong Kong
Philippines Taiwan
Canada Japan
Zimbabwe South Korea
Great Britain Brazil
United States Thailand
Germany Singapore
Note. Data from Hofstede (1991). The cultures listed are based on the predominant tendencies
in the cultures.

To better understand the Confucian dynamism dimension, a brief look at Confu-

cian philosophy is helpful. Confucius was a Chinese philosopher of practical ethics
who lived from 551 to 479 B.C.E. His practical code of conduct emphasizes hierarchical
societal structure and appropriate family role performance (Bond, 1991, 1996). Con-
fucianism remains the fundamental philosophy underlying Chinese values, attitudes,
and behavior. The following two principles guide Confucian philosophy: (1) superiors
in the workplace must act with virtue, and those in inferior positions must obey their
superior; and (2) one should act dutifully toward one’s parents and elders, reciprocally
in one’s obligations, and respectfully in role differentiation. Confucianism includes
core values such as “servility, frugality, abstinence, diligence, hard work, patriarchal
leadership, entrepreneurial spirit, and devotion to family” (Engholm, 1994, p. 30).
This dimension reflects the collectivism and large power distance dimensions and also
emphasizes both traditional values and adaptation to economic change in the environ-
ment.
180 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Finally, the Chinese concept of “face” was based on Confucian philosophy. Face,
in the Chinese context, means projected social image and social self-­respect. Group
harmony, and thus ingroup interdependence, is achieved by working to maintain every-
one’s face in the society and trying hard not to cause any one to “lose face.” The “face-
work” theme permeates many Asian cultures and profoundly influences how Asian cul-
tures conduct business and their interpersonal interactions.
In recent years, Hofstede (2011) emphasized this distinctive value dimension as a
fifth value, drawing especially from the data found in the World Values Survey (WVS:
www.worldvaluessurvey.org) of 93 countries and regions. Under Ronald Inglehart’s
(1997) guidance, the WVS collected worldwide data every 10 years and reported find-
ings in the following areas: ecology, economics, education, emotions, family, gender
and sexuality, government and politics, health, happiness, leisure and friends, morality,
religion, society and nation, and work. Based on reanalysis of the WVS data, Hofstede
(2011) identified long-term planning orientations as found in East Asian countries, fol-
lowed by Eastern and Central Europe. A medium-­term planning orientation is charac-
teristic in south and north European, and South Asian countries. Short-term planning
orientations are found in the United States, Australia, Latin American, African, and
Middle Eastern cultural regions.

The Indulgence–Restraint Value Dimension

Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010; see also Minkov, Blagoev, & Hofstede, 2013;
Minkov & Hofstede, 2011, 2012a) added the sixth indulgence–­restraint value dimension.
Based on WVS data, the researchers defined the indulgence value pole as emphasizing
the societal pursuit of prompt gratification of personal needs, desires, and individual-
ized happiness, while the restraint value pole stresses the importance of individuals’
conformity to their societal environment, societal norms, and determinism. According
to Hofstede (2011), the indulgence value spectrum prevails in North and South America,
northern Europe, and parts of sub-­Saharan Africa, whereas the restraint value spec-
trum prevails in western Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. According to Hofstede et
al. (2010), Mediterranean Europe takes a middle position on this indulgence–­restraint
value dimension. Moving beyond a discussion of country-­level value dimensions, we
now address the relationship between individual dispositions, associated value pat-
terns, and situational considerations.

Self‑Conceptions, Personal Dispositions,

and Situational Considerations

Self-­conception is defined as apperception, or our views of ourselves derived from how

we perceive ourselves in particular situations and from our views of ourselves as mem-
bers of various groups (e.g., cultural, ethnic, and gender groups). Understanding the
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 181

fundamental premise of self in each culture and the core linguistic symbols associated
with the conceptualization of “self” and “other” permits a clearer grasp of culture varia-
tions, personal identity, and communication issues in each distinctive group member-
ship community.
Indeed, cross-­cultural researchers around the world have accumulated a wealth of
empirical data in the area of culture and self-­conception. Miller (1991), for example, in
researching interpersonal moral responsibility in India and the United States, observes
that the Western cultural premise starts with the view of “persons as inherently autono-
mous. . . . the individual is regarded as primary, with the social order considered a
derivative” (pp. 20–21). In the Hindu culture, however, the cultural premise reflects a
more social and holistic view of the person. Persons are regarded as “inherently part of
the social body, with relationships of hierarchical interdependence assumed to be both
natural and normatively desirable. . . . the dyad rather than the autonomous individual
is the most basic social unit” (Miller, 1991, pp. 21–22).
In commenting on the Chinese sense of “self,” Gao and Ting-­Toomey (1998)
observed: “Based on Confucianism, self is relational in Chinese culture. That is, the self
is defined by the surrounding relations. Traditionally, the Chinese self involves multiple
layers of relationships with others. A person in this relational network tends to be sensi-
tive to his or her position as above, below, or equal to others” (p. 9). For the Chinese, the
“self” is both a center of relationships and a dynamic process of development within a
network of relationships. In Chinese culture, to be aware of one’s relations with others is
an integral part of zuo ren, or “conducting oneself as a human properly” in getting along
with others. In sum, the Chinese can never separate themselves from obligations to oth-
ers and a Chinese sense of self-worth is closely tied with kinship and social networks.
In Colombia, the sense of self is also cast in terms of relational connectedness
(Fitch, 1994, 1998). Terms such as palanca (literally, the word means a lever; sym-
bolically, the word means a connection, a personal contact whose influence, or “pull,”
enables someone to obtain a desired objective), vinculos (interpersonal bonds), and con-
fianza (reliance, trust, confidence, camaraderie, and unconditional support) permeate
the world of urban Colombian professionals. As Fitch (1998) notes: “The fundamental
existence for Colombians is the vinculo: the bond between human pair-parts, between
a family and its home (la casa), and between a human and his or her homeland (tierra).
This premise cuts across a very wide range of Colombian interpersonal interpretations
of action” (p. 147). In sum, a Colombian sense of self is tied closely to his or her tight-
knit family bond and also extended kinship relationship between family relationship
webs and the sentimental connective placement of space and home.
On a general theorizing level, self-­conception is related to the core value dimen-
sion of individualism–­collectivism in conjunction with power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, and feminine–­masculine features via the following characteristics: inde-
pendent versus interdependent/relational self-­construal, horizontal versus vertical self-­
construal, uncertainty-­oriented versus certainty-­oriented personality type, and gender-­
related personal identity/sexual identity issues.
182 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Independent Self‑Construal versus Interdependent/

Relational Self‑Construal
At the individual level of analysis, the term “self-­construal” reflects how individuals
view themselves in a given culture. Self-­construal is linked to cultural values, norms,
and communication. Recent research provides empirical evidence that two dimensions
of self exist within each individual regardless of her or his cultural identity (Gudykunst
et al., 1996; Singelis, 1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995). The terms “independent self-­
construal” and “interdependent self-­construal” (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1994a,
1994b) refer to the degree to which people conceive of themselves as separate or con-
nected to others, respectively (see Table 6.1).
On the one hand, the independent construal of self involves the view that an indi-
vidual is a unique entity with an individuated repertoire of feelings, cognitions, and
motivations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Individuals with this self-­construal value
individualism, personal achievement, self-­direction, and competition. Independents
tend to be more self-face oriented than other-face oriented. Gudykunst et al. (1996)
argue that independent self-­construal predominates in individualistic cultures or eth-
nic groups. Independent self-­construal has been linked to such behavior as outcome-­
oriented conversational constraints (Kim et al., 1996), task outcomes in groups (Oetzel
& Bolton-­Oetzel, 1997), and low-­context communication style (i.e., upfront, direct com-
munication; Gudykunst et al., 1996).
The interdependent construal of self, on the other hand, involves an emphasis on
the importance of ingroup relational connectedness and reliance (Markus & Kitayama,
1991). Markus and Kitayama (1991) note that “people are motivated to find a way to fit
in with relevant others, to fulfill and create obligation, and in general to become part of
various interpersonal relationships” (p. 227). Individuals with this self-­construal want
to fit in with others, act appropriately, promote others’ goals, and value conformity and
cooperation. They are eager to appeal to other-face concerns in problematic situations
in order to preserve relational harmony and to avoid public embarrassment. Gudykunst
et al. (1996) argue that interdependent self-­construal predominates in collectivistic cul-
tures or ethnic groups. Interdependent self-­construal has been linked to such behavior
as other-­oriented conversational constraints (Kim et al., 1996), relational outcomes in
groups (Oetzel & Bolton-­Oetzel, 1997), and high-­context communication styles (i.e.,
subtle, indirect communication; Gudykunst et al., 1996).
More specifically, Markus and Kitayama (1991) argue that our self-­construal influ-
ences our cognition, emotion, and motivation for actions. Independent construal of self
includes a sense of “oneself as an agent, as a producer of one’s actions. One is conscious
of being in control over the surrounding situation, and of the need to express one’s
own thoughts, feelings, and actions to others” (p. 246). In contrast, an interdependent
construal of self emphasizes “attentiveness and responsiveness to others that one either
explicitly or implicitly assumes will be reciprocated by these others. . . . One is con-
scious of where one belongs with respect to others” (p. 246). Our sense of “self” serves
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 183

as an experiential point in terms of how we process self-views, how we relate to others,

and by what criteria we evaluate others’ behavior.
Importantly and more recently, a body of empirical evidence has revealed the util-
ity of a tripartite model of self-­construal in explaining people’s behaviors in intimate
relations (Kashima, Foddy, & Platow, 2002). For example, according to Bresnahan,
Chui, and Levine (2004), while “collective interdependence focuses on the general
connection that one has with one’s group, entailing networks of obligation and face
saving and maintenance” (p. 185), relational interdependence emphasizes a stronger
“personal connection with significant others or romantic partners and the deeper
involvement and commitment that such relationship entails” (p. 187). When dealing
with intimate relationship problems, the relational-­self individuals would be expected
to be more committed and exclusively connected to the relationship than the general
interdependent-­self individuals.
Thus, cross-­cultural researchers have made moderate progress in further differen-
tiating general ingroup-­reliance collectivism and particular relational dependence and
connection. Hence, two types of “interdependent” personalities emerge in the study
of individual dispositions or individual personality types: the ingroup-­reliance person-
ality type and the relational-­dependence personality type. Cross, Bacon, and Morris
(2000) found that people who scored high on relational-­interdependent self-­construal
(hereafter labeled as “relational self-­construal”) tended to take into account the needs
and wishes of intimate others when making decisions. Another study (Cousins, 1989)
determined that Asians culturally define themselves in terms of close intimate relation-
ships. All these studies also echo the call for attention concerning the importance of
“relationalism” from the indigenous Chinese cultural perspective (Wang & Liu, 2010;
Yeh, 2010).
In sum, people of independent self-­construals value the ideals, goals, motivations,
and identity negotiation process of an “unencumbered self.” In comparison, people of
interdependent self-­construals value the ideals, goals, motivations, and emotions of
a “connected self,” which tie in closely with the extended family group, work group,
neighborhood, village, or caste group. Furthermore, individuals with relational self-­
construals value the dyadic intimacy, emotional connection, and strong relational trust
and reliance of a “relational bonded self.”

Horizontal versus Vertical Personality Attributes

Parallel to the above self-­construal idea, we can examine power distance from an indi-
vidual level of analysis (see Table 6.2). Individuals and their behaviors can be con-
ceptualized as moving toward either the “horizontal self” or the “vertical self” end of
the spectrum. Individuals who endorse horizontal self-­construal prefer informal sym-
metrical interactions (i.e., equal treatment) regardless of people’s position, status, rank,
or age. They prefer to approach an intercultural problem directly and to use impartial
standards to resolve it. In contrast, individuals who emphasize vertical self-­construal
184 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

prefer formal asymmetrical interactions (i.e., differential treatment) with due respect to
people’s position, titles, life experiences, and age (Triandis, 1995). They apply a “case-
by-case” standard to assess right or wrong behaviors in accordance with the roles occu-
pied in the hierarchical network.
These self-­construals may influence relationship dynamics in interactions across
cultural settings such as the workplace and learning environment. Thus, a professor
with a horizontal-­based self-­construal may convert a professor–­student relationship to
a friend–­friend relationship, which may well confuse a student with a vertical-­based
self-­construal who expects a larger power distance in the professor–­student interaction.
Likewise, an American student who has a tendency toward a horizontal personality
and is going overseas to China to study may attempt to establish an informal student–­
professor relationship with his or her teacher but may end up aggravating the profes-
sor’s power distance expectancy of respect and deference from his or her student.

Uncertainty‑Oriented versus Certainty‑Oriented Personality Type

Analogous to the cultural level membership analysis of the weak versus strong uncer-
tainty avoidance value spectrum, we can also examine the parallel style of uncertainty-­
oriented personality style versus the certainty-­oriented personality style (see Table 6.3).
According to Sorrentino (2012) and Sorrentino et al. (2008), uncertainty orientation
refers to individual differences in how people handle uncertainty. These researchers
found that individuals in Canada exhibited more uncertainty-­oriented style traits, but
individuals in Japan reflected more certainty-­oriented style traits. Persons who are
uncertainty oriented are characterized by direct responses to uncertainty, for example,
actively seeking out information that reduces and resolves the uncertainty. In com-
parison, persons who are certainty oriented are characterized by indirect responses to
uncertainty, for example, soaking up opinions of surrounding others to resolve uncer-
tainty.
Sorrentino et al. (2008) and Shuper, Sorrentino, Otsubo, Hodson, and Walker
(2004) found that a “goodness-­of-match” hypothesis exists between the culture/country
profile on uncertainty avoidance and the individual-­based profile on uncertainty ori-
entation. That is, individuals who match the predominant style of coping with uncer-
tainty in their own society have a better sense of self, perceive less anxiety in work
situations, experience more positive “flow” emotions, and are more realistic about what
their future holds than those who do not match their own societal values (Sorrentino et
al., 2008). Furthermore, uncertainty-­oriented individuals are more likely to be actively
engaged in a particular communicative activity where uncertainty is greater than the
probability of certainty. In comparison, certainty-­oriented individuals are more likely
to be engaged in a particular interactional activity where estimated certainty is greater
and the probability of uncertainty is lower. Interestingly, too, uncertainty-­oriented
persons also increased direct information processing when exposed to incongruent
ingroup–­outgroup messages, whereas certainty-­oriented persons increased systematic
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 185

information exposure only in congruent ingroup–­outgroup message conditions (Sorren-

tino & Short, 1986). The uncertainty orientation theory as developed by Richard Sor-
rentino (2012) in Canada and his international cohorts in Japan complements William
Gudykunst’s (2005a, 2005b) anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory, as some
of their research findings echo the AUM theory’s propositions. Sorrentino et al. (2008)
also conclude that “[c]ontroversy currently rages with regards to whether individual-
ism and collectivism truly distinguish Eastern and Western societies . . . ; a plausible
alternative explanation is that East-West differences might be a function of how these
societies cope with uncertainty“(p. 142).

Androgynous Gender Identity versus Traditional Sex Role Identity

The two terms “sex” and “gender” connote different phenomena in the research litera-
ture. The term “sex” refers to biological distinctions between women and men based on
distinctive sex chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, internal reproduction structures,
and external genitalia. As soon as a baby is born, she or he is marked down as a “girl”
or “boy” under the “sex” check mark box based on biological distinctions. However,
the term “gender” is fluid and dynamic and revolves around sociocultural construction
issues such as wrapping a girl in a pink blanket and a boy in a blue one, reflecting the
cultural construction of the “feminine” or “masculine” color association.
Bem (1974, 1993) coined the term androgyny to refer to the combination of both
feminine and masculine qualities in an individual. The term “androgyny” also parallels
the feminine value pole as discussed earlier, while traditional sex role identity parallels
the masculine value pole spectrum (refer to Table 6.4). When an individual identifies
with both gender roles, we say that she or he is psychologically androgynous. Thus,
for example, a male nurse (note the gendered adjective added) treats his patients in
an emotionally caring, compassionate, and empathetic way. However, in his leader-
ship role in the homeowner association meeting, he can become assertive and competi-
tive, and show a take-­charge attitude. When an individual identifies himself or herself
through the traditional gender role, that means he or she is following the traditional
expectancies of how a man or woman should or ought to behave.
For example, U.S. females generally have been found to subscribe to interdepen-
dent and relational-­oriented values. However, compared to females in collectivistic soci-
eties such as Japan and Thailand, U.S. females are still considered fairly independent-­
based. Comparatively, U.S. males have been found to adhere more to independent-­self
values and “I-­focused ” personal self-­esteem and emotions (Bem, 1993; Tannen, 1990;
Wood, 1997, 2013). Furthermore, according to Gilligan (1988), while U.S. males tend
to subscribe to the ideal of the “morality of justice,” U.S. females tend to emphasize
the ideal of the “morality of caring.” On the one hand, the “morality of justice” reflects
independent–­individualistic concerns of personal equity and self-­deservingness. The
“morality of caring,” on the other hand, reflects an interdependent–­relational orienta-
tion of mutual caring, inclusivity, and connective empathy.
186 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Culture × Personality × Situational Condition Considerations

Universal Societal Standards versus Particularistic Societal Standards
While independent-­self people are influenced by “generalized others” in enacting their
roles or parts, interdependent-­self people are influenced by specific ingroup expecta-
tions and contexts in carrying out their communicative conduct. Independent-­self indi-
viduals like to use a “universal” set or a “fair” set of standards to measure others’ perfor-
mance. In comparison, interdependent-­self individuals prefer to use a “particular” set
of criteria or “situational rules” to evaluate others’ performance in different situations.
According to Parsons’s (1951) work, there are two kinds of societies: “universalistic”
and “particularistic.” Independent-­self individuals tend to be found in universalistic
societies, whereas interdependent-­self individuals tend to be located in particularistic
societies. People in universalistic societies, such as Canada, the United States, Sweden,
and Norway, believe that laws and regulations are written for everyone and must be
upheld by everyone at all times. In contrast, for people in particularistic societies, such
as China, South Korea, Venezuela, and Russia, the nature of the particular relationship
in a given situation will determine how you will act in that situation (Trompenaars,
1994; Trompenaars & Hampden-­Turner, 2012).
On the one hand, for members of universalistic societies, the laws or regulations
should treat everyone equally. On the other hand, for members of particularistic societ-
ies, the laws or regulations can be molded to fit the specific relationship or ingroup needs.
Universalistic work practice emphasizes the importance of detailed contracts and pen-
alty clauses in order to conduct business properly; particularistic work practice focuses
on developing interpersonal trust and close social ties to maintain work commitments.
The ingroup asserts a profound impact, especially in particularistic societies. The
concept of an “ingroup” can refer to both the actual kinship network to which you
belong (e.g., your family group) and the reference group (e.g., work group or political
group) with which you identify closely. On the cultural level of analysis, the defini-
tion of the ingroup can vary tremendously across cultures. For example, in the United
States, the ingroup is typically defined as “people who are in agreement with me on
important issues and values” (Triandis, 1989, p. 53). For traditional Greeks, the in-
group is defined as “family and friends and people who are concerned with my welfare”
(Triandis, 1989, p. 53). For the Western Samoans, the ingroup consists of the extended
family and the immediate village community (Ochs, 1988). For many Latin American
groups, ingroup refers to the extended family and the immediate neighborhood. For
Arab cultures, ingroup refers to immediate and extended family networks of parents,
spouses, siblings, related cousins, and even nonfamily honored guests.

Situational Structure: Loose and Tight Social Structures

Cultures with loose social structures (Boldt, 1978), such as Australia, New Zealand, and
the United States, generally give individuals more options for experimenting with their
identity conceptions. In contrast, cultures with tight social structures such as Japan
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 187

and Korea tend to emphasize stringent cultural norms, rules, and interaction scripts. In
loose social structures, people have a high degree of freedom to deviate from societal
norms. In tight social structures, people are expected to conform to societal values,
norms, and rules (Gelfand, 2012; Gelfand et al., 2011).
Triandis (1995) notes that a probable antecedent of social looseness is cultural het-
erogeneity (i.e., a mix of ethnocultures and diverse values). Cultures with loose social
structures are more lenient in accepting a wide range of role-­deviant behaviors. Loose
cultures have multiple, sometimes conflicting, norms about what to do, and norm devi-
ants in such cultures are not necessarily punished. There is also a high probability of
looseness for cultures that are located at the intersections of other major cultures (e.g.,
Thailand at the intersection of India and China; Triandis, 1995). In societies with rela-
tively loose structures, the United States, for example, the process of identity negotia-
tion has a wide range of choices and options. In relatively tight structure societies like
Japan, the process of identity negotiation has a narrow range of options.
In conclusion, individualistic value tendencies emphasize the importance of the
independent self, personal self-­esteem, and universalistic-­based interaction. In com-
parison, collectivistic value tendencies emphasize the importance of the interdepen-
dent/relational self, collective self-­esteem, and particularistic-­based interaction. While
both individualistic and collectivistic elements are present in all cultures, relatively
clear patterns of individualistic value tendencies or collectivistic value tendencies do
emerge to influence people’s self-­conception and behavior in particular situational
scenes. We should also then consider whether you are situated in a “loose” social struc-
ture environment or a “tight” social structure environment. In a loose social system,
violating some minor cultural rules or expectancies maybe glossed over by cultural
insiders, but in a tight social system, you may have to do more communication repair
work for such cultural expectancy violations.
In terms of which value set is better, individualism or collectivism, the answer is—
it depends. Depending on the situation, the interaction goal, the people, the choices that
are available, and the country you are in, it is sometimes wise to follow the collectivistic
pathway, sometimes the individualistic pathway, sometimes both, and sometimes nei-
ther. Individualism and collectivism complement each other in an infinity-­eight loop
dance pattern. They represent a diverse range of cultural resources for creating more
mindful choices for you and others, solving problems productively with culturally dif-
ferent others, and learning to join hands, heads, and hearts in making informed and
meaningful choices and decisions.

Classical Value Orientations

and Intercultural–Intergroup Encounters

F. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) conceptualize cultural value orientations as “com-

plex but definitely patterned principles . . . which give order and direction to the ever-­
flowing stream of human acts and thoughts” (p. 4). Florence and Clyde Kluckhohn,
188 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

and their colleague Fred Strodtbeck, conducted this pioneering multiyear, multidis-
ciplinary cross-­cultural research project under the auspices of Harvard University in
the late 1950s and1960s The five small but historically rich communities in which they
lived and conducted their study were in northwestern New Mexico and included: the
Pueblo of Zuni agricultural community, the Navaho/Dine nomadic sheepherding com-
munity, a “Spanish American” community whose residents had been part of the region
since the sixteenth century, an “Anglo settlers” community whereby the individuals
moved from the dustbowl region of Texas and Oklahoma during the Great Depression
of the 1930s, and a Mormon/Latter Day Saints’ community that established the town of
Ramah, New Mexico, in the late nineteenth century to convert the Native Americans
to Christianity (Condon, 2015, p. 846).
The value orientation model emphasizes “[c]ultural values that included, and
indeed welcomed, variations, as might be marked across historic changes, and that
recognized variations in values within any community” (Condon, 2015, pp. 847–848).
Cultural value orientations form the basic filtered lenses through which we view our
own actions and those of others. The following subsections explain the core assump-
tions and the five value orientations developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961):
people–­nature, temporal, human nature, activity, and social relations orientations.
Examples from both national cultures and ethnocultures are given. Ethnocultures are
ethnic groups (e.g., African Americans, Irish Americans, Mexican Americans) within
a national culture (e.g., the United States) whose members share similar sets of values
based on their ancestral ties or common heritage. However, these groups also share
some of the norms and rules of the larger culture for everyday effective coordination
and functioning purposes.
Cultural value orientations regulate ingroup consensus and set evaluative stan-
dards concerning what is “valued” or “devalued” within a culture. They offer us a set
of principles by which to function adaptively in a changing cultural milieu. They also
help us to explain or “make sense” of events or people’s behaviors around us without
too much information processing. We can “fill in the blank” of why people behave the
way they do in our culture because we can draw from our implicit values and scripts in
predicting ingroup members’ actions.

Classical Value Orientations and Basic Assumptions

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) observe that human beings in all cultures face a set
of basic human problems or existential questions. Based on their research on Navajo
Indians, Latino(a)s, and European Americans in the Southwest, they list the following
five questions to which people in all cultures try to seek answers or solutions:

1. What is the relationship of people to nature (and supernatural beliefs)? (people

and nature orientation)
2. What is the temporal focus of human life? (time sense orientation)
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 189

3. What is the character of innate human nature? (human nature orientation)

4. What is the modality of human activity? (activity orientation)
5. What is the modality of a human’s social relationship to other human beings?
(social relations or relational orientation)

The value orientations’ approach assumes that these five questions are univer-
sal ones that human beings consciously or unconsciously seek to answer. While the
answers to these questions are available in all cultures, some cultures have a stronger
preference for one particular set of solutions than for others (Condon, 2015). The solu-
tions represent the “deposits of wisdom” of a particular culture passed down from one
generation to the next. The range of potential solutions to these five questions is shown
and displayed horizontally after each key orientation in Figure 6.2.

People–Nature Value Orientation

The people–­nature value orientation asks this question: “Is the relationship between
people and the natural (or supernatural) environment one of control, harmony, or sub-
ordination and yielding?” While many middle-­class European Americans believe in
mastery and control over the natural environment, many ethnocultural groups (such as
the African, Asian, Latino/a, and Native American) in the United States tend to believe
in living harmoniously with nature.
Many Native American groups, for example, believe that what is human, what is
nature, and what is spirit are all extensions of one another: we are all part of the universal

ORIENTATION RANGE

Subordination to Nature Harmony with Nature Mastery over Nature

People and Nature
(Yielding) (Flow) (Control)

Past-Oriented Present-Oriented Future-Oriented

Time Sense
(Tradition-Bound) (Situation-Bound) (Goal-Bound)

Basically Evil Neutral or Good and Evil Basically Good

Human Nature
Mutable/Immutable Mutable/Immutable Mutable/Immutable

Being Being-in-Becoming Doing

Activity
(Expressive/Emotional) (Inner Development) (Action-Oriented)

Lineality Collaterality Individualism

Social Relations
(Authoritarian Decisions) (Group Decisions) (Autonomy)

FIGURE 6.2. The Kluckhohn model: Five value orientations and possible solutions. Adapted from
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) and Kohls (1996).
190 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

continuum, and hence we should learn to live harmoniously with one another. Bud-
dhist cultures such as those of Bhutan, Laos, Thailand, and Tibet also tend to subscribe
strongly to the harmony-­with-­nature belief. In comparison, many Polynesian cultures
subscribe to the subjugation-­to-­nature value solution. Natural disasters such as earth-
quakes, volcano eruptions, and floods may have contributed to their belief that nature
is a powerful force that is beyond the control of individuals. The best way to deal with
nature is to pay respect to it and act humbly in the face of cataclysmic external forces.
The implication of this value orientation is that while some individuals believe in
gaining control over their environment, others think it is more important to live har-
moniously or submissively in relationship to their natural habitat. People who tend to
believe in controlling nature have a stronger sense of the “self-over-­nature” approach
in dealing with their surroundings. People who tend to subscribe to the “self-with-­
nature” or “self-under-­nature” viewpoint would have a more harmonious or submissive
approach (respectively) in dealing with their environment.
For example, Trompenaars (1994, p. 138) asked managers in 38 different countries
to choose between the following two statements: “(A) What happens to me is my own
doing,” or “(B) Sometimes I feel that I do not have enough control over the directions
my life is taking.” He found that 89% of U.S. managers and 82% of German manag-
ers selected option A, whereas only 56% of Japanese managers and 35% of Chinese
managers selected that same option. Overall, most European countries scored high
on option A, whereas most African, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries scored low
on this option. People who believe that individuals should be controllers of nature are
“inner directed” or internally driven; people who believe in nature as the controller of
humans are “outer directed” or externally driven.
More specifically, the personality term “locus of control” reflects the destiny value
orientation (control vs. yielding) on the cultural level. In terms of the locus of control
personality dimension, there are two personality types: internal and external (Rotter,
1966). Internal locus of control individuals have a strong mastery-­over-­nature tendency,
and external locus of control individuals have a strong yielding–­fatalistic tendency.
Individuals with an internal locus of control tend to emphasize free will, individual
motivation, personal effort, and personal responsibility over the success or failure of
an assignment. In comparison, individuals with an external locus of control emphasize
external determinism, karma, fate, and external forces shaping a person’s life happen-
ings and events. Internal locus of control is parallel to the notion of mastery over nature
(i.e., controlling value), and external locus of control is parallel to the notion of subor-
dination to nature (i.e., yielding value). Internal-­locus individuals believe in the impor-
tance of free will and internal control of one’s fate. External-­locus individuals believe in
trying their best and then letting karmic fate take over.
Some individuals plan their actions in terms of the internal locus of control ten-
dency, and others contemplate their life events along the external locus of control ten-
dency. Perceived control of one’s destiny exists in varying degrees in an individual,
across situations, and across cultures. In terms of gender socialization differences, for
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 191

example, males tend to endorse internal locus of control, and females tend to empha-
size external locus of control in a wide variety of cultures (Smith, Bond, & Kagitcibasi,
2006). In other words, males in many cultures are more motivated by internal drives
and a doing/fixing approach, and females tend to be more contextual and being-­oriented
in their attempt to flow with their external environment.
To engage in competent identity-­support work, we have to increase our awareness
and accuracy levels in assessing others’ group membership identity and personal iden-
tity issues and the associated values that go with their group membership identity con-
tent or personal identity preference. When individuals from different “people–­nature”
solutions come together, intercultural problems may arise. While individuals from one
cultural group are eager to “fix up” the environment with huge projects by building
dams, levees, and reservoirs, another cultural group may be deeply offended because
the action may provoke the anger of the spirits that inhabit the river being dammed or
the terrain being inundated.

Temporal Orientation
The value orientation, the temporal value orientation, asks this question: “Is the tem-
poral focus in the culture based on the past, present, or future?” The past-­oriented
time sense means honoring historic and ancestral ties; the present-­oriented time sense
means valuing the here and now, especially the interpersonal relationships and activi-
ties that are unfolding currently; and the future-­oriented time sense means planning
for desirable short- to medium-­term developments and setting out clear objectives to
realize them.
Asian immigrants (e.g., Chinese Americans and Vietnamese Americans) and Native
Americans tend to revere the past; African Americans to have a strong sense of both
past and present references; Latino/a Americans to respond strongly to the present
experience; and European Americans to emphasize concern for the immediate future.
More specifically, many Chinese Americans and Vietnamese Americans believe in the
Buddhist concepts of karma and rebirth. They believe that “an individual life cycle
is predetermined by good and bad deeds from a previous life. The goal is eventually
to achieve spiritual liberation. . . . Ancestors are worshiped for four generations after
death” (Locke, 1992, pp. 105–106). Thus, for many Chinese American and Vietnamese
American immigrants, their ancestral past profoundly influences their present identi-
ties.
Many Mexican Americans, in contrast, prefer to experience life and people around
them fully in the present. This outlook may come from their traditional cultural belief
“in the concept of ‘limited good.’ In fact, this is the belief that there is only so much
good in the world and, therefore, only so much good is possible in any one person’s
life” (Locke, 1992, p. 140). They prize experiencing life with the fullness of the five
senses much more than “work for the sake of work” itself. For traditional-­oriented
Mexicans or Mexican Americans, work should never be an end in itself; living life fully
192 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

and helping families and friends through meaningful work make more sense to them
(Hecht, Sedano, & Ribeau, 1993).
Many Africans and African Americans embrace a combination of past–­present
focus. For example, for many Africans and African Americans, people and activities in
the present assume a higher priority than an external clock schedule (Asante & Asante,
1990). As Pennington (1990) observes, “Time for Africans does not exist in a vacuum
as an entity which can be conceptually isolated. Time is conceived only as it is related
to events, and it must be experienced in order to make sense or to become real. The
mathematical division of time observed by Westerners has little relevance for Afri-
cans” (p. 131). Similarly, Locke (1992) notes that Africans’ concept of time differs from
that found in Western cultures: “The difference is that in traditional African societ-
ies, people [tend to] emphasize something is done only at the present moment. . . . In
becoming African Americans, the Africans had to develop a new framework capable of
holding their beliefs, values, and behavior” (p. 26). For traditional Africans, the actual
event that is happening forms the essence of temporal interaction. Furthermore, the
past and ancestors “were indispensable in giving meaning to one’s present existence. In
regard to the historical sense of time, events were filed as they happened. . . . There was
always a conscious awareness and respect for the causal factors linking events among
traditional Africans” (Pennington, 1990, p. 137).
On a broader level of interpretation, our sense of developmental identity is closely
fused with the temporal value orientation. Those who subscribe to the past–­present
focus tend to believe in the importance of understanding historical factors and back-
ground contexts that frame the “self.” In order to understand the present self, it is
important to understand the historical contexts that pave the way to it. Those who
subscribe to the future focus (e.g., middle-­class European Americans), however, tend
to deemphasize the past, move forward boldly to the immediate future, and strongly
emphasize the importance of “futurism” (e.g., the glorification of the “youth” culture
and devaluation of “aging”). The larger French culture, for example, has been classi-
fied as “past–­present oriented,” whereas the larger U.S. culture has been identified as
“future oriented.” In French culture, “the past looms far larger and is used as a context
in which to understand the present. Past, present, and future overlap synchronously
so that the past informs the present, and both inform the future” (Trompenaars, 1994,
p. 127). However, in the larger U.S. culture, its view of the future is that the individual
can control it by personal achievement and inner-­directed accountability (Kohls, 1996).
Potential clashes can exist between members of business groups with different
time orientations: for example, between members who favor a “past–­present” focus and
members who favor a “future” focus. While business members from the first group
want to view everything from the company’s “big picture developmental” history and
traditions, members from the latter group prefer to bypass the past and plan ahead
efficiently for an immediate future. Individuals with a “past–­present” focus have a long-
term view of holistic time, whereas individuals with a “future” focus have a short- to
medium-­term view of tangible-­closure time.
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 193

Human Nature Orientation

The human nature orientation asks this question: “At birth, is human nature considered
good, neutral, evil, or a mixture of good and evil, and is it changeable?” Individuals
who believe in the basic goodness of human nature tend to be more trusting of others,
whereas those who believe in humans’ inherent evil are generally more skeptical and
suspicious when interacting with dissimilar others. Individuals who believe in the neu-
trality of human nature tend to believe in the role of the environment in shaping their
intrinsic nature.
Although middle-­class European Americans and African Americans tend to per-
ceive human nature as neutral, many Native American groups emphasize the inherent
goodness of human nature (Sue & Sue, 1990). Many European Americans believe in the
individual’s personal willpower to shape the development of human nature, whereas
many African Americans believe in the importance of the environment in shaping a
person. For European Americans, human nature can be a mixture of good and evil,
depending largely on the individual self-­motivation effort. For African Americans, the
environment (e.g., family or society) or a spiritual force (e.g., God) plays a critical role
in cultivation of the goodness or evilness of human nature. For many traditional Afri-
cans and African Americans, “God is believed to be the creator, the sustainer, and the
ultimate controller of life. . . . This belief in God’s intervention and ultimate control of
the affairs of humans can account for an apparent resignation to fate or to higher forces
observed on the part of traditional African peoples” (Pennington, 1990, pp. 127–128).
Many Native American groups believe in the innate goodness of human nature.
Locke (1992) observes that “[Native Americans] act on this belief through their cus-
toms of welcoming strangers, sharing with each other, and helping others before self.
People who do bad things are seen as inhabited by bad spirits, or perhaps as having
spells put on them” (p. 57). While different Native American tribes engage in different
communication modes in welcoming strangers (e.g., with initial silence and a period of
observation), they ultimately believe in the goodness of people’s intentions. For many
Native American groups, people are all part of the larger universe in which everyone is
positively interconnected.
Individuals who believe in the essential goodness of human nature tend to be
trusting: they leave their doors unlocked, and they do not usually fear strangers. Indi-
viduals who believe in the essential evilness of human nature tend to be less trusting;
they tend to bolt their doors and eye strangers with suspicion. People in rural communi-
ties tend to be more trusting than people in urban communities.

Activity Orientation
The activity orientation asks this question: “Is the human activity in the culture
focused on the doing, being, or being-in-­becoming mode?” The “doing” solution means
achievement-­oriented activities; the “being” solution means living with emotional
194 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

vitality; and the “becoming” solution means living with an emphasis on spiritual
renewal and connection.
While middle-­class African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Ameri-
cans focus on a “doing” or an achievement-­oriented solution, Latino/a Americans and
Native Americans focus on the “being-in-­becoming” mode (Sue & Sue, 1990). However,
the “doing” preference is manifested quite differently among the European American,
African American, and Asian American groups.
For example, for the African American group, a “doing” mode means to fight
against adversity and to combat racism through social achievements and activism for
the good of the community. Furthermore, traditional Africans and African Americans
also display a “being” mode for living. They value “having a sense of aliveness, emo-
tional vitality, and openness of feelings. . . . African American culture is infused with a
spirit (a knowledge that there is more to life than sorrow, which will pass) and a renewal
in sensuousness, joy, and laughter. This symbol has its roots in African culture and
expresses the soul and rhythm of that culture in America” (Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau,
1993, pp. 102–103). Likewise, Latino/a Americans also mix the “being” vitality solution
with that of “being-in-­becoming” spiritual beliefs.
For Asian immigrants in the United States, the “doing” mode is typically associ-
ated with working hard and making money in order to fulfill basic obligations to family
and extended family networks. The great spiritual traditions of Asia (e.g., Hinduism,
Jainism, Buddhism, and Taoism) also influence their “being-in-­becoming” activity ori-
entation. For European Americans, a “doing” mode means focusing on tangible accom-
plishments for personal gain, such as a coveted job promotion or a bigger salary to take
care of self and immediate family (Locke & Bailey, 2014).
Both the Latino/a and Native American groups prefer the “being-in-­becoming”
mode and are oriented toward the religious and spiritual. Indeed, they are more con-
cerned about their spiritual than their material well-being. Spiritual self-­actualization
is much more important to them than material rewards and gains. In addition, many
traditional Latino(a)s also subscribe to the “being” mode of activity, which means enjoy-
ing the moment to the fullest. Shared recreations and celebrations with close friends
and family members form a critical part of a Latino/a’s lifestyle.

Relational Orientation
The social relations or relational orientation asks this question: “Does the culture focus
on individual, collateral, or lineal relationships?” Ho (1987) explains that while Euro-
pean Americans value individualistic relationships, many other ethnocultural groups
(such as Asian, African, Latino/a, and Native Americans) enjoy collateral relation-
ships. Individualistic-­based relationships emphasize autonomy, differentiation, and
the unique qualities of the people in the relationship. Collateral-­based relationships
emphasize role obligations and ingroup interdependence, kinship bonds, and extended
family bonds. Lineal-­based relationship emphasizes relationships that are passed from
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 195

one generation to the next along a historical trajectory such as social class, caste, or fam-
ily background (e.g., the traditional caste system of India).
We can conclude that while middle-­class European Americans tend to subscribe
to the predominant individualistic relationship tendencies, African Americans, Asian
Americans, Native Americans, and Latino/a Americans tend to prefer the collateral rela-
tionship tendencies or a mixture of both value sets. Because of the proximity between
these ethnic groups within the United States, their value tendencies often take on mixed
adaptational functions. The theme of relational orientation is manifested through the
individualism–­collectivism dimension. The classical value orientation model, together
with the value dimensions’ schemas, are reflective of the deeper level of the iceberg
metaphor presented in Chapter 1. Understanding some of the value dimension spec-
trum, such as small and large power distance value tendency, and mastery over nature
versus subordination to nature value inclination, affords us more insights into why indi-
viduals think in certain value patterns and also how they construct social meanings
based on their cultural socialization processes, personal lived experiences, and interac-
tive situations. The more we understand where cultural strangers came from in terms
of their thinking patterns, affective reactions, and behavioral predispositions, the more
we can learn to acknowledge and even affirm their value orientation and communica-
tive frames of operation and learn to work with them adaptively and collaboratively.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

C ultural values are deposits of wisdom that are passed from generation to genera-
tion. Simultaneously, they also can serve as cultural blinders to alternative ways of
thinking, feeling, motivating, and behaving. While cultural values serve many useful
functions such as identity maintenance and group solidarity, they can also reinforce
various ethnocentric habitual practices and norms of communication and intercultural
and intergroup relatedness.
In this chapter, we provided a systematic and comprehensive discussion of cultural
values, their functions, and their values from a cultural general level to an individual
and situational level to classical value orientations in intergroup encounters. While dis-
cussing the cultural variability framework, not only have we drawn attention to intracul-
tural variations of vertical and horizontal dimensions of collectivism and individualism,
but we have also dealt with additional dimensions such as short-term versus long-term
time dimensions. While discussing self-­construals, not only have we drawn attention to
the tripartite of self-­construals as well as vertical and horizontal self-­construals, but also
additional factors such as loose versus tight sociocultural structures. Last but not least,
we discussed classical value orientations with insightful cross-­cultural differences. We
have also attempted to connect cultural dimensions, self-­construals, and classical value
orientations to each other for a system’s perspective on understanding intercultural and
cross-­cultural communication behaviors.
196 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

To be a mindful intercultural communicator on the value clarification level, here

are some recommendations to enhance your knowledge, motivation, and skills:

1 Understand that on the cultural group membership level, different value pref-
erences exist for memberships in different cultures or co-­cultures.

2 Different situations, contexts, and personality tendencies also affect the sam-
pling of individualistic and collectivistic elements or small and large power
distance elements in a given culture.

3 Develop a culture-­relative approach in understanding different cultural val-

ues. Cultural relativism means understanding a particular set of cultural val-
ues from that cultural frame of reference rather than your own gut-level ethnocul-
tural frame of reference.

4 When entering a new culture, learn to mentally observe (O), describe (D), and
interpret (I) cultural differences, suspending (S) ethnocentrism, taking the
other cultural values’ perspective. In an unfamiliar culture, patient observation
with our five senses can help us to shift value lenses and get ready, both emotion-
ally and cognitively, to appreciate and understand the differences. Furthermore,
with focused observation, we should work on generating multiple cultural inter-
pretations in viewing a “seemingly deviant” behavior. We should make explicit
our own unconscious cultural interpretations in comparison to the interpretations
by cultural insiders. In this way, we hope, this O–D–I–S method application—­
observing, describing, interpreting, and suspending evaluations of the other’s
culture—­will enable us to observe seemingly “uncivilized’ behavior ethnorela-
tively.

5 Learn to observe a wide range of people in a wide range of situations in the

new cultural setting before making any premature generalizations about the
people’s behavior in that culture.

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. Of all the four value spectrums in Hofstede’s framework of cultural variability dimen-
sions, which one value dimension creates the most intercultural or intergroup misun-
derstandings in your family or intimate relationships? How about in your workplace?

2. Power distance and display of respect across cultures are part of everyday inter-
actions. How do you negotiate power distance in interpersonal, intercultural, and
workplace situations? Do you have an intercultural story similar to or different from
that of Tenzin’s story? How and why do individualists, collectivists, and bicultural
individuals differ in their understanding and negotiation of power distance in various
situations? How do people in different cultures display respect to each other, and
 Cultural Value Dimensions and Intercultural Encounters 197

what misunderstandings happen from each other’s cultural lens? Similar to showing
feet or soles of shoes in Indian culture, what behaviors and use of nonverbal sym-
bols are considered disrespectful in your cultures?

3. How are your family value patterns different from or consistent with those of the
larger cultural and/or ethnic value system? How are your personal value patterns
different from or consistent with these patterns?

4. Can you distinguish the individual-­level personality factors (e.g., self-­construals)

from the culture-­level general factors (e.g., individualism–­collectivism and power
distance) in your communication with cultural strangers? What are the pros and
cons in differentiating the different levels of research analysis about cultural-­level
differences and personality differences?

5. Which of the classical value orientations do you attach the most importance to, and
how do they shape your perceptions, lifestyle, and everyday decision-­making pro-
cess?

6. Think about a specific region of the world you might be visiting for an extended
period of time or doing business with in the future. Identify the specific value dimen-
sion differences you might find between your cultural values and the regional cul-
tural values.

7. If you have to work on a team project with other students who have diametrically
opposite values from your own, how would you manage the differences in a compe-
tent manner? Recommend two ideas you can practice or apply to manage possible
value clashes.
 C H A P TE R 7

Mindful Intercultural
Verbal Communication

„„Introduction
„„Human Language: A Coherent System
††Arbitrariness
††Multilayered Rules
††Pragmatic Rules and Speech Community
„„Languages Across Cultures: Diverse Functions
††The Group Identity Function
††The Ethnolinguistic Vitality Function
††The Perceptual Filtering Function
††The Cognitive Reasoning Function
††The Relational Status and Intimacy Function
††The Social Evaluation Function
††The Creativity Function
„„Cross-­Cultural Verbal Communication Styles
††Low-­Context and High-­Context Communication
††Direct and Indirect Verbal Interaction Styles
††Person-­Oriented and Status-­Oriented Verbal Styles
††Self-­Enhancement and Self-­Effacement Verbal Styles
††Beliefs Expressed in Talk and Silence
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

198
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 199

I ntercultural Verbal M isunderstanding

or C onflict C lash?: A C ase S tory

Majid is an international student from Saudi Arabia who transferred to a 4-year uni-
versity. He is a bright, serious, diligent student who has been granted a scholarship
to obtain a degree from a U.S. university. He met with Professor Smith in the Business
Department regarding a discrepancy with recorded absences and deducted attendance
points for a class.
Overhearing their conversation, the Department Chair Dr. Jones passed by and
said to Majid, “If you have anything that you want to discuss, come to my office.” Majid
interpreted this verbal message as an open-door invitation and followed Dr. Jones to his
office. Dr. Jones was surprised that Majid came at that very moment.
Majid and Dr. Jones talked for a while, and Majid recounted the background context
that led to his perceived grade discrepancy in Professor Smith’s class and his dissatis-
faction with what the professor told him. At some point, Dr. Jones asked Majid to leave.
However, Majid wanted to continue their discussion because he felt like he barely filled
in the key points of the story. Dr. Jones asked Majid again to leave or security would be
called. Majid started to raise his voice.
Sally, the department secretary who sat outside of Dr. Jones’s office was listening
intently to this conversation. Hearing the student’s voice escalate, the secretary quickly
contacted campus security, fearing that the student might become hostile. When two
security personnel arrived, they asked Majid to leave and escorted him out of the depart-
ment office and the building. Some of Majid’s friends happened to be around the build-
ing and saw him escorted out by security.
A few days later, a dejected Majid went to meet with the campus international stu-
dent advisor about this incident. He was very upset, hurt, and fearful that he was treated
like a terrorist. He expressed shame as many of his friends witnessed security escorting
him out of the building like a criminal. At the same time, during the appointment, the
Chair Dr. Jones also happened to call the advisor about his concern over Majid’s emo-
tional stability.

—Jean, international student advisor

Introduction

Intercultural communication consists of the exchange of verbal and nonverbal messages

through the use of a particular linguistic practice and its associated nonverbal intona-
tions and varied gestures. Language in and of itself is not only a conduit for expressing
content meaning or instrumental task request, but also a coherent system that reflects
the lived experience of a cultural member and carries rich symbolic beliefs, values,
norms, and attitudes concerning self, others, and the situation.
200 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Indeed, language and culture are closely intertwined, and it is within a given cul-
tural community that people learn about their language varieties, their situational use,
and their symbolic meanings. The opening story reflects challenges that verbal com-
munication styles present across cultures. Tens of thousands of international students
study at universities in the United States, and they need the help of faculty, staff, and
domestic students to meet their academic and other goals. If you were the international
student advisor, how would you begin to unpack and analyze this case story? How
would you evaluate the communication styles exhibited by Majid, Dr. Jones, and Sally?
How would you respond to them? What can be done to diffuse anxiety and tension in
the given situation? What suggestions would you proffer for better understanding and
improved intergroup communication? Language frames our expectations and directs
our perceptions and meaning interpretations. It is the key to unlocking the heart of a
sociocultural community. Mindful language and verbal communicators are intentional
in their choice of language and linguistic expressions and are also acutely aware of the
accompanying nonverbal nuances and displays (see Chapter 8) for an analysis of both
content and relational meanings in a particular cultural milieu.
In this and the following chapter, we will explore the relationship between under-
lying cultural values and verbal/nonverbal communication styles. As social beings, we
are affiliated with different sociocultural groups, and our primary identities, most nota-
bly our cultural–ethnic identities, are often expressed through the symbols and styles
we use in our interactions with others. Culture is a symbolically mediated meaning
system, and language is a vital part of this symbolic system.
The chapter is divided into four main sections: the first presents the basic features
of human language; the second explores the functions and patterns of languages across
cultures; the third examines cross-­cultural verbal styles; and the fourth presents the
chapter summary, mindful guidelines, and critical thinking questions concerning com-
petent intercultural verbal communication engagement. In order to understand cul-
ture, we have to understand the premium role of language and its verbal variations in
connection with sociocultural norms, roles, relationships, and situations.

Human Language: A Coherent System

Every human language embodies a logical, coherent system for the insiders of a linguis-
tic community. The term “system” implies patterns, rules, and structure. This section
explores the structural features of human language for mindful intercultural verbal
communication. While broad similarities exist among languages, tremendous varia-
tions remain in the sounds, written symbols, grammars, and nuances of the conveyed
meanings of 7106 known living language varieties across cultures (www.ethnologue.
com).
A language is a rule-based, arbitrary, symbolic system, developed by members
of a particular speech community that names ideas, feelings, experiences, events,
objects, spatial/temporal directions, colors, people, and other phenomena. Through
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 201

this arbitrary, symbolic system, humans imbue it with historical, philosophical, politi-
cal, cultural, interpersonal, and personal experiential meanings. The three distinctive
features of each human language are arbitrariness, multilayered rules, and speech com-
munity.

Arbitrariness
All human languages are arbitrary in their phonemic (i.e., sound unit) and graphic
representations (i.e., alphabets or characters). As early as at 3 months of age, children
have already acquired intonations or sounds similar to those changes in pitch heard in
adult exclamations and questions in their culture. Through continuous reinforcement,
children learn about the forms and sounds of words. In any culture, children acquire
speaking and comprehension skills before reading and writing skills.
While almost all children have the capacity to utter all the sounds in all languages,
this linguistic competence tapers off as they reach 6 to 7 years of age. This also explains
why the speech of non-­native speakers, even those fluent in English, has a non-­native
“accent.” Even within a shared linguistic community, people in different locales speak
the same language with different accents and dialects. For example, Tibetans in the
three provinces of Tibet (Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang) speak Tibetan with different dia-
lects and accents (Dorjee et al., 2011). In linguistic terms, an accent is a manner of
pronunciation that contains no meaningful information (Dovidio & Gluszek, 2012). In
terms of social identity, however, it conveys a considerable amount of social information
affecting intergroup perceptions and communication (Cargile, Giles, Ryan, & Bradac,
1994; Lindemann, 2003; Rakic, Steffens, & Mummendey, 2011).
The arbitrary feature of language also extends to the written symbols or characters
that cultural members use to express their ideas. Meanings are not inherently in words
but in people. Written symbols such as love in English, peyar in Hindi, ai in Chinese,
amour in French, and tsewa in Tibetan carry no intrinsic meanings that exactly match
internal emotional states. These words are arbitrarily sounded out or written and have
no meanings in and of themselves, but members of different speech communities give
sociocultural meanings to these and other words based on their socialization processes.
For example, in Tibetan culture, a monk teacher putting on a serious face to admonish
a disciple and parents displaying a serious demeanor to discipline their children are
regarded as caring and nurturing, not as necessitating a 911 call for abuse.

Multilayered Rules
To be a competent language user in a second or third foreign language, you need to
have a good grasp of the “languaculture” that you will be encountering. The term
“languaculture” emphasizes the necessary tie between language structure and culture
(Agar, 1994). The features of a particular language, from syntactic rules to semantic
rules, reflect a speaker’s worldviews, values, and premises concerning different func-
tions and ways of speaking. Additionally, the more you understand how your own native
202 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

language system is put together, the more you can understand how your own thinking
patterns and emotional reactive expressions are either liberated or constrained by the
architectural framework of your own language system.
Human language appears to be the only communication system that combines
meaningless elements into meaningful structures (Chaika, 1989). To non-­native speak-
ers, the rules of a “foreign language” appear random and nonsensical, but to native
speakers, the rules of their language make perfect sense and are logical, even though
most native speakers cannot clearly articulate the rules of their own language. All
human languages are structured according to phonology, morphology, syntax, seman-
tics, and pragmatics (for pragmatics rule and speech community, see the next subsec-
tion) (see Figure 7.1).
The phonological rules (or phonology) of a language refer to the different accepted
procedures for combining phonemes. Phonemes are the basic sound units of a word. For
example, some of the phonemes in English are /k/, /sh/, and /t/. Native speakers of Eng-
lish, for example, may possess an intuitive sense of how to utter sounds such as “kiss,”
“shy,” and “try”; however, they may not be able to articulate the how and why of the pho-
netic rules for producing these sounds. While the English language has 45 phonemes,
other languages have a range of phonemes spanning anywhere between 15 and 85.
The accents of non-­native language speakers are usually related to phonetic sound
problems. Depending on the sounds of a given language, native speakers of that lan-
guage are habituated to using their vocal instruments (e.g., mouth, tongue, palate, and
vocal cords) in certain ways to produce certain sounds. Their ears are also trained to
hear the native sounds of their own language. However, bilingual non-­native speakers
of the language may have difficulty hearing or articulating the sounds like natives do.
This distinctively marks them as non-­native speakers of the language.
Interestingly, members of subcultures who are native speakers of the same language

Language Functions
Language Rules Verbal
Group Identity Communication Styles
Phonological Rules
Ethnolinguistic Vitality Low/High Context
Morphological Rules
Perceptual Filter Direct/Indirect
Mindful Syntactic Rules
Verbal Cognitive Reasoning Person/Status Orientation
Communication Semantic Rules
Status and Intimacy Self-Enhancement
Pragmatic Rules and Self-Effacement
Social Evaluation
Speech Community Talk/Silence
Creativity Function

FIGURE 7.1. Mindful verbal communication: Rules, functions, and verbal styles.
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 203

can also be identified as having accents. In such cases, the distinctive accents can be
attributed to shared group membership. Many Bostonians, for example, claim that they
can differentiate the Italian, Irish, and Jewish groups in their city by the way they artic-
ulate their /o(r)/ vowel sound (in words like short and corn). Ethnically distinct speech
often indicates group solidarity and bondedness. Thus, to a large degree, our accented
speech pattern reflects our identity group membership. Whereas standard language
and accents in a given linguistic community are positively evaluated, nonstandard lan-
guage and accents are negatively evaluated in social interactions (Giles, & Rakic, 2014;
Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010; Gluszek, Newheiser, & Dovidio, 2012; Tsurutani, 2012).
Linguistically speaking, however, everyone who communicates orally speaks
with an accent because accent means the inflection or tone of voice that is taken to be
the characteristic of an individual. For example, law enforcement agencies sometimes
use electronic equipment to generate “voiceprints” made from recordings of suspects’
speech. These voiceprints can be used to help confirm the identities of the suspects
because, like fingerprints, voiceprints are highly individualized. Based on decoding
intergroup membership accents, group members often mark individuals as “ingroup”
versus “outgroup” members via perceived tonal similarity or difference.
The morphological rules (or morphology) refer to how different sounds combine to
make up a meaningful word or parts of a word (e.g., new and com-er form new-com-er).
Phonemes combine to form morphemes, which are the smallest units of meaning in a
language. In English and many other European languages, morphemes are syntacti-
cally often put at the end of words as suffixes (i.e., “is going” and “is sleeping” contain
the morpheme ing, which indicates that an activity is currently in progress). In Swahili,
however, the grammatical information indicating verb tense appears at the beginning
as prefixes (law = “to go,” nlaw = “is going”; or “sun = to sleep,” nsun = “is sleeping”;
Chaika, 1989, p. 5). Again, languages develop different rules based on cultural conven-
tions that are passed down across generations.
The syntactic rules (or syntactics) of a language refer to how words are sequenced
together in accordance with the grammatical practice of the linguistic community. The
order of the words helps to establish the meaning of an utterance. It also reflects the
cultural notions of causality and order. In English grammar, for example, explicit sub-
ject pronouns are used to distinguish self from other (e.g., “I cannot give you the report
because it is not ready”). In Chinese grammar, however, explicit pronouns such as “I”
and “you” are deemphasized. Instead, conjunctive words such as “because” (yinwei),
“so” (suoyi), and “then” ( juo) appear early in the discourse to pave the way for the rest
of the story (e.g., “Because of so many projects all of a sudden piling up, so the report
has then not been handled properly.” While Chinese syntax establishes a context and
contingent conditions and then introduces the main point, English syntax establishes
the key point and then lays out the reason (Scollon, Scollon, & Jones, 2012; Young, 1994).
Unlike English language syntax, many languages have “Subject–­Object–­Verb”‘ syntax.
For example, ‘I love you’ in English is rendered in Hindi and Tibetan languages as ‘I
you love’ syntax (Tibetan: Nga (I) kyerang (you) la (particle) gagi dhug (love)). Simi-
larly, in English, adjectives generally come before nouns (e.g., asking for “Green tea”
204 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

at a restaurant), but in Tibetan adjectives generally follow nouns (e.g., “Solja (Tea) Chig
(one)” (Tibetan). The syntactic rules of a language impose tremendous power on one’s
thinking, and hence on a culture’s reasoning patterns. Linear and relational worldviews
are intimately related to the ethnolinguistic features and syntactic rules of a language
(e.g., forms of address such as Sir, Madam, Your Highness, Your Eminence, and Your
Holiness) and reflect relational status and power distance in interactions.
The semantic rules (semantics) of a language refer to the features of meaning we
attach to words. Words themselves do not have holistic meanings. It is people within a
cultural community who consensually establish shared meanings for specific words and
phrases. For example, pretty has a feature of [+female], and handsome has a feature of
[+male]. If we combine pretty with the [+male] feature such as “pretty boy” (or “hand-
some woman”), the concept takes on a whole range of different meanings (Chaika,
1989). Beyond mastering the vocabularies of a new language, language learners need to
master the appropriate cultural meaning features that are indicated by different word
pairings. Without such cultural knowledge, they may have the right vocabularies but an
inappropriate meaning association system (e.g., “What a pretty boy!”).
Any language has two levels of meaning: denotative meaning and connotative
meaning. A word’s denotative meaning is its dictionary definition from an objective,
public stance. Connotative meaning is the informal affective grasp of particular words
and phrases, and these meanings are relatively subjective and personal. Words such as
“commitment,” “power,” “privilege,” “loyalty,” and “compromise” can hold both objec-
tive and subjective meanings. For instance, Jack and Jill may connotatively differ in the
use of the word “commitment” in their relationship. While Jack’s use of commitment
includes an exclusive dating relationship but not marriage, Jill’s use of commitment
may include the presumption of marriage. Furthermore, according to Osgood, May,
and Miron (1975), the following three dimensions comprise the affective features of
connotative meaning: value (i.e., good–bad); potency (i.e., strong–­weak); and activity
(i.e., fast–slow).
For two international business parties (e.g., an American business partner nego-
tiating a business contract with a Saudi business partner) working on a project may
have similar reactions to the “good and strong” part of the concept concerning “com-
mitment”; however, they differ as to the activity dimension of “fast versus slow.” While
“fast” activity may reflect short-term future-­oriented cultural values, “slow” activity
reflects long-term past-­oriented cultural values. The former party (e.g., American busi-
nessman) thinks that the business contract will be signed that afternoon and that he
can fly back home by evening. However, the latter party (e.g., the Saudi Arabian busi-
nessman) thinks the business negotiation has just barely started—­especially when rela-
tional trust in that culture takes a long time to develop. The three affective meaning
features tap into the underlying cultural or personal attitudes we hold for a diverse
range of concepts. The more abstract the concepts, the more chances that intended
meanings can be lost in the translation process (Hannawa, 2017).
Furthermore, translation problems and jokes that involve different semantic
understandings abound on the global level: The English phrase “The spirit is willing
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 205

but the flesh is weak” has been translated into Russian as “The vodka is good but the
meat is rotten.” The translation for “Things come alive with Pepsi” has been translated
into German as “Pepsi can pull you back from your grave!” General Motors’ “Chevy
Nova” car has been translated into Spanish as “No va,” meaning “It doesn’t go.” Inter-
cultural misunderstandings arise when we decode the literal meanings of the words but
not the connotative meanings of the messages.
Lastly, we should also pay close attention to the two-­leveled cultural meanings:
etic meanings versus emic meanings. These two-­leveled meanings can often compli-
cate our understanding of semantics. On one hand, etic meanings can be defined as the
dictionary meanings of words or phrases from a mainstream, standardized viewpoint
or from an outsider’s culture-­general understanding of the foreign language dictionary
words or phrases. On the other hand, emic meanings refer to concepts, interpretations,
and behaviors that are culture-­specific, and insiders imbue the words with a strong
cultural flavor. For example, indigenous Chinese term such as “filial piety” or xiao to
connote the complex Confucius concept of “indebted devotion, sacrifices, and caring
of one’s parents,” or use of the term yuan fen to reflect the richly textured Buddhist
concept of “karmic relational destiny” (sometimes translated as “fateful coincidence”
in English and “synchronicity” in French, and you can also have “yuan but no fen”
in Chinese, meaning “have karmic relationship fate from previous incarnation but no
human connective destiny in this lifetime”) are heavily emic-based terms and infused
with insiders’ meanings. Take another term such as personalismo in Spanish, broadly
denote “personalism” in English. From a cultural, emic interpretive standpoint, per-
sonalismo, in Mexican culture, refers to establishing a good rapport and personal con-
nection, and being trustworthy (confianza) (Locke, 1992). It means the unconditional
validation of the intrinsic value of the person with whom you are communicating, in
consideration of her or his family membership background. Taking the time to know
the individual and making an effort to display nonverbal warmth and genuine affection
are part of the personalismo communicative value in the Mexican cultural community.
While mindful understanding of etic meanings for essential words and phrases of a
cultural community will open the door to developing a sound acquaintance relation-
ship, the mindful grasping of the deep emic meanings of how insiders live their core
cultural symbols of “verbs” and “nouns” and ”adjectives” can promote deeper, quality
friendships and partnerships. Understanding both etic and emic meanings in context,
as well as their underlying cultural nuances, can help us become verbally sensitive and
supportive intercultural communicators. Appropriate and effective language usage and
verbal style engagement always take place within a situational speech community. The
situational use of language is known as the pragmatic rule.

Pragmatic Rules and Speech Community

The pragmatic rules (pragmatics) of a language refer to the situational rules that govern
language usage in a particular culture. Pragmatics concerns the rules of “how to say
what to whom and under what situational conditions” in a particular situation within a
206 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

speech community. An individual can be fluent in a second or third language but still
act like a linguistic fool if he or she violates the pragmatic rule of language usage in a
particular sociocultural setting. For example, the Chinese elderly will sometimes com-
ment on your appearance directly to your face as to whether you look too thin or too fat.
When you hear, Oyo! Ni pang le! (“Wow, you’re fat!”), it is almost echoing the similar
sentiment as “Oh look, now you have a beard!” In other words, it is not meant to hurt
your feelings, but, rather, it is more of an observation and noticing. However, if you
react negatively and say defensively: “I’ve been exercising everyday on the treadmill;
what do you mean I’m fat?” you may have violated the Chinese pragmatic interactional
rule—­especially in your use of a blunt tone to an elderly uncle/auntie-­type caring per-
son. In many Asian cultures, the word fat (Mota in Hindi and Gyagpa or Kusha Jorpo in
Tibetan) is associated with a wide range of meanings, including prosperity, moderate-­
to-high economic status, good health, charisma, and even pretty in the case of a girl.
In this regard, the most proper response is to take it lightly, smile, and toss it off, or
even say: “Yes—­thanks to all the good blessings, and my parents fed me so very well
everyday, and we are all so blessed.” But if the Chinese elderly person is within the
German or U.S. sociocultural speech community, her or his comment can definitely be
construed as rude and a violation of privacy and of the pragmatic rule of the individu-
alistic, privacy-­oriented society.
In short, pragmatics concerns the cultural expectations of how, when, where, with
whom, and under what situational conditions certain verbal expressions are preferred,
prohibited, or prescribed. Pragmatic rules also govern nonverbal communication in a
given cultural context; for example, children are traditionally expected to be quiet in the
presence of adults in Southeast Indian and Tibetan cultures. Children should politely
respond to adults’ inquiry about them. Of course, language evolves and changes, and so
do cultures (Lim, 2017). However, the deep underlying layer (e.g., cultural traditions,
beliefs, values, and customs) of the iceberg is slower to change than the middle (e.g.,
language and nonverbal daily habits) or the surface level (e.g., the intersection of global
pop cultures, artifacts, and icons).
A speech community is defined as a group of individuals who share a common set
of norms and rules regarding proper communicative practices (Hymes, 1972; Labov,
1972). It is concerned with how individuals forge a shared group-based membership
identity, define and interpret interaction goals, and evaluate the use of proper speech
codes (Philipsen, 1992). Speech codes refer to the norms, rules, and premises of the cul-
tural way of speaking. In order to understand a particular speech community (e.g., the
gay community or the queer community or the senior retirement home community), we
have to understand the distinctive speech codes, nonverbal expressions, meaning con-
structions, and coordinated verbal and nonverbal rules of that community (Carbaugh,
1990, 1996; Philipsen, 1987, 1992).
We have identified various features of human language and illustrated these fea-
tures with some cultural examples. Linguistic features give rise to the diverse func-
tions of languages across cultures and answer the question of why a language plays
such a pivotal role within each culture. Language is a cultural heritage and legacy that
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 207

is passed down from one generation to the next. It is also a powerful adaptational tool
for collaborating, competing, relating, and preserving identity on both individual and
group membership levels.

Languages across Cultures: Diverse Functions

Cultural value orientations drive language usage in everyday lives. For example, if a
culture has a high individualism value index (e.g., Germany and the United States),
words and phrases such as “I,” “me,” “my goal,” “my opinion,” “self-help,” and “self-­
service” tend to appear as part of everyday parlance. If a culture has a high collectivism
value index (e.g., Japan and Korea), phrases such as “our work team,” “our goal,” “our
unit,” “our future together” and “we as a group” are part of the everyday lexicon. Indi-
vidualistic cultures such as Canada and the United States have more competitive sports
metaphors (e.g., “the ball is in your court,” “at this stage in the game,” or “I’m caught
blindsided by his request”) or win–lose warlike metaphors (e.g., “it’s like a war zone in
the main office,” “everyday is an uphill struggle,” or “I don’t want to be caught in the
crossfire of office politics”). Collectivistic cultures such as the Thai and Japanese have
more heart-based expressions ( jai/heart in Thai; e.g., “the heart content is stable” or
“one’s heart is frightened out of the body”) and belly-based to heart-based expressions
(hara/belly or stomach; and kororo/heart in Japanese; e.g., “one’s stomach boils over,”
“one heart’s rip,” or “one’s heart makes a lot of noise”), which signify the interwoven
connection among the heart, body, and mind via the discourse process in everyday
conversations (Berendt & Tanita, 2011).
Berendt and Tanita (2011) surmise that, while the English language maintains
a sharp distinction between rationalities (head/mind) and emotions (heart), the Thai
and Japanese language data reveal the fusion of the rational discourse mode with the
embodied emotive mode of language usage as located in the heart or gut-belly level.
Berendt and Tanita (2011) conclude: “The ‘dualistic’ dichotomy of the rational and emo-
tive/attitudinal is evident in the Western tradition as in English ‘heart/mind’ expres-
sions”; comparatively, “a ‘monistic’ view of communication, in which there is an integra-
tion of various modes of understanding . . . , can be seen from Thai in the jai (heart)
expressions . . . [and] can also be seen in the Japanese hara (belly/abdomen) expressions”
(2011, p. 75). Intercultural language misunderstanding can stem from the distinctive
cultural perspective that each language community holds toward the spatial location of
its root language expression: from the rational seat of the mind or the embodied loca-
tion of the heart and belly.
In this section, we identify the diverse functions of languages across cultures as
group identity, ethnolinguistic vitality, perceptual filtering, cognitive reasoning, status
and intimacy, social evaluation, and creativity functions (Edwards, 1985, 1994; Farb,
1973; Giles et al., 1977; Ting-­Toomey & Korzenny, 1989). The distinctive feature of a
language (e.g., whether the language emphasizes the use of the formal “you” or intimate
“you,” as in Colombia and Mexico) influences the specific function (e.g., the status and
208 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

intimacy function) of language usage in a particular situation and in a particular culture

(see Figure 7.1).

The Group Identity Function

Language is the key to the heart of a culture. It is an identity marker. Language serves
the larger cultural–ethnic identity function because language is an emblem of “group-
ness.” In speaking a common tongue, members signal group solidarity and connect-
edness. Language represents “a core symbol, a rallying point. Language is important
in ethnic and nationalist sentiment because of its powerful and visible symbolism”
(Edwards, 1985, p. 15). People deduce sociocultural information about each other, such
as gender, ethnicity, and status, through languages and accents, and they also use the
deduced information for social evaluation as indicated by studies on language attitudes
and their social consequences (see Giles & Rakic, 2014). Intercultural frictions can eas-
ily occur because of the ways we socially categorize people into “ingroup” versus “out-
group” and linguistically label them as “us” versus “them” and relate to theses marked
terms favorably and unfavorably (Cargile et al., 1994; Dovidio & Gluszek, 2012).
Group memberships and linguistic mediums influence our perceptions, rela-
tionships, communication, and experiences. How we communicate linguistically and
verbally with others is a rich site for both effective and ineffective communication.
Ting-­Toomey and Dorjee (2014) theorized and argued that mindfully attending to the
intersections of social-­cultural identity and verbal/nonverbal style variations in particu-
lar situations and in a particular identity membership community is needed for effec-
tive intercultural/intergroup communication. Furthermore, the historical and symbolic
associations of a language give rise to a shared sense of cultural identity or pride, and
language status.
For example, the disputes between Anglophones and Francophones over use of
English or French in Québec Province, the heated debates over whether Ebonics (i.e.,
Black English) is a language or a dialect in the United States, and the status associations
attached to Hindi and English in India all reflect the significant role of the identity
membership function of language. The struggle over using Spanish and/or English as a
basic language in Puerto Rican schools is also a story of a group-based identity struggle.
In the early 1900s, U.S. authorities insisted on the use of English in Puerto Rican
schools for the purpose of assimilation. It was not until 1991 that the Puerto Rican leg-
islature finally reversed the law and made Spanish the official language. In 1993, the
pro-­statehood governor signed legislation restoring equal status to Spanish and Eng-
lish. The struggle of language equity reflects the struggle or claiming of recognition of
cultural-­based identity.
Since language is learned so early in life and so effortlessly by all children, it
permeates the core of our cultural and ethnic identities without our full awareness of
its impact. Until we encounter linguistic differences, we may not develop an optimal
mindfulness for our cultural-­based “linguistic naming” process. How we construct our
own identities and the identities of others is closely tied in with the naming or labeling
process. More specifically, for example, in the group-­oriented Indian culture, when one
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 209

asks for a Hindi’s name, the person will first give you her or his caste identity, then her
or his village name, and finally her or his own name (Bharati, 1985). In the Chinese,
Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, and Vietnamese cultures, the family name always precedes
the personal name, which signals the importance of family identity over personal iden-
tity. Thus, a person named Mei-Ling Wang in the English form of address is referred
to as Wang Mei-Ling in the Chinese form of address. Likewise, in the culture of Bali, a
personal name is a nonsense syllable that is almost never used; instead, the name used
is related to family role relations (e.g., the second born of family X; mother of Y; grand-
father of Z). These examples demonstrate how the naming and labeling process shapes
individuals’ views of themselves and others.
Finally, while speaking their native tongue instills cultural membership pride in
many people, many multilingual speakers also derive tremendous flexibility in their
ability to code-­switch. Code switching means switching to another language or dialect
to increase or decrease intergroup distance. For example, many African Americans
have developed different verbal strategies to deal with the stigma attached to Black
English (or Ebonics) by the dominant group. Black English is “a distinctive language
evolving from a largely West African pidgin form” and is “governed by rules with spe-
cific historical derivations” (Hecht et al., 1993, pp. 84–85). For instance, in Black Eng-
lish, subject nouns are followed by a repeated pronoun (“My sister, she . . . ”); statements
omit the verb form to be (“It dat way”) to strategically imply a one-time occurrence, or
use it (“It bees dat way”) to imply multiple occurrences; questions omit the word do
(“What it come to?”); and context clarifiers are used instead of a different verb tense
(“I know it good when he ask me”) (Hecht et al., 1993; Wyatt, 1995, 2015). Many co-­
cultural Americans code-­switch to mainstream American English in formal or work-­
related settings and then switch to their native/heritage languages such as Spanish,
Ebonics, Chinese, and Vietnamese with familiar others in casual settings for forging
group identity and connection.

The Ethnolinguistic Vitality Function

From applying the framework of sociocultural perspective, group vitality can affect
intergroup and interpersonal perceptions and interactions among members of different
sociocultural groups. Vitality refers to the strength of a group that could be measured
at three levels: demography, status, and institutional support (Giles et al., 1977; Giles &
Johnson, 1987). Ethnolinguistic vitality refers to “the strength of language communi-
ties within multilingual settings as determined by three broad dimensions of socio-­
cultural variables: demography, institutional support, and status” (Bourhis, Sioufi, &
Sachdev, 2012, p. 102). Demography includes population, immigration, emigration,
and birth and mortality factors affecting the vitality of a language within and across
national boundaries. Institutional support includes governmental, school, university,
and organizational support to sustain and promote the linguistic vitality and culture
of a particular language community. Status includes social standing and recognition of
a given language. In social interactions, these ethnolinguistic vitality factors influence
intergroup relations and communication (see Clement et al., 2003).
210 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

A society or nation consists of many groups referred to by terms such as domi-

nant versus subordinate or co-­culture groups. For example, in the United States, Euro-
pean Americans constitute the dominant group, while others (e.g., African Americans,
Latino/Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans) constitute subordinate groups or
co-­culture groups. These groups differ widely across the above-­mentioned group vital-
ity dimensions, affecting intergroup relations and communication competence percep-
tions. On purely linguistic grounds, all languages are created equal. In reality, in a
given society, the greater the ethnolinguistic vitality of a language, the greater its influ-
ence on the members of a lesser ethnolinguistic vitality community. For example, main-
stream American English (AE) is preferred to Black English in work settings because
AE is spoken by European Americans who are considered the dominant power-­holders
(i.e., individuals who control corporate or governmental resources) in the U.S. society.
In sum, the language struggle is a sociopolitical power tussle.
Intergroup communication scholars argue that subjective ethonolinguistic vitality
may be as important as objective ethnolinguistic vitality for language survival (Bourhis
et al., 2012). Subjective vitality refers to the perceived ethnolinguistic vitality of a lan-
guage by its community members. For example, while in India the objective ethno-
linguistic vitality of the Tibetan language is low as compared to that of many Indian
languages such as Hindi, Kanada, and Gujarati. The Tibetan language is thriving in
India’s Tibetan diaspora because of the high perceived vitality of the Tibetan language
and culture. Tibetan schools, institutions, and communities in India have preserved
and promoted their language and culture for over five decades (Dorjee et al., 2011).
Language infiltrates a culture’s social experience so intensely that neither language
nor culture can be understood without knowledge of both. To understand a culture
deeply, we have to understand the culture’s language, its emic meanings, its situational
usage, and the language’s philosophical-­historical roots and development of its particu-
lar verbal motifs. To understand language in context, we have to understand the funda-
mental beliefs and value systems that drive particular language practice in particular
circumstances.
The identity issue in language can be boiled down to an affective experience
dimension. As Fisher (1998) notes,

Within the mother tongue, the comfort and confidence level is high, the anxiety level is
low. In consequence, the affective worlds of two languages will not equate easily; poetry,
for example, often does not translate well. Sentiments can be quite culture-­specific; you
cannot really separate the feelings that go with being simpático from the cultures that
go with speaking Spanish. To add to it, there is the affective or emotional dimension of
communication [which is culture] specific. How could one be Italian without using Italian
gestures? (p. 42; emphasis in original)

The Perceptual Filtering Function

Language is more than a communication tool. It reflects the worldviews and beliefs
of the people who speak it. It reflects the important modes of thinking and the salient
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 211

modes of being in living one’s daily life in a culture. It acts as a gatekeeper in selecting
and organizing what is considered “news” in our social environment, and it offers labels
to bracket and capture these salient aspects of our perceptual reality.
An everyday language in a culture serves as a prism through which individu-
als interpret what they perceive to be “out there.” For example, in the Mexican cul-
ture, Spanish words such as machismo (i.e., masculinity, physical strength, sexual
attraction), marianismo (i.e., a woman’s submissiveness, dependence, gentleness, and
virginity until marriage), respeto (i.e., showing proper respect for authority such as
parents and elders), and familismo (i.e., the importance of family and the extended
family network) are part of everyday parlance (Paniagua, 1994). These terms infiltrate
individuals’ perceptions and are used as yardsticks to measure self and others’ role
performance.
Similarly, in the Chinese culture, words such as xiao (i.e., filial piety or the “proper”
relationship between children and parents), han xu (i.e., implicit communication), ting
hua (i.e., listening centered), mian zi (i.e., facework), gan qing (i.e., a multidimensional
set of relational emotions), and ren qing (i.e., obligations and indebtedness) are used
in the everyday language of interaction (Gao & Ting-­Toomey, 1998). For the Chinese,
individuals who are sensitive to their parents’ needs, speak subtly or implicitly, act as
good listeners, and are aware of facework and emotional work in developing interper-
sonal relationships are considered competent communicators. Conversely, individuals
who violate these values and communication styles are considered incompetent com-
municators. Individuals perceive and simultaneously judge others’ proper or improper
behaviors through their use of habitual linguistic symbols.
Thus, language permeates our social experience and ultimately shapes our cul-
tured and gendered expectations and perceptions. Individuals’ perceptions are closely
tied to their symbolically mediated, cognitive reasoning process.

The Cognitive Reasoning Function

Language categorizes the totality of our cultural experience and makes an infinite
number of unrelated events appear coherent and understandable— especially in accor-
dance with our cultural frame of reasoning. Benjamin Whorf (1952, 1956), drawing
from the work of his mentor Edward Sapir (1921), has tested the “language is a guide to
cultural reality” hypothesis.
Focusing on a comparative analysis between the Hopi Indian language and Euro-
pean languages, Whorf (1952) concludes that language is not merely a vehicle for voic-
ing ideas but rather “is itself the shaper of ideas. . . . The world is presented in a kalei-
doscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means
largely by the linguistic system in our minds” (p. 5). He emphasizes that it is the gram-
matical structure of a language that shapes and constitutes one’s thought process. This
grammatical structure is entirely culture based, and, as such, language, thinking, and
culture are integral parts of the mind-set.
Whorf cites several examples from the Hopi language to support his point of view:
212 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

1. The Hopi language does not possess a discrete past–­present–­future grammati-

cal system as do most European languages. Instead, it has a wide range of pres-
ent tenses that concern the validity of the verbal statement the speaker is mak-
ing such as “I know that she is running at this very moment” or “I am told that
she is running.”
2. The Hopi language does not use a cyclic noun such as “days” or “years” in
the same manner as countable quantities such as “five women” or “five men”;
instead, it emphasizes the concept of “duration” when conceiving time. Thus,
the Hopi equivalent for the English statement “They stayed 5 days” is “I know
that they stay until the 6th day.”
3. While English speakers tend to use many spatial metaphors in their utterances
(such as “Your time is up,” “I feel elated,” “I feel depressed,” or “I feel low”), the
Hopi language tends to emphasize events that are happening in the here and
now (Farb, 1973, pp. 207–208; Whorf, 1952).

In essence, Whorf believes that the grammars of different languages constitute

separate conceptual realities for members of different cultures. We experience differ-
ent cognitions and sensations through our linguistic systems. This idea is known as
the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or the linguistic relativity hypothesis. For example, the
structure of the future tense in the Spanish language tells us a great deal about the
Mexican notion of the future. For example, a Spanish speaker will say, “I may go to the
store” (Ire al la tienda) rather than “I will go to the store” to indicate the probability
of an action in the future rather than the certainty of that action. The future, for many
Spanish-­speaking people, represents an unknown time and space: many things can
happen later this afternoon or tomorrow; it is beyond the control of individuals (Recall
the “present” and “being” value orientations discussed in Chapter 6.) Thus, use of a
“probability” statement rather than certainty seems to fit logically with the Mexicans’
overall cultural reasoning schema.
Additionally, the vocabularies of different cultures (e.g., the numerous words for
coconuts in the South Pacific islands; the many words for snow in the Eskimo culture;
the variety of words for rice and tea in Chinese and Japanese cultures; the diversity
of words for karma and reincarnation in the culture of India and for good and evil
spirits in many Native American cultures; the many words for expressing gratitude in
the Greek and Arab worlds) play a prominent role in people’s habitual way of think-
ing and hence their habitual way of communicating. The greater the variety of words
members of a speech community use to categorize an observed phenomenon (or inner
emotion), the more likely they are attuned to the subtle meaning shadings of the broad
observed phenomenon or experienced emotion (e.g., the variety of Chinese words for
rice, uncooked rice, cooked rice, left-over cold rice, burnt rice at the bottom of a pot).
After reviewing extensive studies on the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, Steinfatt (1989)
concludes that while the “weak” form (i.e., language shapes our thinking patterns) of
the linguistic relativity hypothesis receives some support, no conclusive evidence can
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 213

be drawn to support the “strong” form (i.e., language determines our thinking patterns).
The major premise of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, however, emphasizes the interpen-
etrating relationship among language, thoughts, and culture. Edward Sapir and Ben-
jamin Whorf were the trailblazing pioneers in linking language with culture, and as
such their work made a major contribution to the study of intercultural communication.
Language serves as a mediating link between thoughts and our cultural reality.

The Relational Status and Intimacy Function

Language serves the status and intimacy function. For example, cultures (e.g., those
of Denmark and Norway) that emphasize small power distance values tend to use lan-
guage to promote informal, symmetrical interactions. Cultures (e.g., those of Colombia,
Mexico, and the Philippines) that emphasize large power distance values tend to use
language to accentuate asymmetrical role interactions, especially in formal situations.
We can use language to signify status differences such as the selective use of formal
versus informal pronouns in different languages. We can also use language to regulate
intimacy through verbal means to signal friendship and relational bonding (Brown &
Gilman, 1960). For example, speakers of languages such as French, German, Spanish,
and Tibetan have to constantly choose between a more formal or more intimate form
of address. For instance, French has vous and tu, German has sie and du, Spanish has
usted and tu, and Tibetan has kunyid and kyerang.
Garcia (1996) explains that many Mexicans tend to use the Spanish pronoun usted
in formal situations and tu in familiar, informal situations. Many Spanish speakers use
usted, the formal pronoun, to address new acquaintances, older people, professional
people, and people of authority. The use of usted forges a formal climate of respeto, or
deference.
Respeto also means honor, respect, and “face,” which we accord to listeners in
accordance with their roles and hierarchical statuses. The use of tu, on the other hand,
fosters a climate of relational intimacy and informality. Tu is the informal application
of the English pronoun you. Speakers of Spanish commonly use this informal pronoun
to address their family members, close friends, or children. Addressing someone by
the improper form of “you” can pose serious face-­threat problems in Mexican inter-
personal interactions. Individuals can also use usted and tu strategically to change the
structure of the relationship, thereby altering the respeto climate of the relationship.
Similarly, in Colombia, respeto is conferred via the following means: (1) by acknowl-
edging hearer status (e.g., through the use of a title); (2) by maintaining interpersonal
distance, showing that the speaker does not presume intimacy (e.g., through the use
of the first name rather than a nickname); (3) by adhering to a code of conduct named
culto (well-­mannered behavior) and/or staying formal in address (e.g., through the use
of a title plus the first name, say, Don Pedro, even though the first name alone might
be an option); or (4) by recognizing an important connection such as a kinship or quasi-­
kinship tie (e.g., through the use of madrina or comadre— terms denoting a godparent
relationship—­when the first name alone might be an option (Fitch, 1998, p. 60). Thus,
214 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

well-­mannered behavior in the Colombian culture involves both “knowledge of whom

to respect and an expectation that important connections [are] signaled through use of
address terms that [call] attention to the symbolic aspects of the relationship (such as
the implicit contract involved in godparenting)” (Fitch, 1998, p. 60).
In the Asian cultural context, Lim and Choi (1996) use the concept of che-myon to
explain how facework identity is employed as a means of social bonding in every aspect
of Korean interaction. Che-myon refers to the image of “personal self that is claimed
and negotiated through social interactions. . . . It is [also] the image of [the] sociologi-
cal self that is defined by the society and must be protected by passing the normative
standards . . . of relevant social values” (Lim & Choi, 1996, p. 124). Most Koreans value
che-myon dearly. When they “hoist up” their che-myon, Koreans do not merely feel
good but actually feel more socially desirable. To maintain the cultural construct of
che-myon, Koreans need to be involved in the activities that include face-­honoring
behaviors such as showing indebtedness and deference verbally, and playing benevo-
lent or complying social roles in particular situations. Overall, whether a particular
linguistic code is selected or evoked in a given situation often depends on the topic, the
interaction scene, the relative status of the speakers, and the relational intimacy level.
From intimacy to the relational connection function, another interesting trend on
the international scene is the issue of language borrowing. Edwards (1994) points out
that in Germany, for example, teenagers “wear die Jeans” and that “even the French
grudgingly acknowledge the appeal of le drugstore and le weekend . . . [while] English
words [are] integrated into Japanese [such as] hamu tosuto for a ‘toasted ham sandwich,’
[or] apaato for apartment” (p. 77). Language borrowing can indicate an added status, a
necessary convenience, or a signal of ingroup intimacy or connection.
The attitudes toward language borrowing also polarize along the line of prestigious
versus nonprestigious borrowing groups. Groups of perceived high social status can get
away with using borrowed words and phrases, which are viewed as adding flair to their
language style, whereas groups of perceived low social status who employ such bor-
rowed terms are often viewed as engaging in “impure” language usage. Thus, the style-­
shifting ability of the speakers, when viewed through different social status lenses, may
well have different evaluative outcomes.

The Social Evaluation Function

Language is not a neutral conduit for communication; it is socially loaded and evaluated
in interactions. Giles and Rakic (2014) reviewed studies on language attitudes that pro-
vide ample evidence for the social consequences of languages and accents in communi-
cative interactions. Through socialization processes, people have learned and internal-
ized what languages and accents are regarded as standard or nonstandard in the social
context and how they are judged positively or negatively. According to McGlone and
Giles (2011), speakers’ identities are encoded in their voices, and listeners can decode
their social identity information remarkably well without the need for decoding train-
ing. The literature on language attitudes has attended to the social evaluation functions
of both standard language and accent and nonstandard language and accent.
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 215

In a given speech community and social context, people seem to have a natural
sense of standard language and accent versus nonstandard language and accent, even
though the standard set is an artificial construct (Lippi-Green, 1997). In a study on the
Tibetan diaspora in India, Dorjee et al. (2011) found that Tibetan participants (mostly
born and raised in India) evaluated messages presented in honorific U-Kad (the Central
Tibetan Lhasa dialect) more positively than messages presented by the same speaker
in the normative Tibetan dialect (the less honorific Central Tibetan dialect mixed with
a few Hindi words) and in Hindi (the host Indian language mixed with some Tibetan
words). As is the case in many other speech communities, Tibetans in diaspora India
seem to have a clear notion of what is regarded as standard Tibetan language and accent
that is “put on a societal pedestal” (Giles & Rakic, 2014). While standard language
varieties are evaluated positively and are granted access to power and opportunities,
nonstandard language varieties are evaluated negatively (e.g., stigmatized) (see Gluszek
& Dovidio, 2010a, 2010b).
Interestingly, speakers of the same language may be evaluated differently based
on their accents. For example, in the United States, speakers of American English with
standard accents are evaluated positively and are granted more access to privileges,
position, power, and opportunities than speakers of American English with nonstan-
dard accents (e.g., Spanglish, Ebonics, and English with Asian accents). Anecdotal
evidence indicates that although the news anchors on major U.S. news channels (e.g.,
ABC, NBC, and CBS) can belong to diverse social-­cultural segments of society, they are
almost all expected to speak and report news in standard American English. Linguisti-
cally, everyone speaks with an accent—­which is just an intonation of their speech—­but
in everyday life and social interactions, only speakers with nonstandard accents are
accused of having “an accent” and of being socially disadvantaged (see Giles & Rakic,
2014, p. 14).
Social evaluations are also based on accents, along with other social cues such
as ethnic name. A study found that speakers with Hispanic names and accents were
less favorably evaluated for their applicant characteristics (Purkiss, Perewe, Gillespie,
Mayes, & Ferris, 2006). Asian Americans who speak standard American English are
often asked where they are from because of the mismatch between their perceived
minority-­status demographic profile and the sense of otherness. From the social iden-
tity perspective, ingroup members are likely to evaluate ingroup language and accent
positively (e.g., Spanglish, Ebonic English, Pidgin, and Indian English) for positive
social identity distinctiveness—­all of which suggests that language serves the powerful
social evaluation function.

The Creativity Function

Although we human beings have created languages, we are also at times trapped by the
habits of our own linguistic systems. While the language of a culture perpetuates that
culture’s traditions, by changing our language habits we can incrementally transform
long-­standing cultural norms and attitudes. Thus, language also enables us to be cre-
ative and serves as an impactful communication change tool.
216 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

For example, the male generic language in English—­terms such as chairman, fire-
man, businessman, or mankind used in Western society—­tends to elevate men’s expe-
rience as more valid and to make women’s experience less prominent. Research has
demonstrated “conclusively that masculine generics are perceived as referring predom-
inantly or exclusively to men. When people hear them, they think of men, not women”
(Wood, 1997, p. 152). Tellingly, in a study when the instructions referred to “the average
student as he,” only 12% of students composed a story about a female. However, when
the instructions defined “the average student as he or she,” 42% of the stories were
about females” (Wood, 1997, p. 152).
To the extent that the language of a culture makes men appear more visible and
women invisible, the perceptions generated from usage of such biased language create
biased thinking. More importantly, language has a carryover effect on our expectations,
and hence perceptions, of what constitute proper or improper gendered role behaviors.
Research indicates, for example, that “women who use assertive speech associated with
masculinity are judged as arrogant and uppity, while men who employ emotional lan-
guage associated with femininity are often perceived as wimps or gay. . . . Polarized
thinking about gender encouraged by our language restricts us from realizing the full
range of human possibilities” (Wood, 1997, p. 160). U.S. presidential candidate Hill-
ary Clinton was criticized as “bitchy” for her use of assertive language. Language can
indeed imprison us because it influences our way of perceiving the world “out there.”
Fortunately, language can also set us free—that is, if we are willing to mindfully
change our language habits and preconceived biased notions about different identity
groups. Linguistic sexism occurs when women are devalued and made invisible through
the constant use of masculine-­based generic words to include both males and females
(e.g., using spokesman rather than spokesperson, and using the generic he to imply both
female and male). To combat linguistic sexism, here are some mindful suggestions:

1. Commit yourself to removing sexist language from all of your communications.

2. Practice and reinforce nonsexist language patterns until they become habitual.
3. Persuade others to use nonsexist language in their everyday lives.
4. Use reconstruction or substitution (e.g., change founding fathers to founders) to
replace verbal sexism.
5. Use your creative capacity to reframe your verbal sexist habits with gender-­
neutral words in both public and private conversations. (Sorrels, 1983, p. 17)

Language creativity is a marvelous achievement of the human species. People in

all cultures have the capacity to talk about things far away in time and space (i.e., the
displacement feature), to say things they have never said before by a mere reconfigura-
tion of words in their native tongues (i.e., the productivity feature), and to use language
(e.g., via oral history, epic poems, parables, or stories) to pass on their heritage and wis-
dom from one generation to the next (i.e., the traditional transmission feature).
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 217

Fascinatingly, in this contemporary twenty-­first century, new terms are coined at

an accelerated rate because of the rapid innovation of diverse social media platforms
and smart technologies. Social media terms such as “avatar,” “blogging,” “Facebook,”
“hashtag,” “Instagram,” “Pinterest,” “podcast,” “retweet,” “Snapchat,” “trendjacking,”
“trolling,” “Tumblr,” “Twitter,” “selfie,” “unfriend,” “Webinar,” and “going viral” did not
exist in the 1990s but are now part of our everyday language. Globally, our on-­screen
language style usage has become more short-hand, informal, and personalized (yet still
reaches a mass audience, for example, via the 140-character Twitter or Facebook) and
also more is visually oriented with posted pictures and mini-­videos. To be competent
global communicators and to adapt to the rapidly changing e-­language culture, indi-
viduals have to master a cornucopia of acronyms, abbreviations, emoticons, and neolo-
gisms.
However, humans are imaginative, adaptive, and inventive creatures. Remarkably,
by the time children with normal language development patterns reach their fourth
birthday, they have already internalized the exceedingly complex structures of their
native tongues. In only a few more years, “children possess the entire linguistic system
that allows them to utter and to understand sentences they have not previously heard”
(Farb, 1973, p. 9). Individuals can garner their creative potential to use language mind-
fully for mutual gain and collaboration across gender and cultural groups. Alternatively,
they can use language to disseminate hate-­filled propaganda, engage in conflict, wage
war, and engender destruction. Language can simultaneously be a hacking and a healing
instrument: it can be used to “cut down” or degrade others’ primary identities; it can also
be used mindfully to uplift and support their desired group-based or personal identities.
In this section, we have discussed the diverse functions of languages across cul-
tures: the membership identity, ethnolinguistic vitality, perceptual filter, cognitive rea-
soning, status and intimacy, social evaluation, and creativity functions. We now turn to
a discussion of how our cultural and ethnic identities influence our verbal communica-
tion styles. By understanding such differences, we can arrive at mutual clarity, appre-
ciation, and respect.

Cross‑Cultural Verbal Communication Styles

This section examines the low-­context and high-­context communication framework and
its associated verbal interaction dimensions: direct and indirect verbal styles, person-­
oriented and status-­oriented styles, self-­enhancement and self-­effacement verbal styles,
and the importance of talk versus silence.

Low‑Context and High‑Context Communication

Hall (1976) claims that human interaction can broadly be divided into low-­context and
high-­context communication systems. By low-­context communication, we empha-
size how intention or meaning is best expressed through explicit verbal messages. In
218 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

general, low-­context communication refers to communication patterns of direct verbal

mode—­straight talk, nonverbal immediacy, and sender-­oriented values (i.e., the sender
assumes responsibility to communicate clearly). In low-­context communication, the
speaker is expected to be responsible for constructing a clear message that the listener
can decode easily (see Table 7.1).
By high-­context communication, we emphasize how intention or meaning can best
be conveyed through the context (e.g., social roles or positions) and nonverbal channels
(e.g., pauses, silence, tone of voice) of the verbal message. High-­context communication
refers to communication patterns of indirect verbal mode—self-­effacing talk, nonver-
bal subtleties, and interpreter-­sensitive values (i.e., the receiver or interpreter of the
message assumes responsibility to infer the hidden or contextual meanings of the mes-
sage) (Ting-­Toomey, 1985). In high-­context communication, the listener or interpreter
of the message is expected to “read between the lines,” to accurately infer the implicit
intent of the verbal message, and to observe the nonverbal nuances and subtleties that
accompany and enhance the verbal message (see Table 7.1).
When we use low-­context communication, we stress the importance of explicit
verbal messages to convey personal thoughts, opinions, and feelings. When we use
high-­context communication, we stress the importance of multilayered contexts (e.g.,

TABLE 7.1. Low-Context and High-Context Communication Framework

LCC characteristics HCC characteristics
Individualistic values Group-oriented values
Self-face assertive concern Other-face and mutual-face concerns
Linear logic Spiral logic
Direct style Indirect style
Person-oriented style Status-oriented style
Self-enhancement style Self-effacement style
Speaker-oriented style Listener-oriented style
Verbal-based understanding Context-based understanding
LCC examples HCC examples
X
Germany United States Saudi Arabia Japan
Switzerland Canada Kuwait China
Denmark Australia (France) Mexico South Korea
Sweden Great Britain Nigeria Vietnam
   
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 219

historical context, social norms, roles, situational and relational contexts) that frame the
interaction encounter. Low-­context communication interaction is exemplified by the
following dispute between two European American neighbors:

Scene 1
Jane: (knocks on her neighbor’s open window.) Excuse me, it is 11 o’clock already, and
your high-­pitched opera singing is really disturbing my sleep. I have an impor-
tant job interview tomorrow morning, and I want to get a good night’s sleep. I
really need this job to pay my rent!
Diane: (resentfully) Well, this is the only time I can rehearse my opera! I’ve an impor-
tant audition coming up tomorrow and I must succeed. I also need to pay my rent.

In contrast, the following dialogue involving two Japanese housewives illustrates

their use of high-­context communication style (Naotsuka et al., 1981, p. 70):

Scene 2
Mrs. A: Your daughter has started taking piano lessons, hasn’t she? I envy you,
because you can be proud of her talent. I’m really impressed by her enthusiasm—­
every day, she practices so hard, for hours and hours, until late at night.
Mrs. B: Oh, no, not at all. She is just a beginner. We hadn’t realized that you could
hear her playing. I’m so sorry you have been disturbed by her noise.

In Scene 1, Jane and Diane spell out everything that is on their minds with no
restraints. Their interaction exchange is direct, to the point, bluntly contentious, and
full of face-­threat verbal messages. This scene represents one possible low-­context
way of approaching interpersonal conflict. Jane and Diane might actually turn their
dialogue around and obtain a more productive outcome by identifying their common
interests (such as urgency of the job search or rent payment due) and exploring other
constructive options (such as closing the windows or practicing in another room). They
can use the strengths of low-­context, “explicit talk” in dealing with the conflict issue
openly and nonjudgmentally.
In Scene 2, Mrs. A has not directly expressed her concern over the piano noise
with Mrs. B because she wants to preserve face and her relationship with Mrs. B.
Rather, Mrs. A only uses indirect hints and nonverbal signals to get her point across.
However, Mrs. B. correctly “reads between the lines” of Mrs. A’s verbal message and
apologizes appropriately and effectively before any real conflict can bubble to the sur-
face. Scene 2 represents one possible high-­context way of approaching interpersonal
conflict. From the high-­context communication viewpoint, minor disagreement can
easily turn into a major conflict if face-­threatening and face-­saving issues are not dealt
with appropriately and effectively. However, if Mrs. A were the neighbor of Diane in
Scene 1, Diane might not be able to “read between the lines” of Mrs. A’s verbal and,
220 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

more importantly, nonverbal message. Diane might be clueless, and she might actually
take Mrs. A’s verbal message literally and infer her message as a compliment—­and thus
sing even louder!
Relating to Hall’s (1976) low- and high-­context communication, some recent stud-
ies have focused on culturally linked linguistic practices (Kashima, Kashima, & Kidd,
2014) and analytic and holistic cognitive processing styles (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, &
Norenzayan, 2001). Linguistic practices, the ways in which people use their language,
transmit people’s cultural mind-set in two different ways: decontextualizing and con-
textualizing. In the decontextualizing mode, the listeners’ attention is directed to “the
focal object at the expense of the context in which it is embedded.” In the contextual-
izing mode, the listeners’ attention is directed to “the context in which the object is the
figure against the contextual ground” (Kashima et al., 2014, p. 47) by certain linguistic
practices. These practices are related to geographical locations and overlap with those
of analytical and holistic cognitive processing styles (Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett et al., 2001).
Analytical processing is a dissecting, decontextualizing, and field-­independent style,
whereas holistic processing is embedded in contextualism and a field-­dependent style.
Kashima et al. (2014) and Nisbett et al. (2001) showed that geographically decontextu-
alizing linguistic practices and analytical cognitive processing style are often found in
western European countries with low-­context communication tendencies. Compara-
tively, contextualizing linguistic practices and holistic cognitive processing style are
often found in East Asian cultural region with high-­context communication tendencies.
More communication-­centered studies are needed to investigate the relationships
among contexts of communication, linguistic practices, verbal/nonverbal interaction
styles, and cognitive processing patterns across countries, cultures, contexts, and mul-
tiple identity membership issues. Kashima et al. (2014) also commented that linguis-
tic practices are related to, but different from, low- and high-­context communication.
More specifically, the surface form of linguistic practices may emphasize or deempha-
size the subject (i.e., the speaker) in the utterances and/or the situational context of a
focal object. For example, in languages such as English, German, and French, the sub-
ject or the speaker is often explicitly stated or emphasized, and the situational setting
is deemphasized. In comparison, in many Asian languages such as Chinese, Japanese,
Korean, and Tibetan, while the subject as a speaker is often deemphasized, the situ-
ational context is explicitly contextualized in utterances such as “Staged a graceful per-
formance in the job interview” and “Talked eloquently in the board meeting.” In this
case, the subject–­pronoun “he” or “she” is decontextualized, but the situational context
is emphasized via the two exemplar utterances. While the two utterances are consid-
ered grammatically correct from multiple Asian language standpoints, they may appear
to lack a clear pronoun–­subject indicator from English or German language practice.
Related to different linguistic practices, interpreting whether an utterance reflects a
low-­context straight talk mode (i.e., “say what you mean, and mean what you say” and
stop right there; also known as Grice’s conversational clarity “maxim of manner: be
clear, be brief, and avoid obscurity” 1975) or an understated, high-­context verbal mode
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 221

will need deep-level intercultural value-based knowledge, situational-­based pragmatic

linguistic knowledge, and interpersonal-­based competence knowledge.
More specifically, in the intercultural communication research field, research
studies have revealed a positive relationship among culture, self-­construals, and low-
and high-­context communication styles. Gudykunst et al. (1996) found that while inde-
pendent self-­construal positively mediated the relationship between individualism and
low-­context communication style, interdependent self-­construal positively mediated
the relationship between collectivism and high-­context communication style. Other
studies (Kittler, Rygl, & Mackinnon, 2011; Oetzel et al., 2001) have mostly compared
communication differences between members of low and high contexts at the macro
level of nations. Obviously, from a functional paradigm angle, the dichotomous idea of
dividing clusters of cultures into low-­context (e.g., the western European and Nordic
countries) and high-­context (e.g., East Asian countries) cultural systems can lead to
broad categorization and research predictability (such as members of individualistic
cultures tend to use low-­context direct verbal mode, and members of collectivistic cul-
tures tend to use high-­context indirect verbal mode) on the relationship between the
set of independent and dependent variables. However, theorizing and research need to
go beyond these binary systems.
Overall, low-­context interaction emphasizes direct talk, a person-­oriented focus,
a self-­enhancement mode, and the importance of “talk.” High-­context interaction, in
comparison, stresses indirect talk, status-­oriented focus, the self-­effacement mode, and
the importance of nonverbal signals and even silence.

Direct and Indirect Verbal Interaction Styles

The stylistic mode of verbal interaction, according to Katriel (1986), is the “tonal color-
ing given to spoken performance, [the] feeling tone” (p. 7; see also Katriel, 1991). The
tone of voice, the speaker’s intention, and the verbal content reflect our way of speaking,
our verbal style, which in turn reflects our cultural and personal values and sentiments.
Verbal style frames “how” a message should be interpreted. Of the four stylistic
modes of verbal interaction (i.e., direct vs. indirect, person oriented vs. status oriented,
self-­enhancement vs. self-­effacement, and talk vs. silence), the research evidence on the
direct–­indirect verbal interaction dimension is the most extensive and persuasive. This
stylistic pair can be thought of as straddling a continuum. Individuals in all cultures use
the gradations of all these verbal styles, depending on role identities, interaction goals,
and situations. However, in individualistic cultures, people tend to encounter more
situations that emphasize the preferential use of direct talk, person-­oriented verbal
interaction, verbal self-­enhancement, and talkativeness. In contrast, in collectivistic
cultures, people tend to encounter more situations that emphasize the preferential use
of indirect talk, status-­oriented verbal interaction, verbal self-­effacement, and silence.
The direct and indirect styles differ in the extent to which communicators reveal
their intentions through their tone of voice and the straightforwardness of their content
222 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

message. On the one hand, in the direct verbal style, statements clearly reveal the
speaker’s intentions and are enunciated in a forthright tone of voice. In the indirect
verbal style, on the other hand, verbal statements tend to camouflage the speaker’s
actual intentions and are carried out with a more nuanced tone of voice. For example,
the overall U.S. American verbal style often calls for clear and direct communication.
Phrases such as “say what you mean,” “don’t beat around the bush,” “I am not a mind
reader,” and “get to the point” are some examples. The direct verbal style of the larger
U.S. culture is reflective of its low-­context communication character.
By way of comparison, Graf (1994) observes that “Chinese tend to beat around
the bush. They are not forthright enough, [so] that Westerners often perceive them as
insincere and untrustworthy” (p. 232). For example, in a verbal request situation, U.S.
Americans tend to use a straightforward form of request, whereas Chinese tend to ask
for a favor in a more roundabout and implicit way. This difference can be demonstrated
by the following pair of contrastive “airport ride request” scenes between two U.S.
Americans and two Chinese (Gao & Ting-­Toomey, 1998, p. 76):

Scene 1
A merican 1: We’re going to New Orleans this weekend.
A merican 2: What fun! I wish we were going with you. How long are you going to be
there? [If she wants a ride, she will ask.]
A merican 1: Three days. By the way, we may need a ride to the airport. Do you think
you can take us?
A merican 2: Sure. What time?
A merican 1: 10:30 P.M. this coming Saturday.

Scene 2
Chinese 1: We’re going to New Orleans this weekend.
Chinese 2: What fun! I wish we were going with you. How long are you going to be
there?
Chinese 1: Three days. [I hope she’ll offer me a ride to the airport.]
Chinese 2: [She may want me to give her a ride.] Do you need a ride to the airport? I’ll
take you.
Chinese 1: Are you sure it’s not too much trouble?
Chinese 2: It’s no trouble at all.

Here we see that in the Chinese culture such requests for help are likely to be
implied rather than stated explicitly and directly. Indirect requests can help both
parties to save face and uphold a harmonious interaction. When the hearer detects a
request during a conversation with the speaker, the hearer can choose to either grant
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 223

or deny the request. If the hearer decides to deny it, he or she usually does not respond
to it or may subtly change the topic of conversation. Consequently, the speaker discerns
the cues from the hearer and drops the request. An implicit understanding generally
exists between a speaker and a hearer in Chinese culture that is essential to maintain-
ing relational harmony at all costs in everyday social interaction.
Intercultural misunderstanding therefore becomes highly probable when Chinese
and U.S. Americans communicate with each other. They each adhere to their habitual
verbal styles and carry out their cultural scripts in a relatively mindless fashion. They
also rely on their own cultural scripts to inform them of what to expect in the interac-
tion. Let us look at Scene 3 of the “airport ride request” dialogue, this time between a
Chinese speaker and a U.S. American hearer (Gao & Ting-­Toomey, 1998, p. 77).

Scene 3
Chinese: We’re going to New Orleans this weekend.
A merican: What fun! I wish we were going with you. How long are you going to be
there?
Chinese: Three days. [I hope she’ll offer me a ride to the airport.]
A merican: [If she wants a ride, she’ll ask me.] Have a great time.
Chinese: [If she had wanted to give me a ride, she would have offered it. I’d better ask
somebody else.] Thanks. I’ll see you when I get back.

Thus, we see that while the U.S. American verbal model rewards direct assertions and
opinions, the Chinese model emphasizes indirect verbal style to cultivate relational
harmony and implicit interpersonal understanding.
Similarly, in the context of the Korean culture, Koreans do not make negative
responses like “No,” or “I disagree with you,” or “I cannot do it.” Rather, they like to
use indirect expressions such as “[I] kind of agree with you in principle; however, please
understand my difficulties . . . ” or “[I] sympathize with your difficulties; unfortunately”
(Park, 1979). The importance of preserving relational harmony with ingroup members
and the importance of nunchi (an affective sense by which Koreans can detect whether
others are pleased or satisfied) are the reasons why most Koreans opt for the indirect
style of verbal communication. Additionally, kibun (respect for others’ sense of self-
hood that includes their morale and facework support) is shown through indirect verbal
behavior.
Cohen (1991), in analyzing diplomatic negotiation processes in China, Japan,
Egypt, India, Mexico, and the United States, provides strong evidence that commu-
nication patterns differentiate China, Japan, Egypt, India, and Mexico (i.e., the indi-
rect style), on the one hand, and the United States (i.e., the direct style), on the other.
For example, Cohen documented that on the eve of the departure of Prime Minister
Eisaku Sato of Japan for a crucial summit with President Richard M. Nixon in 1970,
Sato released the following remarkable statement to the press: “Since Mr. Nixon and I
224 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

are old friends, the negotiations will be three parts talk and seven parts haragei [belly-
to-belly talk, i.e., reading one another’s mind]” (p. 117).
Unfortunately, for the bilateral relationship, this did not turn out to be true, and
Prime Minister Sato’s faith in a man he considered a close ally and personal friend
was misplaced. Nixon declined to give any weight to Sato’s domestic difficulties and
“insisted [that he agree] to an explicit five-point proposal as the basis for a settlement”
(Cohen, 1991, p. 117). The dimension of the direct versus the indirect communication
style clearly posed a major barrier to effective diplomatic negotiations between Japan
and the United States in that instance. Furthermore, the unwillingness to use “no”
as a direct response in many of the collectivistic, high-­context cultures often causes
international conflicts. For high-­context individuals, it is always easier to agree than
to disagree. Confronted by a persistent and undesirable request, “they find the ‘social
affirmative’ the best way out of an uncomfortable situation. The fault is not theirs but
that of their obtuse interlocutor, who has failed to draw the correct conclusions from the
hesitancy and unenthusiastic nature of the reply” (Cohen, 1991, p. 115).

Person‑Oriented and Status‑Oriented Verbal Styles

The person-­oriented verbal style is an individual-­centered verbal mode that emphasizes
the importance of informality and role suspension. The status-­oriented verbal style is
a role-­centered verbal mode that emphasizes formality and large power distance. The
person-­oriented style emphasizes symmetrical interaction, whereas the status-­oriented
style stresses asymmetrical interaction.
The person-­oriented verbal style emphasizes the importance of respecting unique,
personal identities in the interaction. The status-­oriented verbal style emphasizes the
importance of honoring prescribed power-based membership identities. Those who
engage in status-­oriented verbal interaction use specific vocabularies and paralinguis-
tic features to accentuate the status distance of the role relationships (e.g., in parent–­
child interaction, superior–­subordinate relations, and male–­female interaction in many
Latin American cultures). While low-­context cultures tend to emphasize the use of the
person-­oriented verbal style, high-­context cultures tend to value the status-­oriented
verbal mode.
For example, Okabe (1983), in commenting on the Japanese language, contends that
English is a person-­oriented language, whereas Japanese is a status-­oriented language.
Okabe (1983) observes that U.S. Americans tend to treat other people with informality
and casualness. They tend to “shun the formal codes of conduct, titles, honorifics, and
ritualistic manners in [their] interaction with others. They instead prefer a first-name
basis and direct address. They also strive to equalize the language style between the
sexes. In sharp contrast, the Japanese are likely to assume that formality is essential in
their human relations. They are apt to feel uncomfortable in some informal situations”
(p. 27). While Americans may find the status-­oriented Japanese language to be less inti-
mate and personalized, Japanese may find person-­oriented American English to be too
direct, too informal, as well as less respectful and appropriate. Being mindful of these
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 225

different speaking modes is essential for competent communication between people

from different cultural communities such as Japanese and Americans.
Similarly, Yum (1988a) notes that the Korean language accommodates the Confu-
cian ethics of hierarchical human relationships. It has special vocabularies for each
sex, for different degrees of social status and intimacy, and for different levels of for-
mality depending on the occasion. Using proper verbal styles for the proper types of
relationships and in the proper contexts is a sure sign that one is an “educated” person
in the Korean culture. Yum (1988b) argues that the Korean language is a status-­based
language because the cultural ethos of the Korean interaction style is based on the pri-
mary value of uye-ri (i.e., righteousness, duty, obligation, a debt of gratitude, and loyalty
in accordance with proper relationships between people). Deferential language is used
when a Korean communicates with a higher-­status person or with a person to whom he
or she is indebted.
In short, the style of speaking reflects the overall values and norms of a culture.
The cultural styles of speaking in many speech communities reflect the hierarchical
social order, asymmetrical role positions, and power distance values of the different
cultures.

Self‑Enhancement and Self‑Effacement Verbal Styles

The self-­enhancement verbal style emphasizes the importance of boasting about one’s
accomplishments and abilities. The self-­effacement verbal style, in contrast, empha-
sizes the importance of humbling oneself through verbal restraints, hesitation, modest
talk, and self-­deprecation concerning one’s effort or performance. Some studies have
investigated self-­enhancement and self-­effacement verbal styles related to individual-
ism/independent self-­construal and collectivism/interdependent self-­construal (Heine,
2003; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Suzuki, Davis, & Green-
field, 2008). The self-­enhancement verbal style is preferred and prevalent in individu-
alistic cultures and by individuals with independent self-­construal. Comparatively, the
self-­effacement verbal style is preferred and prevalent in collectivistic cultures and by
individuals with interdependent self-­construal (Naotsuka et al., 1981, p. 40).
In the U.S. culture, individuals are encouraged to “sell and boast about them-
selves,” for example, in performance review or in job interview sessions; otherwise, no
one would notice their accomplishments. In many Asian cultures, individuals believe
that if their performance is good, their behavior will be noticed, for example, by their
supervisors during promotion review situations. However, from the Western cultural
standpoint, if my performance is good, I should document or boast about it so that my
supervisor will be sure to take notice. In the East Asian cultural context, the verbal self-­
effacement pattern is also related to forms of address and pronouns used for self and
others in social interactions. Unlike English, multiple pronoun forms are used to refer
to “I,” “you,” and “he/she/they.” Honorific pronouns are used for others but not for self.
Facework-­sensitivity guides what pronoun forms are used and how they are expressed
in relational communication to convey respect and deference. For example, in English a
226 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

translator can say, “He said . . . ,” referring to His Holiness the Dalai Lama; one cannot
say the same thing in Tibetan, for it would be highly disrespectful. Therefore, a face-­
sensitive Tibetan English translator may use forms of address such as Gong Sa Chog
(His Holiness) and Kundun (His Presence) referring to His Holiness in the Tibetan
language. In this situation, a Tibetan translator will use a self-­effacement pronoun for
himself or herself but other-­enhancement pronouns to address His Holiness.
The pattern of verbal self-­effacement cannot be generalized to all high-­context
communication cultures (e.g., Arab or African cultures). In Egypt, for example, a popu-
lar saying is, “Make your harvest look big, lest your enemies rejoice” (Cohen, 1991,
p. 132). Effusive verbal self-­enhancement is critical to the enhancement of one’s face
or honor in some large power distance Arab cultures (Almaney & Alwan, 1982, p. 84).
Many Arab hosts feel obligated to engage in effusive other-­enhancement talk in com-
municating with honored guests. The tendency in Arabic to use somewhat charged or
even hyperbolic expressions during diplomatic confrontations may have caused more
misunderstandings between the United States and some Arab countries than any other
single factor (Cohen, 1987). According to Sedikides, Gaertner, and Vevea (2005), self-­
enhancement motivation is universal, but its communication manifestation differs
among cultures. Westerners use self-­enhancement that is strategically based on indi-
vidualistic cultural attributes and situational demands, whereas Asian Easterners do
the same based on collectivistic cultural attributes and situational normative tightness
or looseness.
While these findings are informative, a more multilayered systems study design
(e.g., integrating both dispositional and situational-­induced approaches) may capture
an in-depth understanding of how these styles are used in Western/U.S. and Eastern/
Asian contexts (e.g., Kim, 2011; Uskul, Oyserman, & Schwarz, 2010). For example, some
studies (e.g., Cai et al., 2010) have examined the relationship between modesty interac-
tion and self-­enhancement in the U.S. and Chinese cultures. The researchers found no
relationship between the modesty interaction norm and self-­esteem enhancement in
the U.S. sample. However, in the Chinese sample, while a negative relationship was
reported between modesty interaction preference and explicit self-­esteem enhance-
ment, a positive relationship was found between modesty norm adherence and implicit
self-­esteem enhancement. Thus, the paradoxical nature of adhering to a cultural norm
induces a positivity sense of self-­esteem in the intrinsic self-­assessment process in the
Chinese group. Overall, verbal modesty or the self-­effacement style involves downplay
of one’s qualities, modest talk, restraint, verbal hesitation, and the giving of face to oth-
ers (Ting-­Toomey & Chung, 2012).
There are also ethnic verbal style differences in terms of expressive or animated
verbal styles. There are, for example, distinctive differences in the verbal interaction
styles of African Americans and European Americans. As Kochman (1990) notes, “Black
presentations are emotionally intense, dynamic, and demonstrative; White presenta-
tions are more modest and emotionally restrained. Where Whites use the relatively
detached and unemotional discussion mode to engage an issue, Blacks use the more
emotionally intense and involving mode of argument” (p. 193; emphasis in original).
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 227

The verbal styles of African Americans have been identified as emotionally expressive,
assertive, boastful, vigorous, rhythmic, and synchronized (Kochman, 1990). As Koch-
man concludes: “The animation and vitality of Black expressive behavior is in part
owing to the emotional force or spiritual energy that Blacks habitually invest in their
public presentations and the functional role that emotions play in realizing the goals of
Black interactions, activities, and events” (p. 195).
Verbal styles revolving around “expressive or enhancement style” and “understated
or effacement style” are relative comparison issues. For example, in comparison to many
traditional Asian American groups, the European American verbal style might well be
deemed “boastful.” However, in comparison to the African American verbal style, the
European American verbal pattern might seem “understated.” From the standpoint of
the African American group, many Asian immigrant groups sound “extremely under-
stated, distant, or evasive.”
Interethnic frictions arise when a group uses its own verbal style yardstick to eval-
uate another group’s verbal output. Even routine conversations can escalate into major
conflicts because of our ignorance of each other’s preferred verbal styles. More impor-
tantly, our ethnocentric evaluations can clutter our ability to listen clearly to ongo-
ing communication from others. Recognizing and respecting verbal style differences
requires mindfulness.

Beliefs Expressed in Talk and Silence

Silence is communicative, and it can often say as much as words or even more. Consider
the silent treatment two people give to each other in interpersonal interaction. While
silence occurs in interaction contexts in cultures around the world, how the silence
is interpreted and evaluated differs across cultures and between persons. Hall (1983)
claims that silence, or ma, serves as a critical communication device in the Japanese
communication pattern. Ma is much more than pausing between words; rather, it is
like a semicolon that reflects the inner pausing of the speaker’s thoughts. Through ma,
interpersonal synchrony is made possible in many high-­context cultures.
While silence may hold strong, contextual meanings in high-­context cultures, pro-
longed silence is often viewed as “empty pauses” or “ignorant lapses” in the Western
rhetorical model. From the high-­context perspective, silence can be the essence of the
language of superiority and inferiority, affecting such relationships as teacher–­student,
male–­female, and expert–­client. The process of silencing or refraining from speaking
can have both positive and negative effects. In some situations, notably, in many Asian
collectivistic cultures, “quiet is demanded by others and by those who must themselves
be quiet. Being quiet—­effecting a self-­imposed silence—­is often valued in some social
environments. Being quiet is often a sign of respect for the wisdom and expertise of
others” (Ishii & Bruneau, 1991, p. 315).
Research studies by Barnlund (1989) and Wiemann, Chen, and Giles (1986) pro-
vide strong empirical evidence on the important role of silence in high-­context cultures
such as those of China, Japan, Korea, and many Southeastern Asian countries. More
228 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

specifically, Wiemann et al. (1986) found that European Americans perceive talk as
more important and enjoyable than Chinese Americans and native-­born Chinese. In
addition, European Americans perceive the use of talk to be a means of social control,
whereas native-­born Chinese consider the use of silence a conversational control strat-
egy. Finally, native-­born Chinese have been found to be more tolerant of silence in
conversations than European Americans or Chinese Americans. Ting-­Toomey’s (1980,
1981) ethnographic studies of Chinese immigrant families in the United States indi-
cates that traditional Chinese parents tend to use talk to elicit obedience and confor-
mity from their children and silence to indicate displeasure and disapproval. Modern
Chinese parents, however, use talk to create closeness and intimacy and silence to sig-
nal attentive listening and understanding. In India’s and Tibet’s cultures, children are
socialized to be quiet or silent in the presence of adults; attentive listening and respect
of silence are emphasized.
The concept of silence also occupies a central role in the Apache culture in the
United States (Basso, 1970). Silence is deemed appropriate in contexts where social
relations between individuals are unpredictable and highly ambiguous. The Apache
also prefer silence in situations in which role expectations are unclear. Members of
the Navajo and Papago Indian tribes exhibit similar silent behavior under the same
conditions (Basso, 1970). In France, people tend to engage in animated conversations to
affirm the nature of their established relationships; in the absence of any such relation-
ship, silence serves as a neutral communication process. This is why “in the elevator,
in the street, on the bus . . . people don’t talk to each other readily in France. . . . This
is a seemingly inexhaustible source of misunderstanding between the French and the
[European] Americans, especially since these rules are suspended under exceptional
circumstances and on vacation (and therefore on the train, on the plane). . . . [European]
Americans often feel rejected, disapproved of, criticized, or scorned without under-
standing the reason for this hostility” (Carroll, 1987, p. 30). When in the company of
strangers, the French and many Native American groups generally preserve a proper
distance by means of silence. In contrast, European Americans tend to use talk to
“break the ice,” and they reserve silence for their most intimate relationship.
Intercultural miscommunication can therefore often occur because of the dif-
ferent priorities different groups place on talk and silence. Silence can serve various
functions, depending on the type of relationship, interactive situation, and particular
cultural beliefs held. Intercultural clashes arise when we unintentionally use our own
culture-­bound evaluations in judging the talk and silence of dissimilar others. Inter-
estingly, silence seems to play a significant role across cultures while communicating
with God, nature, or transcendental beings. Across belief systems, individuals person-
ally or collectively find inner peace, life-­affirming appreciation, and deeper insights
while silently communicating with God, nature, or transcendental beings. Silence is
understood as the most effective nonverbal communication code in different contexts,
especially the spiritual context. In a nutshell, our mindless versus mindful orientations
in interpreting these different verbal communication styles can ultimately influence
the quality of our intergroup relationship with dissimilar others.
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 229

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

T his chapter has covered the following major areas: the features of human language,
the functions of languages across diverse cultures, the low-­context and high-­
context communication framework, and the dimensions of the low-­context and high-­
context verbal style. Intercultural miscommunications often occur because individuals
use cultural-­laden habits and assumptions to interpret each other’s verbal messages and
verbal styles. Unfortunately, individuals are frequently unaware of their ethnocentric-­
based verbal interpretations and evaluations.
In order to be mindful verbal communicators, we should do the following:

1 Understand the functions and interpretations that are attached to different

modes of talk—from the group identity function to the status function of lan-
guage usage in a particular culture. We should be sensitive to the cultural beliefs
and values that underlie the different modes of verbal expressions.

2 Develop verbal empathy and patience for non-­native speakers in our cul-
ture. We can, for example, (a) speak slowly, in simple sentences, and allow for
comprehension pauses; (b) restate what we say in different words; (c) use probing
questions to check whether the message is received accurately; (d) paraphrase and
perception check (see Mindful Guideline 4), and use Powerpoint visual aids, ges-
tures, or written summaries to reinforce our points. Make sure to accommodate
appropriately and respectfully and not engage in patronizing talk. Likewise, if we
travel to another country where we use a second language, we should use similar
strategies to cross-check for understanding of the meaning of the message.

3 Practice mindful listening skills when communicating with non-­native speak-

ers. Mindful listening demands that we pay thoughtful attention to both the
speaker’s verbal and nonverbal messages before responding or evaluating. It means
listening attentively with all our senses and checking responsively for the accu-
racy of our meaning decoding process on multiple levels (i.e., on content, identity,
and relational meaning). Mindful listening is an important intercultural commu-
nication skill for a variety of reasons. First, mindful listening helps us to manage
emotional vulnerability between ourselves and dissimilar others. Second, it helps
us to minimize misunderstanding and maximize the mutual understanding of co-­
created meanings. Third, mindful listening helps us to discover our own percep-
tual biases in the listening process. By listening mindfully, we are sending the
following identity-­support message to the other person: “I am committed to under-
standing your verbal message and the person behind the message.” Mindful listen-
ing consists of culture-­sensitive paraphrasing skills and perception checking for
the accuracy of understanding on content, relational, and identity meaning levels.

4 Practice culture-­
sensitive paraphrasing skills. Paraphrasing skill refers to
two major characteristics: (a) verbally restating the content meaning of the
230 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

speaker’s message in our own words, and (b) nonverbally echoing back our inter-
pretation of the emotional meaning of the speaker’s message. The verbal restate-
ment should reflect our tentative understanding of the speaker’s meaning behind
the content message, using phrases such as “It sounds to me that . . . ” and “In
other words, you’re saying that. . . . ” Nonverbally, you should pay attention to
the attitudinal tone that underlies your verbal restatement (i.e., it is critical to
display a genuine tone when you express the desire to understand). In dealing
with high-­context members, your paraphrasing statements should consist of def-
erential, qualifying phrases such as “I may be wrong, but what I’m hearing is that
. . . ” or “Please forgive me ahead of time if I didn’t hear clearly what you’ve just
mentioned. . . . ” In communicating with low-­context members, our paraphras-
ing statements can be more direct and to the point than when communicating
with high-­context members. In addition, practice culture-­sensitive perception-­
checking skills to solicit verification for whether your paraphrasing message is
accurate or inaccurate. For example, use phrases such as: “Let me know if my
interpretation is on the wrong track. . . . ” or “Please help me out and correct me
if I misinterpret your words. . . . ”

5 Becontext
mindful of the fundamental differences between low-­context and high-­
communication patterns and the ethnocentric tendencies that we
assign to evaluate the opposing characteristics. Low-­context communicators prefer
a direct verbal style, person-­oriented language usage, self-­enhancement, and talk-
ativeness in order to “get acquainted.” In contrast, high-­context communicators
prefer an indirect verbal style, status-­oriented language usage, self-­effacement,
and silence in order to gauge the situation and the stranger. To be flexible intercul-
tural communicators, we need both knowledge and skills in verbal and nonverbal
communication styles so that we can communicate sensitively across cultural and
ethnic boundaries.

6 The O.P.E.N. Guide is a useful tool for analyzing intercultural case stories
such as the opening case story: O = Opening: Creating an OPENING, a safe
space, and engaging in invitational inquiries through identity affirmative mes-
sages, content-­probing messages, and displaying cultural sensitivity and identity
acknowledgement work; P = Perspectivizing: Generating multiple PERSPEC-
TIVES, fact-­checking, and meaning clarification from multiple sources, embark-
ing on the multiple-­story discovery process, and displaying identity respectful
posture; E = Explaining : Providing EXPLANATIONS to various stakeholders;
active cultural contexting of different explanations, bridging diverse cultural and
personal viewpoints from an ethnorelative angle, and using identity meaning-­
centered and context-­centered language; and N = Negotiating: NEGOTIATING
options, soliciting desirable processes, generating mutual-­interest solutions, articu-
lating criteria (e.g., a timeline and action plan), and engaging in inclusive identity
validation work to build security, trust, and inclusion.
 Mindful Intercultural Verbal Communication 231

Based on the IINT framework (see Chapter 2) and a mindfulness lens (see Chap-
ter 5) and the easy-to-use O.P.E.N. Guide, international student advisors or staff can
formulate identity-­based empathetic advising techniques, including respect, with inter-
national students for their success. Similarly, counselors or social service workers can
use various mindful guideline tools to work more competently with immigrants and
refugees in different community service organizations.

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. Jot down your gut-level meanings for the two terms “power” and “privilege.” Com-
pare your meanings with those of another classmate. Do you hold similar meanings
or different meanings for those two terms? How did you acquire such meanings? Do
you think individualists and collectivists would have different meanings for those two
terms? Explain briefly.

2. Think of the common vocabulary, metaphors, or idioms you use in the larger U.S.
culture or in your own ethnic community or with your own close-knit identity group.
Can you make a case for how language, thoughts, emotions, and culture are interde-
pendent? Use as many language examples as you can to support your persuasive
arguments.

3. Have you ever been stereotyped because of your accent? When you heard some-
one speaking English with an accent in your first team meeting project—­one with a
British accent and one with a Vietnamese accent, how did you form your first impres-
sion? What images came to your mind? Have an honest dialogue with another class-
mate.

4. Have you ever encountered high-­context/low-­context communication clashes in

your own culture or with people from another culture? Can you share a concrete
example? Did you repair the communication damage afterwards, and how? What
advice would you give to low-­context folks to communicate mindfully with high-­
context folks? What advice would you give to high-­context folks to communicate
mindfully with low-­context folks?

5. If you were the team leader of a multinational group project, how would you use
the knowledge blocks from the cross-­cultural verbal communication styles’ section
to create a verbally sensitive and supportive interaction climate to include all team
members in a productive group discussion? What particular verbal strategies would
you use to facilitate a supportive group interaction climate?

6. Having read the chapter and as you revisit the opening story, can you think of some
concrete constructive verbal communication steps Majid and Dr. Jones could have
taken to avoid such an extreme incident? Consider how faculty, staff, and interna-
tional student advisors could use the OPEN guide to improve communication with
international students on U.S. campuses?
 C H A P TE R 8

Mindful Intercultural
Nonverbal Communication

„„Introduction
„„Multiple Perspectives on Nonverbal Communication
††The Bioevolutionary Perspective
††The Sociocultural Perspective
††The Neuroculture Theory Perspective
„„Nonverbal Communication: Specific Functions and Patterns
††Reflection and Management of Identities
††Expression of Emotions and Attitudes
††Conversational Management
††Impression Formation and Attraction
„„Space and Time Across Cultures
††Interpersonal Spatial Boundary Regulation
††Environmental Boundary Regulation
††Temporal Regulation
„„Interpersonal Synchrony, Deception and Deviance, and Nonverbal
Cautions
††Interpersonal Interactive Synchrony
††Deception and Deviance
††Nonverbal Cautions
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

232
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 233

C ultural P ride or C ultural E mbarrassment?:

A Case S tory
We moved to California in the early 1990s when I was ten years old. It was a tough
transition, and my parents really missed India. I liked it here, but the school system was
very different. I will never forget about the day I was sent home early from school. It was
Raksha Bandan, an Indian festival that celebrates the relational-­security bond between
sisters and brothers. My sister tied a colorful raakhi (a sacred thread) on my wrist that
symbolized her love for me. My sister also put a tikka (red mark on the forehead) on me
as she prayed for me.
When I got to school, my classmates started making fun of my traditional clothes
and of the tikka on my forehead. Unlike the other kids, I was used to wearing traditional
clothes to school. One boy told me, “You look weird with your third eye.” The taunting did
not stop, and I was getting really frustrated. The same boy tried to wipe off my tikka and
break off the raakhi my sister gave me. I punched him in retaliation. My teacher caught
me punching my classmate, but she did not wait to hear my side of the story. She sent me
to the school counselor who talked to me and then took me home.
My parents were angry that I had misbehaved and beat up another kid. I tried
explaining to them that I was made fun of for my clothes and tikka. Then the counselor
suggested to my parents that they should “dress me in more Western clothes, so that I
don’t stand out.” She also suggested that I try to fit in more, and not display the “red dot”
in school, so that my adjustment could go easier.
Within a year, we moved back to India. My parents found it too hard to adjust to the
United States and did not want us to forget our cultural traditions. Thirteen years later,
my sister and I migrated back to California. She continues to tie me a raakhi every year,
but she makes sure that it does not have fancy decorations and that it is less colourful.
And I continue to wash off my tikka before I go to work.

—Ashish, senior project manager

Introduction

Communication is not only about report, but also about rapport. It involves both instru-
mental and relational communication. Nonverbal communication is primarily con-
cerned with rapport and the relational aspect of communication, and it serves multiple
functions in intercultural interaction. While verbal messages convey content meaning,
nonverbal messages carry strong identity and relational meaning. Nonverbal messages
signify who we are via our artifacts (e.g., the clothes we wear), our vocal cues, our non-
verbal self-­presentation modes, and the interpersonal spaces we claim for ourselves (e.g.,
members of southern European cultures prefer closer distances than do northern Euro-
peans). Ashish’s story illustrates the communicative significance of the display of non-
verbal symbols and messages. According to the Hindu belief system, Raksha Bandan,
234 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Raakhi, and tikka are powerful nonverbal symbols that reflect and communicate belief
system, religious identity, relational identity, and security bond. Sisters on that spe-
cial occasion put Raakhi thread around their brothers’ wrists and mark their foreheads
with red tikka to affirm their relational-­security bond. In return, brothers promise them
Raksha or protection as long as they live. In the Hindu tradition, if a female establishes
Raksha Bandan with a male, the male must respect, love, and treat her as if she were his
real sister regardless of blood relation and protect her from fear and danger.
Nonverbal messages can help to complement, emphasize, substitute, and even
contradict the meaning of verbal messages. Nonverbal messages are the nonlinguistic
aspects of the communication that carry powerful emotional meaning. They provide the
context for how the accompanying verbal message should be interpreted and understood.
They can create miscommunication or clarify communication (e.g., through the use of
facial expressions). But more often than not, nonverbal messages can create intercultural
friction and confusion because: (1) the same nonverbal signal can mean different things
to different people in different cultures (e.g., the nonverbal okay sign means “approval,”
“insult,” and “money” in the United States, Brazil, and Japan, respectively); (2) multiple
nonverbal cues are sent in each interaction, thereby creating interpretive ambiguities;
and (3) factors of personality, gender, relational distance, situation, and socioeconomic
status create tremendous variations of nonverbal display patterns in different cultures.
Nonverbal communication is, overall, a powerful form of human expression (Keat-
ing, 2006; Manusov, 2017). It is everywhere. It has interaction primacy; that is, non-
verbal messages are often the primary means of signaling our emotions, attitudes, and
the nature of our relationships with others. Nonverbal messages can often express what
verbal messages cannot convey and are assumed to be more truthful than verbal mes-
sages. In the development of the human species, nonverbal actions predated language.
Infants learn to communicate first through nonverbal movements before they master
linguistic codes. Many nonverbal experts (e.g., Birdwhistell, 1955; Mehrabian, 1981)
estimated that in every social encounter, nearly two-­thirds of the interaction meaning
is derived through nonverbal messages.
This chapter is organized in five main sections. First, multiple perspectives on
nonverbal communication are presented. Second, we describe the specific functions,
patterns, and examples of nonverbal interaction across a wide range of cultures. Third,
the boundary regulation processes of space and time across cultures are discussed.
Fourth, the concepts of interpersonal nonverbal synchrony, deception and deviance,
and cautions are reviewed. Lastly, we provide mindful guidelines on nonverbal com-
munication across cultures.

Multiple Perspectives on Nonverbal Communication

Emotions are the stuff of interpersonal relationships, and human emotional expressions
are encoded and decoded primarily through nonverbal cues and channels. Different
research approaches have investigated how emotions are intrapersonally experienced
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 235

and interculturally expressed across cultures. We believe nonverbal communication

can be studied from different perspectives; two well-known ways to study emotional
facial expressions are the cultural universal approach and the cultural relative approach
(Burgoon, Guerrero, & Floyd, 2010; Ekman & Friesen, 1975). Cultural universalists
contend that facial expressions are innate and emotional expressions are universal
across cultures. In comparison, cultural relativists argue that cultures differ in terms
of display rules with regard to facial and emotional expressions. Cultural display rules
emphasize the use of culture-­based situational norms in guiding when we should dis-
play or even dramatize certain facial emotions and when we should downplay or even
mask certain facial emotions. Among multiple explanatory perspectives in explaining
nonverbal codes, the bioevolutionary perspective and the sociocultural perspective
support each of these contentions well (Burgoon et al., 2010). While the bioevolutionary
perspective resorts to biological factors and evolutionary processes to explain nonver-
bal expressions across societies and cultures, the sociocultural perspective resorts to
socialization and cultural influences to explain nonverbal expressions primarily within
specific cultures.

The Bioevolutionary Perspective

The bioevolutionary perspective is grounded in theories of evolution and biology (see
Burgoon et al., 2010; Frank & Shaw, 2016). Darwin’s (1859) theory of natural selec-
tion explains how certain members of a species have favorable traits for survival and
reproduction due to the natural selection process and reveals how the evolutionary
process contributes to changing the characteristics of various species. His theory has
been applied to explain human emotions, cognitions, and behavior (e.g., see Floyd &
Haynes, 2005). For example, humans who have inherited traits of attractiveness, intel-
ligence, and emotional attachment are likely to survive and produce offspring with
similar genes. According to the field of psychophysiology, these traits and events are
reflected in psychosomatic processes (Floyd, 2004; Floyd & Riforgiate, 2008).
Emotions such as fear and love are associated with hormonal and neural activi-
ties, and these are enacted in facial expressions, fight or flight, and haptic behaviors.
For example, fear activates pupil dilation, which increases the visual acuity needed to
assess threat in dangerous situations, and increased heartbeat and respiration activate
muscles to fight or flee. In the case of love, oxytocin is activated, which induces pleasure
and happiness and may lead to kissing and hugging and procreation. It is also analogous
to individuals who have inherited traits of attractiveness and intelligence and are likely
to survive and produce offspring with similar genes.
The bioevolutionary perspective provides strong evidence for the facial expressions
of basic emotions, namely, sadness, anger, disgust, fear, interest, surprise, and happiness
(SADFISH) consistently found across sociocultural contexts. Some early studies (e.g.,
Galati, Scherer, & Ricci-Bitti, 1997) found that adults who have been blind from birth
were able to express the same facial expressions for basic emotions as sighted adults.
These studies show that these facial expressions are not necessarily the products of
236 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

socialization and cultural practices. Many researchers also found health benefits from
supportive haptic behaviors. For example, affectionate interaction decreased cortisol—
the stress hormone—­but increased oxytocin—the pleasure/love hormone (Grewen,
Girdler, Amico, & Light, 2005). It was also found that kissing a spouse or partner for
30 minutes reduced the production of allergens in the immune system (Kimata, 2006)
and that kissing also strengthened the immune system (Davis, 2007). We also observe
that nonverbal behaviors are different in both form and substance within and across
cultures.

The Sociocultural Perspective

The sociocultural perspective on nonverbal communication asserts that different
socialization patterns and cultural practices can explain why people enact similar or
different nonverbal behaviors. Individuals who have been socialized in larger cultures
such as individualism and collectivism are likely to differ in their display of nonverbal
behaviors such as respect and love (Hwang & Matsumoto, 2017; Matsumoto & Hwang,
2016). Cultural display rules shape when, how, what, and with whom certain nonverbal
expressions should be shown or suppressed within a specific cultural context. Cultural
values influence the latitude of emotional expressions under particular situational con-
ditions in different cultures. For example, in larger cultures of the United States and
the United Kingdom (individualistic cultures), people show respect by standing upright
and/or giving a firm handshake. However, in the larger cultures of Japan and Korea
(collectivistic cultures), people show respect by bowing to each other. Within individu-
alism and collectivism, we find variations based on power distance such as vertical and
horizontal individualism and vertical and horizontal collectivism (Triandis, 1995). In
light of these findings, display of respect may manifest differently. For example, in ver-
tical individualism, persons with less power will remain standing until the high-­status
power individuals take their seats first, whereas in vertical collectivism, individuals
with less power will bow down more than usual while greeting individuals with more
power. These nonverbal behaviors are not necessarily displayed in horizontal individu-
alism and collectivism. Thus, various displays of respect can be best explained by the
sociocultural perspective (see Chapter 4 for a discussion of cultural dimensions and
value orientations). For example, young South Asian Indian Americans touch the feet of
elders to show respect; Vietnamese Americans walk kneeling in the presence of senior
monks in temple to show respect; and Tibetan Americans prostrate themselves before
monk teachers to show deep respect and gratitude.

The Neuroculture Theory Perspective

Perhaps nonverbal human emotional expressions can best be understood from the
neuroculture theory perspective, which integrates theoretical assumptions of both bio-
evolutionary and sociocultural perspectives (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Kupperbusch,
Matsumoto, Kooken, Lowenger, Uchida, Wilson-­Cohn, & Yrizarry, 1999). According
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 237

to this theory, while human beings are predisposed to make the connection between
certain emotional states and facial muscles, it is through the continuous socialization,
reward–­sanction process within their culture that human beings acquire nonverbal
display rules. For example, intercultural/intergroup nonverbal power display (e.g., on
the emotions of anger and fear or affection) can be explained based on bioevolutionary
processes and sociocultural factors such as vertical individualism and vertical collec-
tivism norms (Triandis, 1995). Reasonable evidence exists that there is a relationship
between emotion and facial expression but perhaps not as tight an association as the
neurocultural theory suggested (Baumeister & Finkel, 2010). From a methodological
standpoint, this may be because it is difficult to tease out the bioevolutionary and cul-
tural components of emotional expressions.
The sociocultural perspective may provide a better explanatory calculus (in com-
parison to the bioevolutionary perspective) for understanding facial emotional expres-
sions both within and across cultures. Arguably, almost all humans are bioevolutionarily
wired more or less the same with regard to various general emotional experience states
or events (with the exception of certain disabilities). However, from early on, humans
in different sociocultural settings have been socialized to sociocultural display rules of
emotional expressions. From an intercultural–­intergroup communication perspective,
intercultural strangers must attend to the core components of communication compe-
tence in different cultures. For example, in the U.S. mainstream culture, a birthday boy
or girl should explicitly display his or her happiness and excitement along with appro-
priate facial expressions and paralinguistic cues when presented with greeting cards
and gifts. In contrast, in Japanese and similar other cultures, a birthday boy or girl is
expected to display modesty and restrain emotional expression while presented with
greeting cards and gifts. Additionally, an integrative framework of a situational-­based
neuroculture lens may also help to advance the theorizing and research work in the area
of cross-­cultural nonverbal emotional expression and decoding styles. Cross-­cultural
nonverbal researchers will do well to map out the situational dynamics that trigger dif-
ferent emotional expression, masking, dramatizing, or suppression across a wide range
of situations. On the macro level, knowing whether an individual is entering a “tight”
(e.g., South Korea) or a “loose social structure” culture (e.g., Thailand) (see Chapter
4) can shed some light on the latitude of emotional expression variations allowed in a
cultural situation. In a culture with a tight social structure, insiders may frown on non-
verbal violations more stringently. In a culture with a loose social structure, however,
insiders may laugh at the cultural nonverbal violations or faux pas with moderate amuse-
ment. Other microsituational factors that may have a critical impact on the expression of
particular nonverbal facial expressions can include perceived ingroup–­outgroup param-
eters, cooperative–­competitive task situations, power distance status patterns, degree of
interpersonal intimacy and attraction, and public versus private interactional setting. In
this chapter, we use primarily the sociocultural perspective to discuss mindful nonver-
bal communication, for it offers a richer lens to explain comparative cross-­cultural non-
verbal functions and patterns. We now turn to a systematic discussion of these specific
functions and patterns of nonverbal communication across cultures.
238 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Nonverbal Communication:
Specific Functions and Patterns

Nonverbal communication is a rich, complex field of study and is closely tied to the
embedded situations and larger contexts in which they are being encoded and decoded.
Nonverbal display rules are learned within a culture. Cultural value tendencies (e.g.,
small/large power distance value dimension), in conjunction with many relational and
situational factors, shape cross-­cultural nonverbal behaviors. Nonverbal communica-
tion is defined as the nonlinguistic behaviors (or attributes) that are consciously or
unconsciously encoded and decoded via multiple communication channels. Multiple
channels refer to how the meaning of nonverbal messages can be simultaneously sig-
naled and interpreted through various nonverbal mediums such as facial expressions,
bodily gestures, spatial relationships, and the environment (physical and psychological)
in which people are communicating.
Nonverbal communication shares many features with verbal communication;
nevertheless, nonverbal messages have the following distinctive characteristics: (1)
they are analogic messages that carry continuous meanings (e.g., via various ranges of
tone of voice); (2) they are sent via multiple interaction channels; (3) they have sensory
immediacy, appealing to our senses of sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch; (4) they
can be simultaneously decoded (e.g., decoding facial expressions and the tone of voice
together); and (5) from a perceiver-­centered perspective, nonverbal communication
takes place both intentionally and unintentionally.
This section examines the basic functions of cross-­cultural nonverbal communica-
tion and uses examples from the study of kinesics (facial and bodily movements), ocule-
sics (eye contact), vocalics (e.g., tone of voice, volume), proxemics (spatial distance), hap-
tics (touch), environment (e.g., decor, architecture), and chronemics (time) to illustrate
the diverse nonverbal functions (see Figure 8.1).
Based on previous nonverbal research (e.g., Altman & Gauvain, 1981; Hall, 1976,
1983; Matsumoto, 1992; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2016; Matsumoto & Kudoh, 1993), the
following nonverbal functions are discussed: (1) reflection and management of identi-
ties; (2) expression of emotions and attitudes; (3) conversational management; and (4)
impression formation and attraction.

Reflection and Management of Identities

Nonverbal cues serve as the markers of our identities. The way we dress, our accent
pattern, our nonverbal way of gesturing—­all tell others something about ourselves and
how we want to be perceived. In terms of cultural variability and self-­construal, many
of us nonverbally signify individual or personal identity in public (e.g., Lady Gaga,
Beyonce, and Jay Z), others of us do the same with our sociocultural identity (e.g.,
U.S. Americans and Bolivians), and still others of us do the same with our intersecting
social identity complexity (e.g., Hispanic American lesbian parents). Likewise, we rely
on nonverbal cues as “name badges—­to discern what groups they [or others] belong to
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 239

Functions
Nonverbal Patterns
Reflecting Identities

Expressing Emotions Tone (Paralinguistics)

Managing Conversations Face/Gestures (Kinesics)

Mindful
Impression Formation Eye Contact (Oculesics)
Nonverbal
and Attraction
Communication
Touch (Haptics)
Interpersonal Boundary
Regulation Space (Proxemics)

Environmental Boundary Time (Chronemics)

Regulation

Temporal Regulation

FIGURE 8.1. Mindful nonverbal communication: Functions and patterns.

and whether they appear similar or dissimilar to us. This process of identification is at
the heart of our self-­concept and is a driving force behind our feelings of belonging to
valued or stigmatized groups” (Burgoon et al., 1996, p. 215).
Thus, nonverbal cues serve as our identity badges, such as Raakhi and tikka in the
opening story, and the identity badges through which we place others into categories
(e.g., ingroup and outgroup). According to social perception research, sex and race are
the two primary or “primitive” categories that are immediately processed in the first
few minutes of an intergroup encounter (Brewer, 1988). Intergroup communication
research indicates that social perceptions and interactions are filtered through stereo-
types based on visible group memberships and speech features such as dialects and
accents (Giles et al., 2010).
Factors that affect such categorical slotting include the following: (1) contras-
tive physical cues (such as skin color and facial features); (2) a person’s “typicality”
as mediated through our stereotypic lenses that she or he “looks like someone from
that group”; and (3) nonverbal speech patterns such as contrastive accents, grammar,
and manner of speaking. In initial intergroup encounters, the communicators typically
perform their nonverbal identity habits (e.g., the use of a habitual tone of voice) with-
out conscious processing (Lavan, Scott, & McGettigan, 2016; Smith & Bond, 1993).
Similarly, we tend to respond to others through our stereotypic group images and
expectations rather than responding to personal contact characteristics. For example,
since 9/11, Muslims in the United States have been stereotyped as terrorists; Hispan-
ics are stereotyped as illegal immigrants, often based on their physical appearance or
identity category.
240 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Adornment features such as clothing, jewelry, cosmetics, and accessories in dif-

ferent cultures also reflect a complex reality—­with respect to enhancing, asserting, or
reflecting identities. Based on our stereotypic knowledge of a particular group, we look
for validation of our expectations using nonverbal cues and surface adornment features.
In today’s society, the cosmetics industry is a multibillion-­dollar business engaged in
enhancing or “making over” our faces, and thus our symbolic identities, in public. Body
tattoos and flesh piercing (e.g., of the ears or nose), which are again in vogue, have
occurred at various times in history and serve as identity markers of the individuals
and/or the normative practices of the larger culture.
Furthermore, the uniforms that people such as doctors, nurses, and police officers
wear also connote different identity markers. For example, uniforms in Japan worn by
students, businesspeople, entertainers, and even vacationers, among others, reflect the
individual’s special relationship to a specific identity group. Japanese tourists typically
wear the resort hotel’s yukata (a lightweight kimono) and stroll around town wearing
these “identity badges” signifying that they are guests of that particular hot springs
resort. Muslim women are easily marked as “foreign others” if they wear the hijab (a
scarf traditionally worn by Muslim women to cover the head and neck, leaving the face
clear), niqab (a veil for the face that leaves the areas around the eyes clear), chador (a
full-body cloak worn when outside the house), or burqa (the most concealing of all veils,
covering the entire face and body and leaving just a mesh screen to see through) in the
U.S. or UK mainstream cultural zones.
Beyond adornment features, another area that gives our cultural, ethnic, or gender
identity away is vocalics—­our use of voice qualifiers and vocalizations (Lavan et al.,
2016). Voice qualifiers include vocalic behavior related to speech, such as accent, pitch
range (high to low, wide to narrow inflection), pitch intensity (emotional involvement–­
uninvolvement), volume (loud to soft), articulation (precise to slurred), resonance (rich
to thin), and tempo (fast to slow). Each of these characteristics represents a vocalic con-
tinuum. For example, mainstream Americans often perceive newly arrived immigrant
Korean Americans or Puerto Ricans as sounding “foreign” and “less educated.” Cul-
tural group members often tend to use their own vocal qualifiers and rules to evaluate
others’ vocalic signals harshly and critically.
Vocalizations refer to specific vocal sounds or noises that are independent of
speech, such as the use of vocal characterizers (e.g., the sounds of laughing, crying,
moaning, groaning, yawning, or belching; belching in public, for instance, is considered
acceptable in some Asian cultures but is deemed rude in many northern European cul-
tures) and vocal segregates (e.g., pauses, “uh-huh” for yes, “um, uh” for hesitation, and
“sh” for silence) (Burgoon et al., 1996). From cultural and regional to social class identi-
ties, perceivers form attitudes and impressions based on their ethnocentric evaluations
of different vocalic markers.
As the communication accommodation theory (Gallois, Giles, Jones, Cargile, &
Ota, 1995) explains, we tend to view people who sound like us as friendlier and more
attractive and people who sound different from us as strange and distant. Many inter-
group relation factors promote the maintenance of diverse vocalic or dialect varieties
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 241

within a culture. Based on the members’ preferred identity orientations, some indi-
viduals (with multiple vocalics competencies) can code-­switch their speech patterns
toward the partner’s pattern, maintain their own distinctive speech patterns, or shift to
some other speech patterns. For example, they may speak standard American English
for social acceptance and mobility, they may maintain ethnic speech patterns (e.g.,
Spanglish and Ebonic English) for divergence and identity pride, or they may switch to
speaking their heritage language (e.g., Spanish or Vietnamese) for purposes of identity
solidarity and distinctiveness.
In sum, from adornments to the use of vocalics, we encode our sense of self by
means of different nonverbal features and behaviors. Perceivers also tend to use eth-
nocentric evaluations to construct and decode others’ identities through their use of
different nonverbal signals. While some of these identity markers can be intentionally
sent (e.g., wearing ethnic clothes), others can be unintentional identity cues (e.g., use
of personal space). The following subsections expand this identity theme further by
examining how nonverbal behaviors serve multiple nonverbal functions across cultures.

Expression of Emotions and Attitudes

By using nonverbal messages, we infer the feelings and attitudes of the stranger in
the interaction. Feelings and attitudes are typically inferred through the nonverbal
systems of kinesics and vocalics. The word kinesics, derived from the Greek word
kinesis (“movement”), encompasses all forms of facial, bodily, and gestural movement.
According to Birdwhistell (1970), the face is capable of producing some 250,000 expres-
sions. Cultural universalists and cultural relativists differ in explaining emotional facial
expressions (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Hwang & Matsumoto, 2017; Kupperbusch et al.,
1999).
Cultural universalists (closely aligned with the bioevolutionary view) believe that
emotional facial expressions are innate and serve basic human adaptation functions
regardless of cultural differences. They argue that infants who are born blind know
how to use facial expressions instinctively to get what they want, such as expressions of
pleasant sweet smiles or resentment (Darwin, 1872; Izard, 1980). In contrast, cultural
relativists (closely aligned with the sociocultural view) believe that culture shapes emo-
tional facial expressions as observed across cultures. They hold that culture provides
the basic rules that govern the when and how of what emotions should be expressed or
concealed (Birdwhistell, 1970; Matsumoto, Hwang, & Frank, 2016). Infants and chil-
dren learn the social roles, rules, and proper nonverbal emotional displays on an uncon-
scious level through a continuous cultural reinforcement process, and they can perform
“spontaneously” and properly in accordance with particular situational requirements.
Ekman and Friesen (1975) seek to integrate these two positions and argue for the neu-
roculture theory of emotional facial expression. According to this theory, while human
beings are predisposed to make the connection between certain emotional states and
facial muscles, it is through the continuous reward–­sanction developmental immer-
sion process within a sociocultural community that babies and young children acquire
242 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

nonverbal display rules. While language can be intentionally taught and learned, the
acquisition of nonverbal communication is an experiential-­immersive process of soaking
up the ongoing millions of nonverbal cues and gestures on an unconscious to semicon-
scious level in a particular membership identity community and within a larger socio-
cultural system. Nonverbal communication is omnipresent throughout a culture—­it is
everywhere.
Drawing from the explanatory frames of individualism–­collectivism and power
distance (Hofstede, 1991), for example, we can reasonably propose that individualists
will tend to value spontaneous emotional expressions with less censorship and col-
lectivists will tend to monitor their nonverbal emotional expressions more carefully
because of their concern for relational harmony and ingroup reactions. Furthermore,
when perceiving threats in the interaction, individualists tend to be more concerned
with expressing and repairing self-­focused emotions (e.g., personal anger, frustration,
or resentment), whereas collectivists generally are more concerned with other-­focused
emotions (e.g., relational shame, hurt, or embarrassment).
People from small power distance cultures (e.g., in Australia and Canada) tend to
use nonverbal emotional cues to establish equal-­status relationships. People from large
power distance cultures (e.g., in many Latin and Middle Eastern cultures) mostly use
nonverbal emotional cues (e.g., the proper tone of voice) to signify asymmetrical-­status
relationships. However, misunderstandings or frustrations often occur when cultural
members fail to observe and decode the subtle (or not so subtle) nonverbal cues in
intercultural episodes. Cultural members tend to use their nonverbal cultural frame of
reference to judge the other’s “miscued” performance.
While both individualists and collectivists may experience a wide spectrum of
emotions, they may internalize certain types of emotions with varying intensity in
response to different situational conditions (e.g., a collectivist might experience more
intense shame for the wrongdoings of a close relative than an individualist would). They
may also choose to disintensify, neutralize, or dramatize different types of facial expres-
sions to achieve specific interaction outcomes or goals in their particular culture.
Nonverbal researchers have generally agreed that there is relative universality in
decoding basic facial emotions—­anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise
(Ekman et al., 1987; Izard, 1980). These facial emotional expressions (e.g., facial pho-
tographs as portrayed by U.S. Americans and Papua New Guineans) have been con-
sistently recognized or similarly decoded by members of different cultures (e.g., from
Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Scotland, the Indonesian island of
Sumatra, Turkey, and the United States).
The more similar the cultures (i.e., from the same geographic region), the more
accurate is the nonverbal decoding process. Further studies (with pictures of both Japa-
nese and U.S. American male and female faces) indicate that U.S. students are better
able to identify anger, disgust, fear, and sadness than are Japanese students. A possible
explanation might be that Japanese students have been socialized to suppress the overt
expression of such emotions because such expression could be face threatening to oth-
ers. Therefore, they would have less practice in identifying these “negative” emotions.
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 243

Both groups, however, are equally adept at recognizing happiness and surprise (Hwang
& Matsumoto, 2017; Matsumoto, 1989, 1992).
In a study probing the emotional experience of generic “feel good” emotions
(such as feeling relaxed, elated, and calm), some interesting cross-­cultural differences
emerged (Kitayama & Markus, 1994). While U.S. college students perceive the generic
“feel good” emotions as associated with socially disengaged emotions (such as feel-
ings of pride and superiority), Japanese college students equate the “feel good” emo-
tions with socially engaged emotions (such as friendly feelings and feelings of respect).
Although decoding the core facial emotions can be pancultural, the meaning, circum-
stances, and associated tasks related to generating such emotions are culture specific.
Individualists generally feel good focusing on personal achievement and recognition;
in contrast, collectivists generally feel good focusing on collective achievement and
ingroup recognition.
In addition, the meaning of smiles can carry different connotations in different
cultures. Within the U.S. culture, a smile can mean joy or happiness. In the Japanese
culture, in addition to signaling joy, a smile can also be used to mask embarrassment,
hide displeasure, or suppress anger. In Russia, facial expressions serve as important
negotiation cues. U.S. Americans are taught to “open conversations with a smile and
to keep smiling. Russians tend to start out with grim faces, but when they do smile, it
reflects relaxation and progress in developing a good relationship. Winks and nods are
also good signs” (Richmond, 1996, p. 136).
With the worldwide rise of text-based message exchanges, use of emoticons and
emoji has risen to convey appropriate emotions. With advances in technology and
the Internet, cultural display rules have changed. Sending messages via Twitter, text,
and Facebook has resulted in a more efficient way to communicate, affecting how we
express our emotions. The use of icons in text messages has become popular because
of the great need to replace long sentences, words, and expressions of our feelings with
quick keyboard symbols. Universal icon expressions have become a significant way to
converse without face-to-face interaction. These give senders everywhere the ability to
talk with others without having to explain in detail the weight of their feelings. How
about cultural differences in the use of emoticons? South Koreans and Japanese tend to
use emoticons with expressive eyes and a neutral mouth (^_^), while U.S. Americans
vary the direction of the mouth, :) and :(. One study (Yuki, Maddux, & Masuda, 2007)
showed that students in the United States are not as sensitive to cues in the eyes and
mouth because they poorly misinterpret the meaning assigned to popular emoticons
from Japanese culture.
Research regarding the use of cross-­cultural emoticons is varied. It appears that
Asians tend to use more emoticons than U.S. Americans (Kayan, Fussell, & Setlock,
2006). Elderly Japanese men regard emoticons as a means to overcome the restric-
tions that computer-­mediated communication places on interpersonal communication
(Kanayama, 2003). It has also been reported that Indian web forums use more emoti-
cons than their German counterparts (Pflug, 2011). Recall that in Chapter 7 we dis-
cussed the differences between low-­context and high-­context communication patterns.
244 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Both Korean and Indian cultures are considered high-­context communication cultures,
while the U.S. culture is considered a low-­context interaction culture. It seems logical
to infer that high-­context people have a stronger urge to fill in the nonverbal contextual
gaps than their Western U.S. counterparts.
Despite the popularity, frequency, and successful use of emoticons, text messaging
and icons, in general, have some clear disadvantages. First, many people who use them
on a daily basis can cite an exact time and place in which they were misunderstood or
their words were taken the wrong way after sending out a message. Reading emoticons
in a message does not replace the depth of feelings a person has tried hard to convey.
Second, jokes and sarcasm are difficult to interpret. Many people complain that they
spend much time putting out the flame of a potential conflict because of wrong punc-
tuation or a misinterpreted abbreviated term. For example, stating: “I’m okay.” versus
“I’m okay . . . ” with the added ellipses in an e-text may drastically change the inter-
pretive context of the e-­message. Or for another example, by writing FTW without
contextual cues, a smile, or an exclamation point, your friend may read the abbreviated
term as an insulting WTF backward abbreviation, when you actually meant “For the
Win!” You may also have used the abbreviated “JK” and baffled your intimate partner
as to whether you meant a “Joke” or “Just Kidding!” Finally, when you text an abbrevi-
ated term in your chat message: ‘Tl; dr,” your coworker may think that you are feeling
sick and are asking for emergency help to get a doctor quick; instead, you actually
meant: “Too long; didn’t read.” The crossover effect between reading an abbreviated
term with or without emoticon versus decoding a real-life facial expression can cause
further intercultural or interpersonal friction.
Overall, culture appears to play a powerful role in determining the types of
emotions that should be displayed or suppressed in different interactive situations
(Gudykunst & Ting-­Toomey, 1988). Individualistic cultures tend to encourage the dis-
play of a wide range of positive and negative emotions; accordingly, members are also
able to accurately decode a wide range of emotions. In contrast, collectivistic cultures
tend to encourage the display of modest “positive” emotions (e.g., friendly and agree-
able emotions) while suppressing the display of extreme “negative” emotions (e.g., anger
and disgust) in everyday lives. Accordingly, collectivists also tend to have a harder time
reading negative facial expressions. Furthermore, they are mindful of what facial emo-
tions should be displayed or suppressed in their interactions with ingroup and outgroup
members.
Along with facial expressions of emotions, the human voice carries powerful emo-
tional meaning. In the U.S. culture, soft emotions such as grief and love are expressed
through variations in pitch. Harsh emotions such as anger and contempt are expressed
by changes in volume (i.e., loudness vs. softness), and neutral emotions such as indif-
ference are expressed through tempo changes (Costanzo, Markel, & Costanzo, 1969).
Overall, while anger has been found to be an easy vocalic emotion to decode (Davitz &
Davitz, 1959), fear and love are the most difficult vocalic emotions to recognize (Zuck-
erman, Lipets, Koivumaki, & Rosenthal, 1975).
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 245

Cultural norms also greatly influence our conversational volume and intensity.
While many southern European cultures (e.g., Greece and Italy) and Arab cultures
(e.g., Saudi Arabia and Yemen) tend to value an emotionally engaged, expressive tone
of voice when important issues are discussed, many East and Southeast Asian cultures
(e.g., Malaysia and Thailand) value a moderating, soft tone of voice for both females and
males. According to Nydell (1996), one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects
of Arab communication involves the display of anger. Arabs are not usually as angry
as they appear to be. To indicate sincerity, they raise their voices, repeat points, and
even pound the table for emphasis; a Western observer may therefore misconstrue
them to be angry and argumentative. While members of German and U.S. cultures,
for example, often interpret the Arab tone of voice as aggressive and pushy, Arabs just
as frequently evaluate the nonexpressive German and U.S. American style as “cold,”
“distant,” and “harsh.”
Thus, nonverbal cultural differences exist on a scale of relative differences: from
the Arab point of view, the U.S. American tone of voice sounds “cold” and “emotionally
disengaging”; from the East Asian point of view, the same voice tone can sound “too
heated” and “harsh.” Members of different cultures use their own nonverbal cultural
standards as guidelines for proper or improper ways of “sounding” and evaluating oth-
ers. It is also important to realize that, within the broader labels of what constitute
“individualistic” and “collectivistic” nonverbal patterns, diverse nonverbal rules (with
subtle variations) exist in different regions of individualistic and collectivistic cultures.
In sum, different cultural socialization processes contribute to the display of vari-
ous facial and vocalic emotional expressions. The consensual meanings of such nonver-
bal behaviors are perpetuated and reinforced through ongoing cultural activities and
interactions. Intercultural nonverbal strains may occur when individualists and collec-
tivists cannot accurately decode or interpret their respective nonverbal expression or
suppression governed by different cultural norms and rules.

Conversational Management
People generally use kinesics (e.g., hand gestures and body posture) and oculesics
(i.e., eye and face gaze) to manage their conversation with others. Hand gestures and
body postures have been categorized as emblems, illustrators, regulators, and adaptors
(Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Knapp & Hall, 2001). Each of these categories emphasizes
some specific communication functions. The categories, however, are not mutually
exclusive—­a single hand gesture can be classified as serving both illustrative and regu-
lative functions and so on.
Emblems are hand gestures that hold specific meanings for members within a
culture. They have a direct verbal referent and can substitute for the words they rep-
resent (e.g., the nonverbal peace sign, the hitchhike sign). They are most often gestures
or movements with intentional meanings (e.g., thumbs up and down for “good and bad
rating,” respectively, is a common U.S. emblem). They can be recognized by ingroup
246 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

members even when they are displayed out of context. Greeting rituals, beckoning ges-
tures, peace or insult gestures, gang signs, and head movements to indicate “yes” or
“no” are all examples of emblems. Every culture has a rich variety of emblems with
specific meanings and rules of display (Gochenour, 1990).
Many emblems across cultures also hold contradictory meanings in different cul-
tures. For example, a single hand gesture signifying okay to U.S. Americans in which
one raises one’s hand and makes a circle between the thumb and forefinger can mean
“money” to the Japanese, a sexual insult in Brazil and Greece, a vulgar gesture in Rus-
sia, or “zero” in French. The Bulgarian turn of the head sideways from left to right,
which indicates “yes,” means “no” for many other cultures. The “V-for-­victory” sign
is shown by extending the forefinger and index finger upward and apart—the palm
may face in or out in the United States; however, in Britain the “V” sign with the
palm turned inward (but not outward) connotes an insult. The “thumbs-­up” gesture
used in Canada and the United States to signify approval or encouragement is offensive
throughout the Arab world (e.g., in Egypt and Kuwait; Morrison, Conaway, & Borden,
1994). Thus, inaccurate and insensitive encoding and decoding of emblematic nonver-
bal gestures can create intercultural misunderstanding or strife.
Illustrators are nonverbal hand gestures that are used to complement or illustrate
spoken words. They are less arbitrary than emblems. They are the most “pictorial” of
all kinesic behaviors, being hand gestures that accentuate a word or phrase. They can
also be used to illustrate directions or “draw” a picture of the intended verbal meaning.
Italians famously make more use of broad, full-arm gestures to illustrate their con-
versations than do U.S. Americans. They also like to “talk with their hands,” and most
of their hand gestures are expressive and innocuous. Many Spaniards also use a variety
of hand illustrators, many of which are region specific (Morrison et al., 1994). Generally,
southern Europeans tend to employ more animated hand gestures than do northern
Europeans.
While southern Europeans (e.g., Italians and Greeks), Arabs (e.g., Egyptians and
Saudis), and Latin Americans (e.g., Chileans and Venezuelans) tend to use animated
hand illustrators, many Asians and northern Europeans (e.g., Belgians, Finns, and
Swedes) prefer “quiet gestures” when speaking. Furthermore, the left hand is con-
sidered unclean in India and the Arab world, and it is strictly taboo to eat with it.
U.S. Americans occupy the middle position in their use of nonverbal illustrators—­
somewhere between the southern Europeans and the northern Europeans.
Regulators include the use of vocalics, kinesics (especially nonverbal gestures and
head movements), and oculesics to regulate the pacing and flow of the conversation.
Next to emblems, regulators are considered culture-­specific nonverbal behaviors. They
are also the most rule-­governed kinesic behaviors. They act as nonverbal traffic signs
that control the flow and pauses of conversations.
For example, in international business negotiations, Brazilians have been found to
interrupt conversations twice as much as either Japanese or U.S. Americans. Japanese
negotiators tend to use silence most, U.S. Americans a moderate amount, and Bra-
zilian negotiators almost none at all (Graham, 1985). Like the Brazilians, the French
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 247

are inclined to use interruptions to create “fireworks” in their “serious” conversations,

especially in established relationships. The French interruption–­punctuation pattern
signals “interest in the other’s remark, which merits a commentary, a word of apprecia-
tion, denial, protest, or laughter—­in short, a reaction without which the remark would
‘fall flat.’ The ball is tossed to be caught and tossed back. Where there is no ‘interrup-
tion,’ when each person speaks sedately in turn (as in American conversation, according
to the French), the conversation never ‘takes off’; it remains polite, formal, cold” (Car-
roll, 1987, p. 37). The interruption pattern reflects interaction spontaneity and enthu-
siasm and is a source of stimulation. However, the continuous interruption pattern in
French conversations often baffles U.S. Americans.
Regulators are vocalic and kinesic behaviors that we learn at a very young age and
govern the pacing of our conversation. We use them at a very low level of awareness.
The use of regulators with different rhythms and punctuations often causes intercul-
tural distress and misunderstandings. However, while individuals from contrastive cul-
tures may experience such interaction frustrations, they may not be able to articulate
the reasons for them. Regulators are the most rule-­governed nonverbal interaction cat-
egory, unconsciously reflecting the norms of the larger culture.
Additionally, vocal segregates such as hai, hai in Japanese and uhhuh in Eng-
lish can be classified as nonverbal regulatory devices. For the Japanese, vocal pause-­
filler cues such as hai, hai mean “I’m hearing you”; however, for Westerners, the lit-
eral translation of hai is “yes.” Intercultural misunderstanding can easily occur when,
for instance, Westerners think the Japanese have actually signaled “yes” to a contract
agreement by saying hai, hai, while the Japanese think they have merely acknowledged
hearing the speaker’s statement.
Moreover, changing body posture, using terminating gestures, and breaking off eye
contact are some examples of turn-­yielding cues in typical U.S. conversations. Within
the U.S. culture, however, ethnic groups such as African American, European Ameri-
can, Latino/a American, and Asian immigrant groups have been found to follow dif-
ferent eye contact norms in regulating conversations. For example, African Americans
often maintain eye contact when speaking but break it off when listening; European
Americans do the opposite: they tend to break off eye contact when speaking and main-
tain it when listening (Adams & Nelson, 2016; LaFrance & Mayo, 1978). Interethnic
expectancy violations occur when African Americans expect European Americans to
look them in the eyes when speaking but instead receive “nonresponsiveness” or “indif-
ference” cues. European Americans may view the direct eye gaze during speaking as
“confrontational” or “aggressive.” Of the four groups, Latino/a Americans appear to
engage in more intense and prolonged eye contact during conversations than do Euro-
pean American, African American, and Asian immigrant groups, in that order. Fur-
thermore, Asian immigrants and Native Americans have been taught to show respect,
especially when conversing with elderly or high-­status persons, by averting eye contact
(i.e., in order to signal self-­effacing status). Status position, gender role, and situational
norms strongly influence the various uses of nonverbal cues. In addition, factors such
as perceived ingroup versus outgroup interaction, as well as conversational topics and
248 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

goals, may greatly influence what kind of eye contact is appropriate in a particular
sociocultural scene. Within a pluralistic society, we should pay mindful attention to
the ethnic diversity of nonverbal communication styles in conjunction with the verbal
speech acts that are being conveyed and decoded.
Finally, adaptors—nonverbal habits or gestures that are reactions to internal or
external stimuli—­are used to satisfy psychological or physical needs. Some are learned
within a culture (such as covering the mouth when we cough or blowing the nose using
a handkerchief), and others are more automatic (such as scratching an itch). Most are
not intended to communicate a message. However, some of these habits can be con-
sidered rude in the context of another culture (e.g., chewing gum in public in France;
pointing a finger in the Arab world, which is considered a rude gesture; and winking,
which may be considered an insult or a sexual proposition in India and Pakistan). Using
adaptors in the wrong context or at the wrong time can create great distress and confu-
sion in cultural strangers who are unaccustomed to them.

Impression Formation and Attraction

When we manage our impressions on the nonverbal level, we are concerned with creat-
ing a favorable impression in the presence of others so that they can either be attracted
to us or at least find us credible. Impression formation and interpersonal attraction are
closely intertwined. Perceived physical attractiveness has been consistently associated
with positive impression formation. Cultural values and norms, however, influence the
implicit criteria we hold for what constitutes perceived attractiveness or unattractive-
ness.
Research in the United States, for example, indicates that physical appearance
is closely associated with perceived attractiveness. Perceived attractiveness, in turn,
is closely related to perceived desirable personality characteristics such as appearing
more sensitive, kind, sociable, pleasant, likable, and interesting than those who are per-
ceived as unattractive (Dion, 1986; Patzer, 1985). Attractive people are also evaluated
as more competent and intelligent in the United States (Ross & Ferris, 1981).
In comparing U.S. and Japanese perceptions of attractiveness, U.S. college stu-
dents consistently rate smiling faces (both American and Japanese faces) as more
attractive, intelligent, and sociable than neutral faces. Although Japanese students rate
smiling faces as more sociable than neutral faces, they evaluate neutral faces as more
intelligent. Additionally, Japanese students do not perceive smiling faces as being more
attractive than neutral faces (Matsumoto & Kudoh, 1993).
In terms of the perceived credibility aspect, facial composure and body posture
appear to influence our judgments of whether individuals appear to be credible (i.e.,
have high social influence power) or not credible (i.e., have low social influence power).
In some Asian cultures (e.g., South Korea and Japan), influential people tend to main-
tain restrained facial expressions and postural rigidity. In the U.S. culture, however,
relaxed facial expressions and posture are associated with credibility and giving posi-
tive impressions (Burgoon et al., 1996).
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 249

Overall, we can conclude that perceived attractiveness and credibility are two cul-
turally laden phenomena whose meaning reflects social agreements that are created
and sustained through cultural nonverbal practices.

Space and Time Across Cultures

Space and time are boundary-­regulation and identity-­protection issues because we, as
humans, are territorial animals. Our primary identities are tied closely to our claimed
territories. When our territories (e.g., extending from our home down to our personal
space) are “invaded,” our identities perceive threats and experience emotional vulner-
ability. Protective territory or sacred space satisfies our needs for security, trust, inclu-
sion, connection, and stability. In this section, we consider the following three themes:
interpersonal spatial boundary regulation, environmental boundary regulation, and
temporal regulation.

Interpersonal Spatial Boundary Regulation ranh gioi khong gian giua cac ca nhan
Interpersonal spatial boundary regulation can be discussed in relation to two nonver-
bal classification systems: proxemics and haptics.

Proxemics
Proxemic studies examine the functions and regulation of interpersonal space in dif-
ferent cultures. Claiming a space for oneself means injecting one’s sense of identity or
selfhood into a place. For instance, we often use object markers such as books, coats,
and umbrellas to “mark” or “claim” our favorite chair or table in a classroom or library.
According to Hall’s (1966) proxemic theory, the use of interpersonal space or
distance helps individuals regulate intimacy by controlling sensory exposure. Hall
observes that middle-­class European Americans typically use four spatial distances: (1)
intimate distance—from body contact to 18 inches, a distance for lovemaking, comfort-
ing, whispering secrets, and the like; (2) personal distance—from 18 inches to 4 feet, a
distance that enables personal to casual conversations while people carry an invisible
“space bubble” surrounding them; (3) social distance—from 4 to 12 feet, a distance
reserved for formal business transactions or formal social interaction; and (4) public
distance—from 12 to 25 feet, a suitable distance for public lectures or performances.
Intercultural irritations most often occur in defining what constitutes intimate space as
opposed to personal space.
From an intergroup perspective, what constitutes appropriate personal distance
for one cultural group can be perceived as crowding by another group. The average
conversational distance or personal space for European Americans is approximately 20
inches. For some Latin American and Caribbean cultural groups (e.g., Costa Ricans,
Puerto Ricans, Bahamians, and Jamaicans), however, the average personal space is
250 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

approximately 14–15 inches. For the Saudi, the ideal conversational distance is approxi-
mately 9–10 inches (Ferraro, 1990). On the one hand, when Arabs overstep the personal
space boundary of European Americans, they are often considered “rude” and “intru-
sive.” On the other hand, Arab negotiators frequently find European Americans to be
“aloof,” “cold,” and “standoffish.” Personal space often serves as a “hidden dimension”
of intercultural misunderstanding and discomfort (Hall, 1966). Personal space is our
unconscious protective territory that we carry around with us and deem sacred, non-
violable, and non-­negotiable. The experience of spaciousness and crowdedness and the
perception of space violation and space respect vary from culture to culture.
The key mediating variable appears to be associated with the need for sensory
exposure and contact in different cultures. Sensory exposure means the need for tactile
(touch) and olfactory (smell) modes of communication. People in high-­contact cultures
appear to have high tactile and olfactory needs in their communication process with
others; those in low-­contact cultures appear to have more visual needs than the other
two needs (Hall, 1966).
People in cultures favoring high sensory exposure require much personal contact.
The French, Italians, Latin Americans, Russians, Arabs, and Africans are members
of high-­contact cultures. U.S. Americans, Canadians, northern Europeans, New Zea-
landers, and Australians are members of moderate-­contact cultures, as are, to a lesser
degree, Germans and Danes. In contrast, people in cultures favoring low sensory expo-
sure require little personal contact. East Asians such as Chinese, Japanese, and Kore-
ans are members of low-­contact cultures (Barnlund, 1975; Hall, 1976; Matsumoto et
al., 2016).
In a high-­contact culture, communicators face one another directly, often look one
another in the eye, interact closely with one another, often touch one another, and
speak in a rather loud voice. In contrast, in a low-­contact culture, interactants face one
another more indirectly, interact with a wider space between them, engage in little
or no touching, prefer indirect eye glances, and speak in a soft-to-­moderate tone of
voice (Watson, 1970). People in moderate-­contact cultures have a mixture of both high-­
contact and low-­contact nonverbal interaction characteristics. Anderson (1997) argues
that high-­contact cultures tend to be located in warmer climates or regions, whereas
low-­contact cultures tend to be located in cooler areas. He concludes that cultures in
warmer climates tend to be more socioemotionally oriented than task oriented, and
cultures in cooler climates tend to be more task oriented than socioemotional oriented.
A possible explanation is that survival in warmer climates is far less dependent on task
collaboration: people can focus more on sensual pleasures and touch, and enjoy one
another more on the socioemotional level. In extremely cold climates, however, human
survival depends on the development of task solutions to solve climatic problems.
Beyond climate, many factors, of course, influence the use of interaction space
and touch behaviors. For example, in testing the proxemic theory of sensory exposure,
researchers examined the use of personal distance in Japanese, Venezuelan, and U.S.
American students. Results indicate that (1) when speaking their native languages,
Japanese students sit further apart than do Venezuelan students, with U.S. American
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 251

students sitting at an intermediate distance; (2) females tend to sit closer together than
males do in all three groups; and (3) when speaking English, students from Japan and
Venezuela use personal distances that more closely approximate U.S. American spatial
distance norms (Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982). While Venezuela has been identified as
a high-­contact culture, the United States has been deemed a moderate-­contact culture,
and Japan a low-­contact culture. Apparently, individuals conversing in their native lan-
guage trigger a broader package of culturally appropriate behaviors.
Other research indicates that the Japanese prefer greater interaction distances
with their professors, friends, and fathers than do Japanese Americans in Hawaii and
European Americans on the U.S. mainland (Engebretson & Fullman, 1972). Nonver-
bal studies also reveal that while African American children exhibit closer interaction
distances than do European American children, by the fifth grade these differences
are minimized (e.g., Halberstadt, 1991; Scherer, 1994). By age 16, however, African
Americans tend to maintain greater conversational distances with adolescent European
Americans than with adolescents of their own race. Latino(a) Americans tend to inter-
act at closer distances than do European Americans or African Americans.
In terms of spatial violation behavior, several studies suggest that members of indi-
vidualistic cultures generally take an active, aggressive stance when their space is vio-
lated, whereas members of collectivistic cultures assume a passive, withdrawal stance
when their personal space is invaded (Gudykunst & Ting-­Toomey, 1988). Cultural val-
ues, language usage, gender difference, age, and context are all key factors to watch for
in attempting to understand the complex proxemic behaviors in different cultures.

Haptics
Haptic studies investigate the perceptions, functions, and meanings of touch behavior
as communication in different cultures. Different cultures encode and interpret touch
behavior in different ways. Touch is used to fulfill five communicative functions: (1)
ritualistic interaction such as shaking hands or bowing; (2) expression of affect such as
kissing and kicking; (3) playfulness such as flirtatious stroking and poking; (4) a control
function such as grabbing someone’s arm; and (5) a task-­related function such as a nurse
taking a patient’s pulse at the wrist (Jones & Yarborough, 1985).
Different cultures have different expectations as to who can touch whom in differ-
ent interaction scenes (Andersen, Hecht, Hoobler, & Smallwood, 2002). For example,
while Chinese view opposite-­sex handshakes as acceptable, for Malays and Arabs they
are taboo. Furthermore, different cultures uphold different gender norms for embrac-
ing and handholding. The friendly full embrace between males or friendly arm link
pattern between them is much more acceptable in many Latin American cultures than
in Britain or the United States. The friendly handholding pattern between two females
in many Asian cultures is also common nonverbal practice (Barnlund, 1975). As Nydell
(1987) observes, “In general, Arabs tend to stand and sit closer and to touch other people
(of the same sex) more than Westerners do. It is common to see two men or two women
holding hands as they walk down a street, which is simply a sign of friendship” (p. 44).
252 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

Arab and Western cultures differ considerably with regard to the nonverbal norms
of haptics. These norms, however, are often out of their conscious awareness. The ten-
dency for North Americans to remain outside the appropriate haptic zone of Arabs often
leads the Arabs to suspect the speakers’ intentions. Arabs tend to see such distancing
nonverbal acts as “insincere” and “cold.” Conversely, the Arab need for close contact
often constitutes a violation of the personal space and privacy of most North Americans,
who tend to consider such nonverbal intrusive acts as “aggressive” and “belligerent.”
Comparative haptic studies on touch behaviors in Latin American cultures and
U.S. and Canadian cultures also indicate that Latino(a)s tend to engage in more fre-
quent touch behaviors than do U.S. Americans and Canadians (Engebretson & Fullman,
1972; Mayo & LaFrance, 1977; Shuter, 1976). It is important to remember, however,
that touch behaviors in both Arab and Latin American cultures are usually confined to
same-sex rather than opposite-­sex touching. Furthermore, while Latin Americans and
southern Europeans view kissing and hugging as spontaneous expressions of their posi-
tive feelings, many Asian cultures do not subscribe to such overt display of affection.
The French, for example, like to kiss acquaintances on both cheeks. In comparison,
Britons practice “vacuum kisses,” not actual kisses.
Different cultures uphold different standards and expectations concerning the
amount of touching permitted, the areas of the body that can properly be touched, and
whom one should or should not touch. Finally, the rules of appropriate and inappropri-
ate touch behaviors are much more stringent in collectivistic cultures than in individu-
alistic cultures for reasons such as power distance and gender factor.

Environmental Boundary Regulation

Environmental boundary regulation is discussed here in two parts: physical boundary
regulation and psychological boundary regulation.

Physical Boundary Regulation

Our claimed primary territories (e.g., homes, farms, and community properties) offer us
a sense of security, interaction trust or predictability, and inclusion. Primary territories
are places that are central to our lives and that elicit a strong emotional attachment for
us; secondary territories are places such as neighborhood markets or bars to which we
feel less connected (Altman & Chemers, 1980).
How people define primary and secondary territories can be culturally and subjec-
tively based. For some people, a neighborhood bar may be their second home or “turf,”
and hence would be the primary territory they would defend from outsiders. Concepts
of territory and identity are intertwined because we usually invest lots of time, effort,
emotion, and self-worth in places that we claim as our primary territories. Our home
territory or immediate environment exerts a strong influence on our everyday lives.
Lewin (1936), for example, focuses on the importance of environment in influ-
encing human behavior. He introduces the following formula for human behavior:
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 253

B = f(P, E), where B is behavior, P is person, and E is environment. Simply put, Lewin
believes that human behavior is defined by the persons interacting as well as the envi-
ronment in which the communication takes place. For example, the middle-­class home
environment in Canada and the United States is very different from that in many Latin
American and Asian countries.
In the United States, for example, the middle-­class home environment typically is
separated from the community at large by fences with gates and by yards with lawns in
the front and back. In essence, it reflects individualistic values such as privacy. In con-
trast, in Mexico, the middle-­class home environment is developed in such a way that
the architectural design of the house is integrated with that of a central plaza, which
may contain a community center and a church. It appears to reflect collectivistic values
such as group-based interaction.
Overall, North American homes often symbolize the desire of the owners to assert
their individual identities and separate themselves from one another. They create
boundaries through the use of gates, lawns, living rooms, separate bedrooms, private
bathrooms, and many locks. Similarly, Hall (1983) observes that in Germany homes,
like offices, have heavy soundproof doors and double locks. In Germany, it is considered
rude to enter someone’s room without knocking. Elaborate laws also govern German
gardens such that trees must be planted at a prescribed distance without shading the
neighbor’s property (i.e., not even a shadow may intrude on the other’s garden). In
Norwegian homes, in comparison, the use of high shrubbery, trees, fences, and large
carved doors shield the homes from public sight. While both Germans and Norwegians
cherish privacy, it is protected and expressed differently in the two cultures.
Furthermore, different cultural assumptions are attached to the diverse ways
guests or outsiders should be entertained: at home versus in public places. For example,
in some Asian cultures such as China, Korea, and Japan, the proper way to entertain
guests is in a formal restaurant, because of self-­effacement cultural values (i.e., home
is a humble habitat for the family). In contrast, many Arabs, like U.S. Americans and
Canadians, do not mind entertaining guests in their homes. The difference is that while
many Arab homes reserve a specific formal room (with exquisite heirlooms and fur-
nishings) to entertain guests and the guests may not see any other part of the house
(until the relationship is trusted), many American hosts may take their guests on a tour
around the entire house before settling in. In many Arab homes, separate quarters are
reserved for male and female activities.
Interestingly, in many traditional Japanese homes, families and close friends usu-
ally sit in a multipurpose room to chat, eat, and drink. Traditional Japanese homes do
not make clear distinctions between the living room, dining room, and bedroom. Thus,
it is critical for friends to remove their shoes before entering the multipurpose space,
the floor of which is covered with straw mats, or tatami. Unlike their living and dining
rooms, Japanese make a strong distinction between the bathroom (ofuro), used solely
for bathing, and the toilet room (otearai). From their cultural perspective, to mix up
bathing (a cleaning function) and toileting (a dirtying function) is against their code of
civility and personal hygiene.
254 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

To put it simply, many individualistic cultures foster personal identity-­type home

environments, whereas many collectivistic cultures encourage communal-­type home
settings. In our early childhood homes, we all unconsciously acquire our cultural norms
teaching us how to deal with space and boundary issues through social roles, furniture
arrangements, and the proper interaction etiquettes to be performed in each room.

Psychological Boundary Regulation

On the psychological level, privacy regulation refers to the selective monitoring of clos-
edness and openness or access to the self or to one’s group (Altman, 1975; Petronio,
2002, 2010). Intrapersonal space refers to the need for information privacy or psycho-
logical quietness between the self and others. While privacy regulation is a major con-
cern in many Western social environments, the issue may not be seen as very critical in
many collectivistic cultures. In fact, the concept of privacy carries heavily negative con-
notations in many collectivistic cultures. For example, the Chinese words that closely
correspond to the concept “privacy” are “secretive” and “selfishness,” both of which
have heavy pejorative meanings. This is not to say that Chinese do not need personal
privacy or space. It just implies that many Chinese believe that relational intercon-
nection should override the importance of personal privacy in everyday interactions.
Moreover, population density and crowded environmental conditions make it virtually
impossible for people in many Asian countries (e.g., China, India, Indonesia, and Japan)
to maintain personal privacy or interpersonal space.
Similarly, for many Arab cultures, the concept of privacy is baffling at best because
in translation the Arabic word that comes closest to the concept of “privacy” means
“loneliness” (Nydell, 1996, p. 29). The following example illustrates the Arab construc-
tion of the meaning of “privacy”: When an exhausted American guest, after 3 hours of
partying and loud music, decided to step onto the balcony for some fresh air, her wor-
ried Cairo host immediately followed after her and asked, “Is anything wrong? Are you
angry at someone?” (Nydell, 1996, p. 30).
Drawing from the integrated identity negotiation theory presented in Chapter 2,
to the extent that we perceive territorial safety, we feel comfortable in our interac-
tion with others. To the extent that we perceive identity threat, we build up defenses
through physical or symbolic means. Spatial regulation is indeed a powerful means of
marking ingroup and outgroup boundaries, and of differentiating “self” from “others”
in diverse intergroup contact settings.

Temporal Regulation
Temporal regulation is reflective of our spiritual, relational, and task-­oriented attitudes
toward the time frame in which communication is taking place. In many cultures, peo-
ple use traditional calendars called almanacs. For example, Chinese, Vietnamese, and
Tibetans use lunar calendars to celebrate New Year. Lunar calendars are also used
for scheduling many important events in life such as child’s hair-­cutting ceremony,
enthronement of leaders, engagements and weddings, and funeral rites. All of these
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 255

events are spiritually significant times in peoples’ lives and are regulated according to
the lunar calendar. Time is not necessarily linear in these cultures.
The study of time is referred to as the study of chronemics. Chronemics concerns
how people in different cultures structure, interpret, and understand the time dimen-
sion. Our developmental identities (i.e., at different age-­linked stages) are closely tied
in with the sense of time. Our conceptions of birth, development, aging, and death are
related to consciousness of the time dimension. Our religious or spiritual beliefs, in
terms of where the universe begins and ends and where life begins and ends, are also
two temporal-­related worldview questions.
On the cultural-­specific level, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) value orientation
of time indicates that some cultures (e.g., many African cultures) emphasize the past–­
present time continuum, whereas other cultures emphasize the future time continuum
(e.g., Australia, Canada, and the United States). Cultural temporal patterns designate
when and how we should start the day and when we should eat, work, play, sleep, even
die, and reincarnate.
Hall (1983) distinguishes two patterns of time that govern different cultures: the
monochronic time schedule (M-time) and the polychronic time schedule (P-time).
According to Hall and Hall (1987), the M-time and P-time are empirically quite dis-
tinct: people in M-time cultures pay attention to clock time and do one thing at a time;
people in P-time adhere to relational time and may be involved in many simultaneous
activities (see Table 8.1).
For Hall and Hall (1987), the United States, Germany, and Switzerland repre-
sent classic examples of M-time cultures. Time is linearly segmented into hours, min-
utes, and seconds, and people in these cultures attach importance to scheduling almost
everything following the monochronic time concept. If workers, students, patients, and
meeting participants do not follow their scheduled times, they are marked down for
being disrespectful, rude, and tardy.

TABLE 8.1. Characteristics of Monochronic and Polychronic Time

Monochronic time Polychronic Time
Clock time Situational time
Appointment time Flextime
Segmented activities Simultaneous activities
Task-oriented Relationship-oriented
Achievement tempos Experiential tempos
Future-focused Past/Present-focused
Tangible outcome perspective Historical perspective
256 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

For Hall and Hall (1987), Arab, African, Latin American, Asian, and Mediter-
ranean cultures are representatives of P-time patterns. Time is relational and not nec-
essarily dictated by the moving hands of a clock or a watch. People in these cultures
attach importance to relationship and context following the polychronic time concept.
For example, according to Pennington (1990), for many Africans, time is viewed in the
context of establishing a complexity of balanced relationships. Time is used to establish
a relationship with the Supreme Being, a relationship of continuity between the pres-
ent and past generations, a relationship with nature and the forces of one’s environment
(nature), and to create group harmony and participation among the living. This sense of
temporal synchronization and group connectedness can be seen in the performing arts
of Africans, such as dance and drumming. Time for traditional Africans is an emergent
experiential process and cannot be marked or separated as discrete, mechanical, and
segmentational elements.
People who follow M-time patterns usually engage in one activity at a time. They
compartmentalize time schedules to serve personal identity needs, and they separate
task-­oriented time from socioemotional time. For M-time people, time is a tangible
commodity. People who follow P-time, however, tend to engage in multiple activities
at the same time (e.g., in China, doctors may simultaneously treat their patients while
talking with visiting relatives about unrelated medical topics). P-time people hold more
fluid attitudes toward time schedules and appointments, and they blend socioemotional
need with task accomplishment. For P-time individuals, time is a relational rather than
a clock time issue (Ting-­Toomey, 1994a, 1994b; Tung, 1994).
Members of individualistic cultures generally follow the M-time pattern, whereas
members of collectivistic cultures follow the P-time pattern. Members of individualistic
cultures view time as something that can be controlled and arranged, whereas mem-
bers of collectivistic cultures view time as experientially based (i.e., living and expe-
riencing time fully rather than monitoring clock time mechanically). Individualistic
M-time members emphasize the value of time as an outcome accomplishment concept,
while collectivistic P-time members stress the value of time as a rapport-­building and
trust-­building process concept.
Beyond M-time and P-time, Hall (1959) also differentiates five time zones for
arriving late for appointments in accordance with European American reflections: (1)
mumble something time (5–10 minutes late, approximately); (2) slight apology time (10–
15 minutes late); (3) mildly insulting or serious apology time (15–30 minutes late); (4)
rude time (30–45 minutes late); and (5) downright insulting time (45–60 minutes late).
For people who follow M-time schedules stringently (e.g., many northern Europeans
and European Americans), their working unit of time is the 5-minute block. If they
are 5-minutes late for an appointment, they mumble something. If they are 15 minutes
late—a block of time representing three significant units—they are expected to make a
slight apology. If they are 30 minutes late, they are expected to offer a serious apology
with a persuasive reason for their lateness.
For other cultures, such as some Arab and Latin American cultures, a historical
time perspective is important. Arab culture, for example, has a 6,000-year history, and
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 257

many Arabs will “address the historical aspects of a situation before addressing the
current issue. The working unit of time for many Arabs is also a much larger block of
time than that of European Americans—­about 15 minutes” (Cushner & Brislin, 1996,
p. 285). Thus, if Arab visitors are 30 minutes late, their mind-set may indicate “2 units”
of delay time. They may not even “mumble something” to express an apology, especially
when the reason concerns taking care of family or kinship affairs. They will expect
understanding from those who are waiting for them. The Arabic word ma’alish means
“never mind, or it doesn’t matter . . . it’s not that serious. You will hear this said fre-
quently when someone has had a delay, a disappointment, or an unfortunate experi-
ence. . . . Arabs often react to adversity with resignation and, to some extent, an accep-
tance of their fate” (Nydell, 1996, p. 71).
In sum, individualistic cultures are clock time oriented and short-term goal ori-
ented. Collectivistic cultures are relationally oriented in their time attitude and histori-
cally oriented in terms of long-term goal planning. Individualists tend to protect their
individual identity via exacting use of clock time, and collectivists mark their commu-
nal identities by treating time from a relational standpoint. Intercultural frictions occur
frequently because people in different cultures have different time orientations.
A synergistic, common ground can be developed by individuals following contras-
tive M-time and P-time schedules for appointments. On the one hand, M-time people
can learn to establish a wider window of appointment time (e.g., “I’ll wait for you from
11:00 to 11:30”) or deadline schedule (e.g., “The delivery date is between Wednesday
and Friday”). On the other hand, P-time people learn to honor deadlines because of
such flextime orientation from the other parties. Thinking outside of our culturally (or
personally) ingrained chronemic habit boxes can facilitate flexible and attuning man-
agement of time, identity, relationship, and communication.

Interpersonal Synchrony, Deception and Deviance,

and Nonverbal Cautions

Three areas that give us additional insights into the nonverbal dynamics between peo-
ple from the same or different cultures are: interpersonal interactive synchrony, decep-
tion and deviance, and nonverbal cautions.

Interpersonal Interactive Synchrony

Interpersonal synchronization is needed to function appropriately and effectively
within and between cultures. Interpersonal synchronization creates conjoint relational
satisfaction and supportive rapport. According to Hall (1983), interpersonal synchrony
refers to convergent rhythmic movements between two people on both verbal and non-
verbal levels. Every facet of human behavior is involved in the rhythmic process. As
Hall asserts, “It can now be said with assurance that individuals are dominated in their
behavior by complex hierarchies of interlocking rhythms” (p. 153). Based on kinesic and
258 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

proxemic film research, results indicate that interpersonal synchronization between

individuals within the same culture displays an incredible mirroring effect. The pro-
cess appears rhythmic, and the individuals are locked together in a “dance” that func-
tions almost totally out of awareness.
Hall (1983) observes that people in African and Latin American cultures seem to
be more conscious of these rhythmic movements than are people in northern Euro-
pean, U.S., and Canadian cultures. African Americans’ habitual use of the call and
response pattern on both verbal and nonverbal levels has often led to miscommunica-
tion with European Americans, who do not use the pattern. African Americans infer
from the absence of a response that “the Whites to whom they are speaking are not
listening. White speakers tend to infer from the various responses like ‘Dig it!’ or ‘I hear
you!’ which Blacks consider necessary and appropriate interpolations . . . as that Blacks
are constantly interrupting them” (Kochman, 1990, p. 199; emphasis in original).
Furthermore, collectivists appear to have a higher need to fully complete the
rhythmic pattern of a conversational episode (i.e., beginning, middle, and ending action
chains) than do individualists. An action chain is defined as a rhythmic sequence of
events in which people alternately “release appropriate responses in each other in order
to achieve an agreed-­upon or predictable goal. The steps or links in the chain . . . vary
from culture to culture” (Hall & Hall, 1987, p. 183). For example, it often takes Arabs a
longer time to complete a nonverbal greeting ritual, to display hospitality, to introduce
a topic, to maintain a topic, and to end a conversation. All these greeting activities must
be accomplished before the host and the visiting guest can be fully satisfied with the
entire initial interaction.
In contrast, individualists (e.g., from Australia and Canada) have a relatively low
need to complete an action chain on the nonverbal level. Whatever members of indi-
vidualistic cultures do not accomplish on the nonverbal level, they can rely on words
to complete the interaction ritual. However, for collectivists, nonverbal rhythm is an
intangible but important aspect of interaction. This is because “nature’s cycles are
rhythmic, and it is understandable that rhythm and tempo are distinguishing features
of any culture. Rhythm ties the people of a culture together and can also alienate them
from members of other cultures” (Hall & Hall, 1987, p. 18).
Interpersonal synchrony or convergence is achieved when the nonverbal behavior
between two individuals moves toward smoothness, responsiveness, and spontaneity.
Interpersonal divergence occurs when the nonverbal behavior between two individuals
moves toward difficulty, rigidity, and awkwardness. Interpersonal synchrony signifies
increased rapport and trust, whereas interpersonal divergence signifies increased dis-
tance and mistrust. Deception and deviance often cause interpersonal divergence and
identity challenges.

Deception and Deviance

Deception and deviance are pervasive in human interactions because they are related
to self-­presentation and impression formation. Importantly, deception and deviance are
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 259

both enacted and detected through communicative symbols, especially nonverbal cues.
Most scholars (e.g., Buller & Burgoon, 1994; Ekman, 1985; Zuckerman, De Paul, &
Rosenthal, 1981) agree that deception is intentionally concealing the truth and mislead-
ing others by projecting false impressions and beliefs. Imposters pose identity chal-
lenges in interactions. For example, con artists project the false impression that they are
rich and famous by dressing up the part and faking high-­status identities. Demeanor
bias (Frank & Ekman, 2004a, 2004b) enables frauds to give the appearance of sincerity,
trustworthiness, and honesty. While there are relatively few con artists and imposters
in the general human population, there are many more deviants.
Deviance is not synonymous with deception. It can be defined in various ways.
Sociologists have mostly defined deviating from or violating a basic norm in a negative
fashion (Goode, 2001), and many of them regard deviance and stigma as conceptual
twins. However, some social psychologists have defined deviance positively in terms
of behaviors, attitudes, and attributes that exceed normative expectations and lead to
favorable evaluations (Heckert & Heckert, 2002). Positive deviants include overachiev-
ers, innovators, and super athletes. From the sociocultural perspective, deception and
deviance may be perceived differently depending on normative expectations.
For example, with regard to the dress code and acceptable behavior for attending
funerals as family members, Cambodian and mainstream Americans differ in terms of
normative expectations. While Cambodians traditionally dress all in white to mourn
death and honor the deceased with beautiful flower wreaths and prayers, mainstream
Americans usually dress in black clothes to respect those who have passed away. Vio-
lating these funeral norms in each culture may be regarded as deviant, and others
may react to them negatively. Overall, we know little about the influence of culture on
deception and deviance. That said, people look for ways to detect deception.
Research shows that people attend to nonverbal cues to detect deception (Hen-
ningsen, Valde, & Davies, 2005; Lock, 2004). When a mismatch occurs between ver-
bal and nonverbal messages, people tend to place greater trust in nonverbal messages.
Ekman (2003) proposed that within the kinesic channel, facial cues are least likely to
leak truthful information because deceivers will attempt to mindfully control macro-
and micro-­facial expressions. Yet, people pay closer attention to face than to body and
voice, which are two nonverbal channels that are most likely to leak information about
deception (Burgoon, Guerrero, & Floyd, 2010). Some past studies indicate that the
facial expression of contempt (i.e., the use of a tightening and slight raising of the corner
of one’s lips as often expressed by former vice president, Dick Cheney) can reflect a
universal encoded and decoded facial emotion (Ekman & Heider, 1988).
Intelligence gatherers use polygraphs and body scanners among other tools to
detect deception. Even nonverbal experts find it difficult to detect deception (Vrij, 2004,
2006). Overall, successfully detecting deception depends on multiple factors, includ-
ing attending to reliable cues rather than stereotypical ones (Mann, Vrij, & Bull, 2004).
More importantly, to be an astute nonverbal deception decoder, an individual needs
to know his or her partner’s baseline nonverbal styles confidently and then become a
mindful “noticer or detective” to catch any micro-­fleeting deviant expressions leaking
260 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

from the body or voice tone or micro-­facial level. In the intercultural interaction realm,
it is also vital to have deep knowledge about the cultural baseline norms of nonverbal
expressiveness versus nonverbal suppressions in order to be considered a savvy nonver-
bal cultural detective. Intercultural and intergroup stereotyping has a homogenizing
effect on understanding the complexity of the relationship among nonverbal gestures,
situational enactments, and larger cultural norms—as this view minimizes or even
ignores within-­culture variations on multiple levels. Thus, a few words of caution are
in order.

Nonverbal Cautions
We need to be mindful of exploring intercultural nonverbal differences. Intercultural
scholars often focus more on “differences” than on “similarities,” and in the process
we exaggerate differences among cultures and downplay their similarities. However,
we caution here that while cultural differences exert a strong influence on nonver-
bal patterns across cultures, tremendous within-­culture variations also exist in any
given system. Unfortunately, within-­culture variants are often glossed over in favor of
between-­culture interactional differences. Thus, the following three factors should be
given serious consideration when interpreting any nonverbal behaviors across cultures
(Burgoon et al., 1996, pp. 216–217):

1. Overgeneralization. Variations within entire cultures, subcultures, age groups,

genders, regions, or personality types are enormous. Within-­culture differ-
ences are often glossed over, thereby creating a cultural homogeneity effect.
2. Mythical “average person.” The “average person” of a culture is a hypothetical
construct. It must be remembered that group norms represent an amalgama-
tion of characteristics possessed by a majority of individuals. The phrase “a
majority of individuals” is a projective statistic or a generalized image of what
is going on in a culture based on selective empirical data.
3. Viewing cultural norms as static. Just as people constantly change over a life-
time, norms associated with various classes of people in different cultures also
change. Thus, nonverbal identity markers and nonverbal behaviors are subject
to change based on a variety of group membership and personal identity fac-
tors.

In attempting to understand within-­culture and across-­culture nonverbal varia-

tions, interpersonal sensitivity, respect, and patience in dealing with such differences
serve as a good first step in gaining nonverbal entrance to a culture.
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 261

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

C ommunication is not only about what we actually say (content meaning or report
talk) to each other in various contexts, but also about how we say (relational mean-
ing or rapport, paralinguistic to nonlinguistic expressions) something when we utter
the message and with what hand gestures, body postures, shoulder shrug orientations,
and proxemic distance, and how it is actually being interpreted. In fact, research on
nonverbal communication indicates that the larger part of everyday communication
is nonverbal or nonlinguistic. In this chapter, we started with a discussion of three
perspectives on nonverbal communication—­the bioevolutionary, sociocultural, and
neurocultural—­to understand both the universality and specificity of the nonverbal
communication system. Then, we further discussed various nonverbal functions such as
reflecting and managing identities, expressing emotions and attitudes, managing every-
day conversations, and forming initial impression and attraction. Informed primarily by
the sociocultural perspective, we extensively discussed nonverbal cues and display rules
across cultures. We also discussed the spatial regulation of physical and psychological
boundaries and the temporal regulation of monochronic and polychronic time rhythms
across cultures. Finally, we discussed interpersonal verbal and nonverbal synchroniza-
tion as well as deception and deviance. Importantly, we noted that when a discrepancy
exists between words and nonverbal expressions, we largely decode the message based
primarily on nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, paralinguistic tone of voice, and
bodily postures and gestures because nonverbal cues tend to leak perceived credible
message. We also cautioned that intercultural scholars often overemphasize cultural
differences between and across cultures while minimizing within-­culture variations
for both verbal and nonverbal messages. In this regard, to communicate mindfully on
the intercultural nonverbal message exchange level, individuals should learn to do the
following:

1 Identify the appropriate nonverbal display rules in different cultures. They

have to use a situational analysis approach in patiently observing the matching
of social role identities, the status of performers, intimacy distance, social expec-
tations, norms, scripts, topical exchange emphasis, conversational goals, props,
proper language “tonal” usage, and appropriate nonverbal behaviors—­all in par-
ticular situations.

2 Understand the cultural values and attributions that are attached to different
nonverbal norms and rules. Surface understanding of nonverbal differences
does not offer the depth of explanation for day-to-day nonverbal operation in a
given culture.
262 Navigating Intercultural and Intergroup Communication

3 Realize that the fundamental functions and interpretations of any nonverbal

cues are tied closely to identity, emotional expression, conversational manage-
ment, impression formation, and boundary/temporal regulation functions. Under-
standing what nonverbal behavior and cues serve primarily what functions in what
situations will facilitate nonverbal interaction effectiveness.

4 Convey acknowledgment and culture-­sensitive respect in regard to different

nonverbal norms and behaviors in different ethnic and cultural communities.
If individuals do not feel comfortable in nonverbally adapting, at a minimum they
should mindfully monitor their ethnocentric interpretations and evaluations of
“alien” nonverbal patterns (e.g., as arrogant or rude).

5 Deepen the complexities of their understanding of nonverbal behaviors within

each culture along multiple dimensions, such as ethnicity, gender, age, region,
social class, relational variations, language usage, and situations. Different con-
figurations of different dimensions impact the functions and interpretations of non-
verbal cues in different cultural contexts.

6 Use culture-­sensitive perception checking statements. Perception check-

ing skill, especially when they are unsure about the meaning of a nonverbal
behavior, helps individuals make sure they are interpreting the speaker’s nonver-
bal behavior accurately. Perception checking involves the use of clear, perceptual
eyewitness statements and perceptual verification questions. For example, state-
ments such as “From your tired facial expression, I can see that you need a break
right now. Do you?” and “You have a confused look and seems like you want me
to slow down. Should I?” are clear perception checking statements. Perception
checking is part of mindful observation and mindful listening skills.

7 Decoding nonverbal message requires attending to coordinated management

of multiple nonverbal cues in a given context and also in conjunction with
verbal expression. Even nonverbal experts find it challenging to decode decep-
tion cues due to looking at them stereotypically or in isolation from one another
and social context. Allowing for multiple interpretations of nonverbal behavior and
cues is a wise approach for proper decoding of intercultural messages.

Mindful verbal and nonverbal communication requires the application of flexible,

adaptive interaction skills. Appropriate verbal and nonverbal adaptation creates posi-
tive interaction synchrony. Positive interaction synchrony, in the long-run, facilitates
quality intercultural and intergroup relationship development.
 Mindful Intercultural Nonverbal Communication 263

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. Can you analyze the pros and cons of the bioevolutionary perspective versus the
sociocultural perspective? Can you provide some evidence from your everyday
observations to support or refute each perspective?

2. Now that you have read the chapter, as you revisit the opening story, what do you
think about the distinctive nonverbal symbols such as Raakhi and tikka? Have your
reactions to the symbols remained the same, or have they changed. Why? Does
understanding the meanings of such symbols facilitate your evaluation and reactions
to them? In general, cultural and religious symbols tend to be unique and distinc-
tive such as the Jewish faith’s Menorah image, the Islamic faith’s Star and Crescent
image, the Buddhist Dharma Wheel symbol, and many others. How can we accept
and accord due respect to all of these distinctive nonverbal symbols regardless of
being a believer or a nonbeliever?

3. In your daily life, what kind of nonverbal gestures, facial expressions, and paralin-
guistic cues do you think create the most intercultural or intergroup (e.g., intergender
or intergeneration) misunderstandings? How so? Can you think of some concrete
ways to prevent and repair nonverbal misunderstandings? If asked, how would you
design an effective intercultural–­nonverbal training workshop to improve nonverbal
communication competence?

4. What artifacts or nonverbal channels do you tend to emphasize in creating an impor-

tant sociocultural membership identity or personal identity of your choice? Can you
share some specific examples? Do others see you differently when you dramatize
this particular identity through this specific nonverbal channel?

5. Are you a monochronic time schedule (MTS) person or a polychronic time schedule
(PTS) person? Can you argue for both the pluses and minuses of being a MTS or a
PTS person? Can you suggest any creative strategies to reconcile the different inter-
personal time rhythms between you and another family member or a coworker?

6. Can you suggest any fresh directions for future research in the domain of nonverbal
communication across cultures?
PA R T III

Boundary Regulation
and Intercultural–Intergroup
Relationship Development
Processes
 C H A P TE R 9

Understanding Intergroup
Perceptual Filters, Biases,
and Communicative Distance

„„Introduction
„„Social Identity Theory and Its Associated Constructs: A Boundary-­
Regulation Approach
††Intergroup Perception
††Social Identity Theory
††Social Categorization
††Social Comparison
††Ethnocentrism and Communication
††Stereotypes and Communication
„„Intergroup Attribution: A Sense-­Making Process
††Attribution Theory
††Intergroup Attribution Theory
„„Mind-Sets and Communication: Affective and Cognitive Filters
††Perceived Intergroup Threat and Intergroup Biases
††Prejudice and Communication
††Power and Privilege: Discriminatory Practices and Microaggressions
††Reduction of Prejudice and Discrimination
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

A S imple M isunderstanding or R acism?: A Case S tory

I had just finished lunch at the university restaurant with my work colleagues when I
glanced over at the other table. The table was beautifully decorated with rose petals and
fancy packages. The women who were going to be seated were immaculately dressed.

267
268 Boundary Regulation

I could see the couture, Chanel and Gucci. I was curious and walked over to their table.
“Excuse me, your table is so beautiful. I was wondering what the special occasion was?”
One woman, Ms. W. smiled and replied, “We are celebrating friendship day. We do this
every year. By the way, may I have a glass of ice tea, no cubes please?” I was totally
stunned but told her “I am so sorry, I did not introduce myself. I am an Assistant Dean
in the College of Arts and Sciences.” The White woman apologized and ended with, “I
thought you were the Maître D—I mean, the Head Maître D.”
As an African American woman who has worked on this campus for over a decade,
I am still disappointed and somewhat dismayed, that after all of these years, color mat-
ters. It is a daily reminder that I am different. For those who are ignorant (and/or racist),
this is a teaching moment, and for me, these moments keep me grounded and motivate
me to keep being a change agent—with my students and others whom I may encounter
daily.

—Pauline, Assistant Dean

(in Ting-­Toomey & Chung, 2013, p. 158)
Copyright 2013 by Oxford University Press. Reprinted by permission.

Introduction

The scenario described in the opening case story is the classic recipe for perceived
intergroup misunderstanding or intergroup bias. What is your opinion about this story?
On a scale ranging from 1 (misunderstanding) to 10 (racial prejudice), rate the story
and explain why. Can you relate to Ms. W’s communication misstep or blooper? Can
you resonate with Dean Pauline’s disheartening encounter or disappointment? Com-
municating with strangers from other cultural and racial groups involves the interplay
between ingroup and outgroup membership boundaries. It also involves attitudinal
mind-set and heart-set inclusion/rejection issues. We hope that after you have mastered
Chapter 9’s key concepts, you can revisit the opening story with newly found intercul-
tural and intergroup insights—­interpreting the story from multiple identity and group
membership boundary angles. Thus, do pay close attention to concepts such as ethno-
centrism, mindless stereotypes, and power and privilege issues.
As social beings, we all yearn to belong to some groups and to be included and
embraced. From an intergroup perspective, individuals are more likely to experience
anxiety and uncertainty in their interactions with outgroup members (such as differ-
ent cultures, generations, and sexual orientations) than with their ingroup members
(Gudykunst, 2005a, 2005b). This is because when we are dealing with ingroup members
we can use comfortable habitual scripts and predictable interaction styles to communi-
cate. However, with outgroup members, these same scripts and styles may not operate
appropriately and effectively. While experiencing intergroup contact anxiety, we also
need to utilize more cognitive and emotional attentional resources to make interactions
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 269

work. According to anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory (Gudykunst, 2005a,

2005b), to manage anxiety (affective emotional-­mood state) and uncertainty (cognitive
state of mind) effectively in intergroup encounters, mindfulness can serve as a critical
vantage point to guide our intercultural and intergroup communication outlook (see
Chapter 5). Sociocultural group memberships influence our intergroup perceptions,
attributions, intergroup distance and closeness, and interpersonal relationship develop-
ments.
Intergroup interaction is defined by the perceived group membership features out-
weighing the unique personalized features in an initial sociocultural encounter (Giles
et al., 2010). Often, visible sociocultural group membership demographic cues (e.g., skin
color, distinctive physical ethnic markers, age, sex, accents) are perceived more clearly
than any individualized characteristics, thus putting in focus many initial encounters
as intergroup versus interpersonal. Recently, for example, the United States and Cuba
established political and economic bilateral relations (intergroup relations), and Presi-
dent Obama made a historic visit to Cuba. This new relationship is expected to lead to
unprecedented commerce and interactions between these two countries. Interactions
between Cubans and Americans may be intergroup in nature if they are influenced
by their intersecting sociocultural group memberships (e.g., nationality, culture, and
ethnicity); however, their interactions can be interpersonal if they are influenced by
their personal identities. The dynamics of communication can shift drastically when
communicators intentionally shift their evaluations of their intergroup encounter to
an interpersonal one (e.g., through more in-depth personalized sharing), or vice versa
(Giles et al., 2010). Intergroup communication scholars contend that even in interper-
sonal interactions at least 70% of these interactions are highly intergroup in nature
(Giles, 2012). In the absence of expected knowledge and skills, intergroup strangers
have limited norms and rules to guide their initial contact process. They often fall back
to using stereotypes about each other to bolster their behavioral expectancy and their
need for interaction predictability.
Although some of the stereotypes have kernels of truth, many of the group-based
stereotypes are inaccurate and perpetuate further intergroup misunderstandings and
prejudice. An intergroup encounter can be an exhilarating co-­culture learning jour-
ney—­if both cultural members are willing to open their eyes, ears, mind-sets, and
hearts. It can also be an identity-­threatening experience on both group-based and
interpersonal-­based contact levels. Intercultural and intergroup encounter is a testing
ground for both communicators’ needs for certainty or mystery, predictability or risk-­
taking, and being mindless or mindful about the perceptual filters they use in gauging
each other as cultural stranger (B. Pearce, 2005; Pearce, 2012). This chapter explores
the various reasons individuals form stereotypes about each other, make biased attribu-
tions, and engage in intergroup distance discriminatory behaviors.
More specifically, this chapter examines some of the factors that contribute to
ingroup/outgroup mind-sets and shows how these mind-sets affect the perceptual lenses
we use to evaluate an intergroup encounter. In particular, the IINT in conjunction with
social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and intergroup attribution
270 Boundary Regulation

theory are the guiding themes of this chapter. Integrated threat theory (ITT; Stephan
& Stephan, 2001; Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999) is also invoked to explicate how
real or symbolic threat can influence intergroup biases and discrimination.
The chapter is organized in four main sections. First, the core ideas of intergroup
perception and social identity theory, social categorization, and social comparison per-
spectives are presented. Related social identity constructs such as ethnocentrism and
stereotypes are further explored. Second, drawing from social identity theory and the
identity negotiation perspective, intergroup attribution theory is presented. Third,
using critical theory concepts such as power and privilege (see Chapter 2) together with
intergroup–­integrated threat theory, concepts such as prejudice and discrimination,
microaggressions, and productive/unproductive contact conditions are probed. Fourth,
chapter summary highlights are presented, and doable mindful guidelines in breaking
mindless stereotypes and reducing biased mindsets are offered.

Social Identity Theory and Its Associated Constructs:

A Boundary‑Regulation Approach

Initial intergroup encounters are typically fraught with anxiety, emotional insecurity,
and awkwardness. Even if strangers are interacting using a common language, many
complex perceptual factors are at work that influence the intergroup impression forma-
tion process. This section discusses social identity theory and its associated constructs,
social categorization, and social comparison. Before we examine this theory, let us
review IINT briefly. (IINT is discussed in detail in Chapter 2.)
According to the IINT perspective, our sociocultural identity (e.g., cultural or eth-
nic identity) consciousness becomes more salient under the following conditions: (1)
when we encounter a perceived interaction threat (e.g., due to unfamiliarity or precon-
ceived bias) and experience emotional vulnerability on the group membership level
(e.g., hearing an out-of-the blue prejudiced remark); (2) when we encounter an identity
valuation that leads to group membership pride (e.g., “Your country must be very proud
of you for winning this Olympic gold medal!”); (3) when our membership identity is
negatively stigmatized (e.g., “The X people are all so tardy and irresponsible!”); or (4)
when our membership identity is stigmatized on a positive stereotypical level (e.g.,
“The Y people have such great musical rhythm!”).
When one of these conditions is heightened, we often experience sociocultural
membership identity distinctiveness (e.g., race in the opening story, age, sexual orienta-
tion, and disability). This is also related to the concept of how other people “marked or
stereotyped” one particular salient aspect of an individual’s compound identities (e.g.,
The White woman said to the Assistant Dean, “I thought you were the Maître D—I
mean, the Head Maître D.”).
The paradox of social identity affirmation rests on multiple levels: self-­perception
of one’s own sociocultural identity, sociorelational role identity, and personal identity;
and others’ perceptions of our social and personal identity. Sometimes there is mutual
perceptual coordination, but usually, mismatched perceptions and inaccuracy exist
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 271

in intergroup encounters owing to unfamiliarity, ignorance, or fear. Thus, communi-

cating with strangers from another identity group involves the interplay processes of
perceived group-based differentiation and inclusion. Group-based differentiation and
inclusion serve as the two “powerful social motives” for understanding the intergroup
boundary-­regulation function (Billig, 1987).
More specifically, perceived outgroup-­based differentiation or contrast can be
achieved by separating the self and the dissimilar other on salient group-­membership
dimensions (e.g., skin color, language, religion, disability). Ingroup-­based loyalty and
inclusion can be attained by identifying the self with salient ingroup membership char-
acteristics (e.g., by race or ethnicity, by sex or age, or by sexual identity). Through inter-
group comparative processes, individuals draw ingroup/outgroup membership bound-
ary distinctions and acquire ingroup affiliation badges for a sense of group solidarity
and ingroup pride. Thus, social identity theory provides insights into these ingroup/
outgroup membership boundary regulation issues. Social identity and its boundary
regulation function fulfill the basic human needs for group-based security, inclusion,
connection, and distinctiveness (Becker et al., 2012; Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2015).
The concept of intergroup perception undergirds the various social identity theorizing
variations and intergroup communication. Integroup perception marks ingroup and
outgroup boundary regulation issues, and evokes intergroup social comparisons and
assessments.

Intergroup Perception
Human perception is the process of selecting cues from the social environment, orga-
nizing them into a coherent pattern, and interpreting that pattern. This process is pro-
foundly influenced by our cultural socialization and group membership (Dovidio, Hew-
stone, Glick, & Esses, 2010; Smith et al., 2006). Our sense of group membership offers
us a sense of group security, inclusion, and interactional predictability and continuity.
Intergroup perception functions in accordance with the following principles:

1. Perception is a largely subjective phenomenon: we generally construct the real-

ity of what we want to perceive, and this is basically a biased process.
2. Perception is categorical: we use social or linguistic categories to guide our
expectations in actual intergroup interactions.
3. Perception is selective: we select information that fits our expectancy categories
and ignore other incoming stimuli in our information-­loaded environment.
4. Perceptual patterns tend to be consistent: once we see something a certain way,
we tend to continue to see the same pattern despite contradictory evidence.
5. Perception is largely a learned process: to a great extent, it is learned through
our cultural socialization.
6. Intergroup perception accentuates differences between identity groups espe-
cially making the boundary distinction: one of “us” versus one of “them.”
272 Boundary Regulation

Indeed, everyday intergroup and interpersonal communication is filtered through

intergroup perception, and of particular interest is the relationship between ingroup
and outgroup categorization process. This ingroup–­outgroup boundary maintenance
process then triggers the host of other boundary regulation issues such as the formation
of social comparative categories to the formation of ethnocentric attitudes and we–they
intergroup stereotypes. Ingroup favoritism and outgroup bias make up the cornerstone
construct in social identity theory.

Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory posits that the social world can be categorized as an “us” versus
“them” mode. People who belong to “us” are perceived as “ingroup” members, and oth-
ers who belong to “them” are seen as “outgroup” members. Based on these intergroup
categories, people treat ingroup and outgroup members differently, as evidenced by
ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Brown &
Zagefka, 2011). In dire, intractable, intergroup conflict situations, these phenomena are
manifested in extreme forms of ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination. For
example, as witnessed in Nazi Germany, the Hitler regime exalted “Aryan” Germans
(i.e., the so-­called master race: ingroup members characterized by their blond, blue-
eyed, and tall characteristics), considering them the superior human race. At the other
extreme, based on a highly rigid intergroup categorization fueled by power superiority,
Hitler ordered atrocities and annihilation for the outgroup members of society: Jews,
gypsies, homosexuals, and handicapped individuals. Approximately 6 million Euro-
pean Jews out of the 9 million living in Europe were systematically murdered during
the Holocaust, during the period 1933–1945. However, not all intergroup categories
lead to such extreme forms of ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination.
In our everyday social lives, we often observe mild and subtle forms of ingroup
favoritism and outgroup discrimination in many intergroup situations for the purpose
of enhancing the social and personal self-image and self-­esteem of ingroup members.
For example, in the U.S. academic setting, professors may favor students who actively
participate in class discussion and activities over those who remain silent, whereas
in the academic settings of Vietnam and China, professors may favor students who
silently listen to them over those who ask questions and share comments. According
to social identity theory, people can improve their self-image in two ways: by enhanc-
ing their ingroup identity or by bolstering their personal identity (Sani, 2008; Tajfel,
1981; Vignoles, 2011). These identity types are interdependent: enhancing one identity
type can increase the attraction of the other (such as social self-­esteem and personal
self-­esteem, and vice versa). Ingroup identity refers to the emotional attachments and
shared fate (i.e., perceived common treatment as a function of category membership)
that we attach to our selective cultural, ethnic, or social group categories. Outgroups
are groups from which we remain emotionally detached and that we distrust both emo-
tionally and cognitively. However, outgroups serve as the basis for social comparison in
terms of solidifying our own “civilized” ingroup values, norms, behaviors, and achieve-
ments (Brewer & Miller, 1996; Brewer & Yuki, 2007).
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 273

From the standpoint of social identity negotiation, it can be argued that members
of particular social groups often prefer to regard their ingroup attributes in a positive
rather than negative light, especially in comparison to other groups (e.g., Israelis vs.
Palestinians; or Catholics vs. Protestants in Ireland). The more they view their salient
ingroup values and norms as desirable and rewarding, the more they tend to see their
own membership identity as desirable and rewarding. Moreover, individuals often tend
to assume that fellow ingroup members are more similar to them than outgroup mem-
bers. Ingroups can be of many different types, however, ranging from small, face-to-
face groupings of family and friends to large social categories such as gender, religion,
language, race, and nationality. According to Brewer and Miller (1996), “attachment to
ingroups and preference of ingroups over outgroups may be a universal characteristic
of human life” (Brewer & Miller, 1996, p. 23).
The ingroup favoritism principle states that there is positive attachment to and
predisposition for norms and behaviors that are related to ingroup categories more than
to outgroup categories. Ingroup favoritism ultimately enhances our desired ingroup
valued status and identity distinctiveness. Concurrently, it also enriches our sense of
personal self-­esteem with pride. Personal identity refers to the individual attributes by
which we conceptualize our sense of “unique self” (e.g., individual motivation, intel-
ligence, attractiveness, credibility, competence) in comparison to other individuals.
Overall, the experiments conducted in connection with the Minimal Group Paradigm
project (in which subjects are arbitrarily divided into two groups in a research method-
ological tool to investigate minimal conditions needed for ingroup favoritism and out-
group discrimination to occur) and other related studies show that participants consis-
tently favor ingroup members in rewarding points (or money) and attempt to maximize
ingroup–­outgroup contrast (Hogg, 2013; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hogg & Vaughan,
2005).
Ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination are also expressed when a threat
to intergroup distinctiveness is perceived. According to social identity theory (Tajfel
& Turner, 1986), group members seek social identity distinctiveness for purposes of
intergroup differentiation and positive outcome. In a meta-­analysis study, group mem-
bers were reported to favor ingroups and to discriminate against outgroups under the
condition of perceived high threat to perceived intergroup distinctiveness (Jetten,
Spears, & Postmes, 2004). Another study (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 2001) found
that individuals with high-­ingroup identifier orientations demonstrated more ingroup
favoritism and outgroup discrimination than individuals with low-­ingroup identifier
orientations—­especially under the perceived low-­intergroup distinctiveness condi-
tion. Basically, research findings such as these reveal that individuals seek to reinforce
ingroup boundaries by tightening their positive approval of their own ingroup norms
and practices. Concurrently, they also create protective mental fortresses and reinforce
their attitudinal biases in viewing outgroup presence as a nuisance, encroaching on
their ingroup’s secure boundaries.
The ingroup favoritism principle can also enhance our understanding of why peo-
ple behave ethnocentrically in different cultures (see the “Ethnocentrism and Com-
munication” section later in this chapter). When we behave ethnocentrically, we are
274 Boundary Regulation

basically protecting our group membership boundaries and, more fundamentally, our
habitual ways of thinking, feeling, and responding. Countless research studies across
cultures (see, e.g., Devine, Hamilton, & Ostrom, 1994; Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Schadron,
1994) indicate that people in all cultures tend to exhibit ingroup favoritism and out-
group prejudice. The core construct, intergroup boundary regulation, together with
two other constructs, social categorization and social comparison, is the basic founda-
tion for social identity theory.

Social Categorization
We are social beings, and social categorization is a fundamental quality of our cognition
and need for boundary predictability. It offers us a way to manage our chaotic environ-
ment in a predictable and efficient fashion. It is also a function of human language—­as
a categorical organizing system reflecting our highly abstract thoughts. Human percep-
tion involves attention, organization, and interpretation, a three-step process that is
affected by sociocultural socialization that may yield biased intergroup communication.
The consequences of this process involving social categorization lead to certain expec-
tations as to how others should behave. These expectancy states are closely related to
our stereotypes of dissimilar others. We stereotype people based on their broad social
group membership categories without regard to innumerable within-­group variations.
Stereotypes are the exaggerated pictures we create about a group of people on the
basis of our inflexible beliefs and expectations about what characteristics or behaviors
the group should embody (Lippmann, 1936; Stephan & Stephan, 1996). Simply put, a
stereotype is an overgeneralization of a group of people without any attempt to per-
ceive individual variations. Another term that encapsulates the concept of stereotype is
“essentialism” (Prentice & Miller, 2007). Essentialism refers to the belief that all mem-
bers of a sociocultural membership group share the same psychological characteristics.
It can refer to a subconsciously held belief about an entire membership group. Stereo-
types can be formed through direct means (e.g., one or two negative, rude incidents
with outgroup members) or hearsay (e.g., friends’ horrible travel experiences or com-
ments on social media). Stereotypes can be positive or negative and sometimes even
neutral. For example, elders are stereotyped as wise, grumpy, or stubborn; or Germans
are stereotyped as disciplined, detached, and cold. Such stereotypes may derive from
isolated incidents of interaction with a handful of individuals from certain sociocultural
identity groups; from selective media exposure or indirect sources such as hearsay; and
from family and community socialization and system biases. Overall, research shows
that stereotypes about other group members are often filled with negative images and
that these negative images and attitudes often influence problematic intergroup com-
munication in contexts such as intergenerational and ability differential.
Our social categorization process also frames the expectations and meanings we
attach to people’s behaviors and actions. For example, when we learn that someone is a
lesbian, guided by this linguistic category of “lesbian,” we begin viewing this individ-
ual’s every word and action as stemming from her sexual orientation. The single story
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 275

of being a “lesbian” soon overshadows all her other multifaceted identities and stories.
Basically, her unique personal identity (e.g., fun-­loving, curious, compassionate) and
social identity complexity (e.g., ethnicity, age, family role, professional role) are often
now disregarded or minimized in interpersonal and social interactions (Nadal, 2013;
Roccas & Brewer, 2002).
Such linguistic categories also start to create polarized boundaries between me
and you, us and them, females and males, Blacks and Whites, God and Devil, and
so on. Engaging in polarized thinking of good or bad, beautiful or ugly, and right or
wrong can reduce any anxiety we feel when we find ourselves in the gray areas between
two polarities. To borrow Burke’s (1969) terms, we use God terms (positive terms) to
describe “us” and Devil terms (negative terms) to describe “them.” Functionally, polar-
ized thinking reduces interpretive and interaction complexities. It also bolsters stabil-
ity and predictability, especially if we are functioning in an unfamiliar environment.
Unfortunately, this kind of thinking leads to a unidirectional view of the “correct” or
“incorrect” way of behaving. In the U.S. mainstream culture, men are expected to be
assertive and women are expected to be nurturing, and violations of these gendered
norms lead to negative social evaluations. For example, in the 2016 presidential elec-
tion, Hillary Clinton was described as “bitchy” or a “nasty woman” for being assertive
in election speeches.
Social categorization influences our tendency to accentuate the differences
between membership categories and minimize variations within each category. Gen-
erally, preconceived social categories help to frame our expectations and make our
social world more predictable and meaningful in accordance with our own cultural
and personal frames of reference. They also simultaneously delimit our thinking and
perceptual capabilities. By being mindful of our own categorical and hence expectancy
formation system, we can start debunking some of the myths or discarding the negative
images we form about outgroup members. Based on social categorization, we also find
ourselves engaged in intergroup comparison for social identity reasons.

Social Comparison
In addition to the social categorization process, social identity theory posits that indi-
viduals strive to achieve a positive social identity in social comparison to other groups
(Turner, 1987). In general, we feel emotionally close to our ingroup and attach impor-
tance to group membership because it provides identity security and trust and socio-
emotional support. However, we do not feel the same way about outgroups wherein we
may experience identity vulnerability, anxiety, uncertainty, and distrust (e.g., Brewer &
Miller, 1996; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Phoenix, 2010). In many social interactions, we
often compare the standing of our ingroup with that of other groups in order to bolster
our positive social identities. Social comparison is functional to a certain degree (e.g., to
motivate our ingroup to move ahead or to engage in social activism to bolster our own
ingroup standing), and the criteria for social comparison are situational specific—­that
is, dependent on the interaction task, topic of conversation, and context that triggers
276 Boundary Regulation

the identity consciousness level. Interestingly, Wills (1991) proposes that three types
of social group membership comparison are possible: lateral comparison, downward
comparison, and upward comparison.
Lateral comparison refers to comparing one’s identity group with other social or
cultural groups that “should be” at essentially the same level. Downward compari-
son refers to comparing one’s identity group with groups perceived as less powerful.
Upward comparison refers to comparing one’s identity group with groups perceived as
more powerful than one’s own. Research indicates that individuals most often engage
in either lateral or downward comparison rather than upward comparison because
it bolsters individuals’ membership and personal self-­esteem level (Wills, 1991). The
more one feels good about one’s identity group, the more one experiences positive senti-
ments concerning one’s social and personal selves. However, group members can also
experience negative social identities.
What happens if group members experience negative social or cultural identities
because of negative comparisons? Several options exist. Individuals can, for example,
maintain a distancing posture from their ingroup and not mingle with its members.
They can deemphasize the importance of their social identities and maximize the
importance of their personal identities (e.g., “The important thing about me is not that
I’m a member of group X but that I’m an honest and hardworking person”). Individu-
als can also enhance their personal identities by allying themselves with members of
high-­status groups (e.g., “Although I wasn’t chosen for membership in any of the coun-
try clubs, I now have several close friends who are members of the most prestigious
country clubs—so I guess I have a likeable personality after all”). Conversely, they can
downgrade the comparative group through biased intergroup attributions (e.g., “Who
would ever want to join these substandard country clubs—with all these boring people
talking about useless topics”). They can also engage in an active social change process
(e.g., push for new laws) to change the criteria for membership admission, or, alterna-
tively, they can create innovative options (e.g., start their own ethnic country clubs) (van
Knippenberg, 1989; see also Orbe, 1998).
According to intergroup communication scholars (Giles, 2012; Giles et al., 2010),
individuals can bolster their social identity through social mobility, which is contingent
on the perceived permeability of intergroup boundaries. For example, when perceived
group boundaries are permeable, immigrants or stigmatized identity individuals with
negative social identities can switch group memberships (e.g., a Dutch-­Indonesian ado-
lescent can pass as a White Dutch if his or her skin color is light enough). This social
mobility strategy only upgrades the social status of individual immigrants or particular
individuals, and not their group system status. In contrast, based on the perceived
impermeability of intergroup boundaries, immigrant group members can employ
other forms of social comparison, namely, social creativity and social competition. For
example, immigrants can compare themselves to relevant other immigrant group(s) for
favorable comparison, or they can creatively redefine certain negative aspects of their
social identity positively (e.g., redefining illegal immigrants as hardworking group) or
focus on positive aspect of their social identity (e.g., peaceful and nonviolent faith).
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 277

Alternatively, immigrant groups can socially compete with dominant group for social
justice and equity by means of rally, mass movement, protest, revolution, and lobbying.
One’s social identity and personal identity are positively correlated, and they influence
each other in positive to negative valence directions.
Thus, social identity theory emphasizes the importance of the reciprocal reinforce-
ment of social identity and personal identity. A positive membership self-worth evokes
a desirable personal identity and, in turn, induces positive membership self-worth.
According to the IINT’s dialectical notion (see Chapter 2), while an optimal level of
ingroup identification satisfies individuals’ security, inclusion, and predictability needs,
an extreme level of ingroup membership identification and ingroup favoritism evokes
rigid ethnocentrism, mindless reactive stereotypes, and intergroup prejudice and
polarized interactional distance.

Ethnocentrism and Communication

Ethnocentrism, as suggested earlier, means that we hold views and standards that are
“own group/centric” and that we make judgments about other groups based on our own
group’s values and beliefs. In the context of Greek culture in the Golden Age, for exam-
ple, those who spoke the Greek language were viewed as “cultured” and “eloquent”
people, and those who did not were labeled barbarikos, or “barbarians” (i.e., those
“aliens” whose language was incomprehensible and sounded like a repeated babbling
“barbar” noise). When rigidly held views assume ingroup favoritism, the sentiments of
ingroup superiority and outgroup inferiority are reinforced.
Another example of this ethnocentric tendency can be found in the Chinese char-
acters for “China” (or “Middle Kingdom”). The characters or pictographs for “China,”
first written more than 4,000 years ago during the Hsia dynasty, meant “the center of
the universe.” This example is also reminiscent of Manifest Destiny, the nineteenth-­
century concept that the United States was justified in expanding throughout the con-
tinent.
Ethnocentrism is our defensive attitudinal tendency to view the values and norms
of our culture as superior to those of other cultures, and we perceive our cultural ways
of living as the most reasonable and proper ways to conduct our lives. Consequently,
there is the expectation that all other groups should follow our civilized ways of think-
ing and behaving. Ethnocentrism is bolstered through our own cultural socialization
process. It can consist of both implicit and explicit attitudes toward outgroup members’
customs or behavior (Kessler et al., 2010; Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Sumner (1940)
summarizes ethnocentrism as the “view of things in which one’s own group is the cen-
ter of everything, and all others are rated and scaled with reference to it” (pp. 27–28).
Triandis (1990) explains that all human beings display the ethnocentric tendencies to
(1) define what occurs in their cultures as “natural” and “correct” and what occurs in
other cultures as “unnatural” and “incorrect”; (2) perceive ingroup values, customs,
norms, and roles as universally valid—that is, what is good for us is good for everybody;
(3) act in ways that favor the ingroup and exalt it; and (4) experience relational distance
278 Boundary Regulation

from the outgroup, especially when one’s membership identity is threatened or under
attack.
While all human beings are ethnocentric to a certain degree, because of their
needs for identity security, ingroup inclusion, and predictability, a rigidly held ethno-
centric mind-set creates a superior–­inferior gap in intergroup relations. An individual
can possess ethnocentrism ranging all the way from the basic need for valued social
identity to an identity-­defensive need for power or dominance. People can also be eth-
nocentric about different aspects of their group membership (e.g., language, food, loca-
tion, architecture). Under conditions of a perceived outgroup threat of competition for
scarce resources, members of various identity groups can oscillate between high ethno-
centrism and low ethnocentrism, depending on changing circumstances.
Lukens (1978) uses the communicative distances of indifference, avoidance, and
disparagement to discuss the differential degree of ethnocentrism. The distance of
indifference (i.e., low ethnocentrism) reflects the lack of sensitivity in our verbal and
nonverbal interactions in dealing with dissimilar others. From the use of insensitive
questioning approaches to the use of “foreigner talk” (i.e., exaggeratedly slow speech or
a dramatically loud tone of voice, as if all foreigners are deaf), the speech pattern serves
as a reminder that these strangers are somehow “exotic” and “quaintly different.” The
distance of avoidance (i.e., moderate ethnocentrism) reflects attempted linguistic or
dialect switching in the presence of outgroup members, and with displayed nonverbal
inattention (e.g., members of the dominant group maintain eye contact only with mem-
bers of their group) to accentuate ingroup connection and avoid outgroup members.
Finally, the distance of disparagement (i.e., high ethnocentrism) refers to the use of
verbal sarcasm, racist jokes, hate-­filled speech, and physical violence to marginalize or
obliterate the existence of outgroup members (Zanna & Olson, 1994).
In counterbalancing the concept of ethnocentrism, we can also review the concept
of ethnorelativism (Bennett, 1993; Bennett, 2014). Ethnorelativism emphasizes the use
of outgroup members’ cultural frame of reference in interpreting their behaviors. Like
ethnocentrism, ethnorelativism has various gradations. Bennett and Bennett (2004)
offered the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS), highlighting three
states of ethnocentrism and three states of ethnorelativism (see Figure 9.1).
The three states of ethnocentrism are denial, defense, and minimization of cul-
tural difference, which cognitively represent cultural difference as problematic. Denial
is an ethnocentric state of mind that recognizes one’s own cultural distinctiveness and
superiority while intentionally or semi-­intentionally denying even the existence of the
others’ cultural beliefs, values, and assumptions and their existence on an equal level.
Defense is an ethnocentric state of mind that sees one’s own culture as superior over
that of others and feels defensive and protective about the beliefs, values, and norms of
one’s own culture. Interestingly, defense ethnocentrism can manifest in reverse form—
that is, seeing one’s adopted culture as superior to one’s native culture. And minimiza-
tion is an ethnocentric state of mind that undermines cultural differences while seeing
one’s cultural standards as “universals.” In light of these ethnocentric mental states and
worldviews, for example, with regard to high- and low-­context communication style
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 279

EXPERIENCE OF DIFFERENCE

DEVELOPMENT OF INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY

Integration
Denial Adaptation

Defense Acceptance

Minimization

ETHNOCENTRIC STATES ETHNORELATIVE STATES

FIGURE 9.1. A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. Data from Bennett and Bennett
(2004).

differences, individuals may deny that these differences exist or defend their commu-
nication style as superior to that of others or minimize the differences by requiring oth-
ers to follow their style as a universal standard. We can counteract these ethnocentric
minds by cultivating three ethnorelative states of mind: acceptance, adaptation, and
integration (Bennett & Bennett, 2004; Paige, 2015).
Acceptance is an ethnorelative mind-set that acknowledges and respects cultural
diversity in a society. It sees one’s own cultural community as part of a larger cultural
diversity landscape that encompasses people from all cultural backgrounds, and indi-
viduals remain cognitively curious and open to learn about cultural differences. With
regard to developing further cultural sensitivity to cultural strangers, adaptation is an
ethnorelative mind-set that adopts the other’s perspective in interpreting a problem-
atic cultural event or behavior. Cultural frame-­shifting or cultural perspective-­taking
characterizes adaptive mental agility and mind-set suppleness; while behavioral code
switching in accordance with the person, relationship, goals, and context reflects astute
verbal and nonverbal adaptation. Integration is an ethnorelative mind-set that embraces
diverse cultural worldviews in approaching identity membership differences. Individu-
als in an integrative state of consciousness employ a synergistic perspective in viewing
cultural differences, and they are able to integrate wise cultural practices from differ-
ent identity membership groups and display their cultural sensitivity and resonance.
Integrators often can put together a “third-­culture” perspective (i.e., a hybrid cul-
tural outlook) in analyzing and reconciling diverse viewpoints in solving a problem-
atic intercultural encounter. Individuals with an ethnorelative acceptance mind-set,
280 Boundary Regulation

for example, can understand the logic and appreciate distinctive high-­context and low-­
context communication styles. Individuals with an ethnorelative adaptive mind-set can
code-­switch mentally and behaviorally between high- and low-­communication systems.
Individuals with an ethnorelative integrative worldview can have an inclusive world-
view of both high-­context and low-­context, or collectivistic–­individualistic value orien-
tations; they can create a hybrid outlook and serve as dynamic cultural bridge spanners,
cultural mediators, and global leaders (Bennett, 2009; Paige & Bennett, 2015; Pusch,
2009).
Ethnorelative individuals can effectively negotiate intercultural and intergroup
interactions, demonstrating understanding, respect, empathy, support, and synergis-
tic perspective. Through their newly acquired knowledge and skillsets, they also prac-
tice isomorphic attribution, which means trying to cognitively interpret the behaviors
of members of the other group from that group’s cultural frame of reference (Triandis,
1994a, 1994b). They refrain from rushing into negative evaluative judgments based on
their own ethnocentric frames of reference. Beyond respecting others, they empathize
with the cultural experiences of culturally different others. While understanding means
accurate cognitive comprehension, empathy is a state of affective transformation in which
we transpose ourselves to the other’s cultural context. In other words, through empathy
we are willing to spend the time, emotions, and commitment to imaginatively place our-
selves in the dissimilar other’s cultural world and to strive to experience what she or he
is experiencing (see Bennett, 1993; Stewart & Bennett, 1991). When we engage in tight
ethnocentric states, our ethnocentric tendencies reinforce our inflexible or mindless ste-
reotypes of unfamiliar strangers or outgroup members. We are not willing to spend the
time or energy to truly understand cultural strangers as individuals and people or to
empathize with their plight, but instead relate to them through stereotyped perceptions.

Stereotypes and Communication

The origin of the word “stereotype” is derived from a French adjective, stéréotype,
which draws its root source from the combined Greek word, stereo (meaning “solid”)
and French word, type (meaning “type”). Taken together, the concept refers to “a
solid plate of type” for repeated stenciling or printing usage or as an “image without
change.” Thus, stereotypes are oversimplified and exaggerated “pictures in our head”
(Lippmann, 1936; Stephan & Stephan, 1992, 1996) about a class or group of individu-
als based on the principle of group homogeneity. A stereotype is an overgeneralization
about a group of people without any attempt to perceive individual variations within
the broad social category (Fiske & Russell, 2010). Stereotyping can refer to subcon-
sciously held beliefs about a membership group. The content of stereotypes can convey
both positive and negative information (e.g., “Filipinos are respectful and hardworking”
or “Filipinos are illegal and uneducated”).
There are different kinds of stereotype. Autostereotype refers to what insiders
think of themselves as a group (e.g., what Californians think of Californians); heteroste-
reotype refers to what one group thinks of another group (e.g., what Californians think
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 281

of New Yorkers and vice versa). When stereotypes have a high degree of external valid-
ity (e.g., 90% agreement with empirical evidence from research), they become known
as sociotypes (Triandis, 1994a).
The process of heterostereotyping occurs as follows: (1) individuals are categorized,
usually on the basis of easily identifiable characteristics such as age, gender, or ethnic-
ity; (2) features or attributes are ascribed to all or most members of that category—­that
is, individuals belonging to the stereotyped group are assumed to be similar to each
other; and (3) preconceived attributes are applied to individual members belonging to
that category (Cox, 1994; Hewstone & Brown, 1986). From the social categorization
principle to the illusory correlation principle, members of outgroups are often “stigma-
tized” as behaving and thinking in the same undesirable way. Heterostereotyping may
include normative and personal stereotypes.
Normative stereotypes result when we make guesses based on the generalized
knowledge we have acquired about another group from mass media or books. Norma-
tive stereotypes can have accurate or inaccurate aspects. If social science research has
established that “90% of some group have a trait, if we think that a member of that
group has that trait . . . we would do better using the sociotype than saying—­I know
nothing about this person” (Triandis, 1994a, p. 138). For example, Asian Americans are
stereotypically perceived as “foreigners” in the United States based on demographic
characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or accent. In interpersonal interactions, Asian
Americans are regularly asked, “Where are you from?” or they are incorrectly compli-
mented as “You speak excellent English” or “You speak English better than I do.” Per-
sonal stereotypes are formed as the result of our personal experiences and limited con-
tacts with the other group. However, personal stereotypes can also be faulty because
our contact experiences might well be based on a skewed sample such as one or two bad
Asian drivers or math wizards.
Furthermore, group members can engage in an autostereotyping process by taking
on others’ stereotyped images that are imposed on them or stereotyped images in the
media. This is also reflective of the principle of self-­fulfilling prophecy. For example,
media images stereotypically depict African American males as Buck (athletic and sex-
ually powerful) (Orbe & Harris, 2008), and Latinas/os as sensual and “fiery” (Barnes,
2012; Merskin, 2007) or criminals (Pieraccini & Alligood, 2005). These images can
feed back into the self-­perception schemas of these group members. Such negative self-­
stereotyping can create a negative self-image, which in turn can induce negative self-­
expectations in the individual. Self-­fulfilling prophecies occur when we think some-
thing is true about ourselves and then we behave accordingly. Self-­fulfilling prophecy
can go in a positive or negative direction in its outcomes.
In fact, a classic study by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) illustrates the power-
ful effect of other-­perception on self-­perception. Students were randomly assigned to
either the intellectual “bloomer” group or the regular student group. The teachers were
told that the test scores of one group were significantly higher than those of the other
group. After a year, the experimenters found that the “bloomer” group showed more
dramatic gains in IQ than did the “regular” group.
282 Boundary Regulation

The teacher’s preconception of this “bloomer” group and the students’ positive
self-­perception were explained as the key factors that led to the dramatic increase in
IQ gains. Thus, the power of positive versus negative stereotypes holds tremendous
promise in influencing group and individuals’ desired identities. To the extent that we
use rigidly held negative stereotypes in interacting with outgroup members, our rela-
tionships can only end up in unproductive interaction spirals. To the extent that we
use neutral-­to-­positive stereotypes in interacting with outgroup members, intergroup
relationships can be improved substantially.
Inevitably, people indulge in autostereotyping, heterostereotyping, and sociotyp-
ing. The key to dealing with the issue is to learn to distinguish between inflexible or
mindless stereotyping and flexible or mindful stereotyping (see Table 9.1).
The characteristics of inflexible or mindless stereotyping are as follows:

1. Holding our preconceived, negative stereotypes rigidly and operating on auto-

matic pilot in exercising such negative stereotypes.
2. Presuming that the outgroup stereotypes are valid and ignoring all new incom-
ing information and evidence.
3. Using emotionally laden evaluative categories to guide our “typecasting” pro-
cess.
4. Employing a polarized, cognitive mode to engage in ingroup favoritism and
outgroup bias.
5. Engaging in mental distortions to “force” members’ behaviors into precon-
ceived categories.
6. Presuming that one member’s behavior is reflective of all members’ behaviors
and norms.
7. Maximizing intergroup distance with exaggerated, contrastive categories with
no productive outcome.

TABLE 9.1. Inflexible/Mindless versus Flexible/Mindful Stereotyping

Inflexible/mindless stereotyping Flexible/mindful stereotyping
Automatic-pilot reaction Mindful of categorization
Rigid categories Open-ended categories
Premature closure First best-guesses
Polarized evaluations Alternative interpretations
Information distortion Information openness
Unwillingness to change categories Willingness to change categories
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 283

In comparison, the characteristics of flexible or mindful stereotyping are as fol-

lows:

1. Holding the stereotypes consciously or mindfully—­that is, being metacogni-

tively aware that we are stereotyping members of an entire group.
2. Assuming that the stereotypes we use are merely first-best guesses rather than
definitive answers (Adler, 1997).
3. Using loose, interpretive categories rather than preconceived negative evalua-
tive categories.
4. Employing qualifying, contextual statements to frame our perceptions and
interpretations.
5. Being open to new information and evidence and redefining the preconceived
social categories accordingly.
6. Getting to know, in depth, the group membership and personal identities of
the individuals within the group and sampling a variety of sources within the
group.
7. Recognizing valid and meaningful differences and similarities between the self
and others and between one’s own group and the other group.

While flexible or mindful stereotyping evokes an open-­minded attitude in deal-

ing with others, inflexible or mindless stereotyping reflects a closed-­ended mind-set
holding tightly onto beliefs concerning a group of individuals. Mindful stereotyping,
in contrast, refers to our consciously held beliefs about a group of individuals, with a
willingness to change our loosely held images based on diversified, firsthand contact
experiences. It relies heavily on a receptive communication process in observing, lis-
tening, and attending to the new cues and signals sent by strangers from other groups.
The need to sustain a valued social or personal identity, to ward off identity threat, and
to protect our ingroup boundaries from perceived intergroup threats, as well as the
subjective nature of human perception, lead to the development of biased intergroup
attribution process (see also Zhang, 2017).

Intergroup Attribution: A Sense‑Making Process

From the social categorization process to social comparison differentiations, intergroup

attribution is a natural by-­product of these interactive processes. The intergroup attri-
bution process helps us to make sense of our intergroup encounters. It also helps us to
interpret and evaluate our ingroup membership status and outgroup membership role
in social interactions. Together with the social identity theorizing process, the attribu-
tion process shapes the formation of our intergroup stereotypes and our prejudiced
attitudes.
284 Boundary Regulation

Attribution Theory
Attribution theory has been around ever since publication of Fritz Heider’s seminal
work in the mid-1940s (Heider, 1944, 1958). We shall first discuss the basic ideas of
attribution theory and then examine the specifics of attribution errors and intergroup
attribution biases.
The fundamental premise of attribution theory is that every human being is a
naive psychologist with implicit assumptions, beliefs, and social categorizations of what
human nature or human behavior is all about. Thus, we often use our implicit assump-
tions and built-in social categories to predict and explain behaviors or events occurring
around us. Generally, we interpret and explain human behavior by attributing causa-
tion either to the perceived disposition of the person under scrutiny (i.e., personality
traits) or to environmental influences (i.e., situational factors) (Heider, 1958).

Attribution Biases
Kelley (1967) identified three inherent biases in the human attribution process. First,
perceivers have a tendency to overestimate the influence of negative dispositional fac-
tors in explaining a stranger’s negative performance and to underestimate situational
factors. This is known as the fundamental attribution error. For example, if a stranger
walks into a class late, we (as perceivers) might well attribute his or her behavior to
“laziness and tardiness.” However, if we walk into a class late, we readily explain our
negative behavior by citing situational factors such as car trouble, no parking space,
or a sick friend needing our help at the last minute. Then, when we engage in nega-
tive behavior, we protect our own social or personal identities by invoking justifiable
situational causes, but we tend to explain a stranger’s undesirable behavior by nega-
tive dispositional judgments. Furthermore, it is cognitively more efficient to engage in
snapshot dispositional judgments rather than time-­consuming, situational reasoning.

The Principle of Negativity

The second attribution bias stems from the fact that perceivers typically use the prin-
ciple of negativity to explain a stranger’s negative action. The principle of negativity
refers to the tendency of individuals to consider negative information to be more salient
than positive information (Kanouse & Hanson, 1972). Given the heightened anxiety and
uncertainty toward outgroup-based interactions (Gudykunst, 1998, 2005b), we often
fall back on negative stereotypes when interacting with outgroup members. Negative
stereotypes are those that most likely justify our perception of an identity threat in
interacting with dissimilar strangers. Our perceived identity threat or fear also causes
us to experience vulnerable defensive emotions (Pettigrew, 1979). With preconceived
negative stereotypes, we also look for negative outgroup behaviors to confirm our nega-
tive expectations. Because of our ignorance or overgeneralization, we also tend to type-
cast the entire outgroup as behaving in a similar negative manner.
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 285

Attributions about Positive or Negative Events

The third attribution bias arises from the use of different types of attribution in account-
ing for positive or negative events. This concerns attributions for our own behavior
versus a stranger’s behavior. For example, if we get a promotion (a positive event) in our
organization, we usually attribute it to our positive dispositional traits such as intelli-
gence and hard work. However, if a stranger gets a promotion, we more likely attribute
it to luck or some situational factor. Similarly, if we get fired from our job (a negative
event), we might well attribute our misfortune to the bad economy or a budget cut in
the organization. However, if a stranger gets fired, we tend to use negative dispositional
attributions such as “inertia and incompetence” as the reason for the firing. All of these
attributions reflect self-­serving biases.
Interestingly, these self-­serving biases are generally more applicable in individu-
alistic than collectivistic cultures. For example, in comparing how U.S. and Japanese
students attribute success in recalling details of slides of scenes in unfamiliar coun-
tries, researchers uncovered some interesting differences. The U.S. students tended
to explain their successes more (i.e., remembering accurate details) in terms of their
ability than they did their failures. Japanese students, in contrast, tended to attribute
their failures to lack of competence, which reflects a “self-­effacement bias” (Kashima &
Triandis, 1986; Smith & Bond, 1998; Smith et al., 2006).

Intergroup Attribution Theory

In extending attribution theory to the intergroup attribution process, Hewstone and
Jaspars (1984; see also Hewstone & Swart, 2011) explain that this process is essentially
social in nature. This is because (1) the process is largely filtered through social interac-
tion and is influenced by social information; (2) most attributions are social categori-
cal rather than interindividually based; (3) we typically share similar attributions with
ingroup members about outgroups’ attributes; and (4) shared social attributions with
ingroups enhance our positive social identities, and hence reinforce our social solidar-
ity and identity inclusion with ingroup members.
Hewstone (1989) refers to intergroup attribution in discussing how members of
different social groups “explain the behavior, outcomes of behavior, and the social con-
ditions that characterize members of their own [ingroup] and other [outgroup] social
groups” (p. 25). For example, if an ingroup member were to get a promotion, we would
likely attribute it to positive dispositional traits such as “hard work and strong will
power to succeed.” However, we may attribute an outgroup member’s promotion to any
of the following possibilities: (1) external luck or a special quota advantage; (2) his or her
manipulation of the system by networking with the right people; or (c) his or her being
an exception to the group (a token phenomenon) rather than reflective of the larger
outgroup norm (Pettigrew, 1978) (see Figure 9.2).
Conversely, if an ingroup member received a demotion, we might criticize it as
an instance of unfair treatment or attribute it to an economic downsizing problem.
286 Boundary Regulation

Positive Event Negative Event

Positive
Situational
Ingroup Dispositional
Attributions
Attributions
Attribution
Process Negative
Situational
Outgroup Dispositional
Attributions
Attributions

FIGURE 9.2. Ingroup and outgroup attribution differences.

However, for an outgroup member’s demotion, we would likely use negative disposi-
tional attributions to explain it (e.g., tardiness and irresponsibility).
The values of individualism and collectivism reinforce the notion that, overall,
individualists tend to use dispositional attributions to explain the social world around
them and collectivists tend to be more sensitive to situational features that frame behav-
ior (Brewer & Chen 2007; Kashima & Triandis, 1986; Smith et al., 2006). Furthermore,
the content of dispositional attributions (positive or negative) reflects the underlying
values and norms of the cross-­cultural perceivers. The nature of intergroup attributions
directly affects the intergroup relationship formation process.

Mind‑Sets and Communication:

Affective and Cognitive Filters

While the ingroup favoritism principle of social identity theory has helped to explain
biased ingroup–­outgroup mental attitudes, the assumptions of intergroup attribution
theory have served as the explanatory calculus shaping our prejudiced attitudes and
discriminatory practices. Affective and cognitive filters refer to our reactive emotions
and thinking patterns that we use in interpreting and evaluating the performance of
ingroup–­outgroup members. They form part of our predisposed mind-sets in commu-
nicating with ingroup and outgroup members inclusively or apathetically. Intergroup
attitudes and affective predispositions are learned through education, experience,
social media, and cultural programming, and reflect our response toward individuals
or groups of individuals. However, since prejudiced attitude is a learned social phe-
nomenon, it can also be mindfully and intentionally unlearned.

Perceived Intergroup Threat and Intergroup Biases

A plethora of studies have investigated the relationships between perceived intergroup
threat and intergroup biases (Sears & Henry, 2003). Riek, Mania, and Gaertner (2006)
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 287

did an important meta-­analytic review (N = 95 samples) of intergroup threat and out-

group attitudes and, overall, found a positive relationship between many types of per-
ceived intergroup threat and negative outgroup attitudes including prejudice. Based on
this meta-­analytic review, intergroup threat occurs not only when (1) perceived compe-
tition over scare resources from other social group members occurs, but also when (2) it
is perceived that the other social group member’s values undermine ingroup values. A
realistic conflict theory (Sheriff, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sheriff, 1988) predicted the
following: perceived intergroup threat can be inferred from realistic competition over
scarce resources leading to outgroup hostility. For example, the perception of immi-
grant gains in the United States was negatively correlated with residents’ attitudes
toward immigration and immigrants (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001). A
threat does not need to be real; it can be an imagined one because the emphasis is on
threat perception in intergroup encounters. Alternatively, based on symbolic racism
theory, symbolic threat can be perceived from the perspective of conflicting values and
beliefs rather than realistic conflict goals (Kinder & Sears, 1981). For example, it has
been found that perceived symbolic threat undermining American values was a better
predictor of participants’ negative attitudes toward immigrants than perceived realistic
threat (McLaren, 2003).
Integrated threat theory (ITT; Stephan & Stephan, 1996, 2000) proposes that both
realistic threat and symbolic threat can simultaneously influence outgroup attitudes.
This predictive theory integrates four types of intergroup threat: realistic threat, sym-
bolic threat, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes. Intergroup anxiety reflects
affective uneasiness about interacting with outgroup members, and studies have indi-
cated a negative relationship between intergroup anxiety and outgroup attitudes (e.g.,
Ho & Jackson, 2001; Voci & Hewstone, 2003). Negative stereotypes reflect threats due
to negative expectancies about outgroup members’ behaviors (Riek et al., 2006; Stephan
& Stephan, 1996). ITT has gained robust support for its integrated threat prediction
across different intergroup settings (see reviews in Riek et al., 2006). Perceived threat
to ingroup identity can lead to communicative predicament owing to intergroup biases
such as ethnocentrism and prejudice.
The perceptual filters of tight ethnocentrism, rigid or mindless stereotypes, and
perceived intergroup threats to one’s group membership or personal identity act as
major barriers to effective intercultural or intergroup communication. Ineffective com-
munication between cultural or racial group members often occurs because we assume
that we perceive and interpret other people’s behavior in an unbiased way. The reality,
however, is that our perceptions of others are highly biased and selective. By under-
standing the forms and processes of how ethnocentrism, stereotypes, and prejudice
operate, we can tune in to our biased preconceptions with a mindful analysis.

Prejudice and Communication

An individual learns prejudice against outgroup members mainly through the family
socialization process, education, peer groups, and the mass media. The word prejudice
288 Boundary Regulation

means “prejudging” something or someone based on biased cognitive and affective pre-
conceptions. In the literature of intergroup relations, prejudice is a mind-set of hostile
feelings and negative predispositions directed toward outgroup members. It is inti-
mately related to discrimination, which refers to antagonistic, degrading treatment and
behavior aimed at members of an outgroup. When prejudice is translated into action, it
becomes discrimination.
More precisely, Allport (1954) defines prejudice as “an antipathy based on faulty
and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a
group as a whole, or toward an individual because he [or she] is a member of that group”
(p. 7). Prejudice is based on hasty and inflexible overgeneralizations above and beyond
existing evidence. Individuals can hold prejudices against others based on their skin
color, foreign accent or local dialect, cultural or religious practices, and the like. Four
theories have been posited to account for the development and persistence of prejudice:
exploitation theory, scapegoating theory, the authoritarian personality approach, and
the structural approach (Schaefer, 2009).
Exploitation theory views power as a scarce resource and explains that in order
to keep one’s valued status and power, one has to suppress the social mobility of the
underclass to bolster one’s own group position and security. To maintain the status quo,
for example, women and minorities, hampered by a “glass ceiling,” are denied equal
access and opportunity to achieve higher status and positions.
Scapegoating theory suggests that prejudiced individuals believe themselves to be
the victims of society. This theory holds that often the scapegoaters first perceive them-
selves as victims; then, rather than accepting the basic responsibility for some failure
(e.g., defeat in a war), they typically shift the locus of responsibility for it to some vulner-
able group. For example, domestic economic and social crises in California are scape-
goated onto so-­called illegal and undocumented immigrants, who are held responsible
for the bad economy and social problems.
The authoritarian personality approach emphasizes the personality features of
rigid adherence to conventional norms, uncritical acceptance of authority, and con-
cern for power as the composites of a personality type that inclines toward prejudiced
attitudes and discriminatory behavior (Schaefer, 2009). For example, the Nazis strictly
enforced authoritarian laws and policies against Jews and demanded absolute accep-
tance of Nazi authority. To this day, the communist leaders of North Korea and China
oppress everyone under their authoritative regimes. Authoritarian personalities are
likely to discriminate against the powerless and the vulnerable. Of course, other medi-
ating variables such as an individual’s motivational level, educational environment,
peer group networks, and his or her role models can enhance or dilute the authoritar-
ian personality profile.
Finally, the structural approach to prejudice emphasizes institutionally promoting
the social climate of discriminatory laws and policies or the “pecking order” favor-
ing certain sections of the society. For example, according to Japanese law, those who
are born abroad or whose parents and grandparents were born abroad are considered
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 289

foreigners and so have no voting rights, and in India some Hindu Temples post sign-
boards at their entrance that read “Foreigners are not allowed.”
Beyond these four broad approaches to prejudice, prejudice serves some micro-
level specific functions: ego-­defensive, value-­expressive, knowledge, and utilitarian
functions (Brislin, 1993).
The ego-­defensive function of prejudice preserves people’s view of themselves on
both personal and social identity levels. If some individuals are not good businesspeo-
ple, they can put down others to protect their egos rather than spend time analyzing
their own business incompetence. They can also hold their own cultural values, norms,
and practices as the proper and civilized ways of thinking and behaving, which serves
as a value-­expressive function for their need for value and behavioral consistencies.
The knowledge function refers to defending one’s knowledge base and viewing
others who lack such knowledge as ignorant or deficient. For example, if one’s ingroup
has attained proficiency in use of computer technology, then one may see outgroup
members who have not learned to master this new technology as backward and unin-
telligent. In contrast, the utilitarian function of prejudice refers to how people impose
preexisting categories or biased expectations on others to simplify their information-­
overload environment. They can also collect rewards from their own group by shar-
ing in the consensual prejudiced beliefs of their ingroup. For example, some middle
managers may casually overlook and drop some minority job applications in order to
appease top management expectations (e.g., that certain minority groups cannot “rise
to the top” because of their “laid-back” or loafing lifestyle). Power and privilege are
related to these intergroup biases and discrimination.

Power and Privilege: Discriminatory Practices and Microaggressions

Power and Privilege
Power and privilege exist across social groups. Ethnocentrism, stereotypes, prejudice,
and discrimination in intergroup relations are often examples of power imbalance and
privilege. According to the critical paradigm perspective, oppression, injustice, and
muted voices must be acknowledged and addressed in society, the media, relationships,
and communication. Critical scholars aim to unearth power differentials, oppression,
injustice, and muted voices among social groups, and through their research studies
they articulate power equality, social justice, and power for all voices (e.g., Hall, 1986,
1997). For example, critical multicultural educators can lead their students to “under-
standing, engaging, and transforming the diverse histories, cultural narratives, rep-
resentations, and institutions that produce racism and other forms of discrimination”
(Giroux, 2001, p. 328; see also Fassett & Warren, 2007).
From the authors’ perspective, power can be defined by the macro level and from
a critical lens. Because of their dominant group or positional status on the race-based
hierarchical social ladder, Whites in U.S. society have more power, accessibility to
opportunities, and privileges than all marginalized minority groups. These dominant
290 Boundary Regulation

agents possess the ability or perceived ability to influence or control other co-­culture
group members’ advancement pathways and needed resources. On an interindividual
level, however, the concept of power can be defined in terms of interpersonal “negoti-
ated power”: power over or power against (i.e., distributive power), or in terms of col-
laborative/synergistic power with someone (i.e., integrative power to foster collaborative
social activism) (Hocker & Wilmot, 2018). The less group members or individuals rely
on the approval or needed resources of dominant groups or partners and the more they
cultivate creative alternatives through collaborative means with other group allies, the
more power currencies, such as interpersonal linkage and communication expertise,
can be enhanced and shared on interindividual and social identity levels, and vice versa.
Similarly, privilege may be defined as an “invisible package of unearned assets”
(McIntosh, 2002, p. 424). On the macro level, owing to dominant or normative group
membership identity status, individuals can have unearned or earned advantages and
resources on account of their race, skin color, social class background, young or old age
(depending on what culture type), or heterosexual identity. On the micro level, how-
ever, many individuals (whether from the dominant group or the minority/nondominant
group) from different social classes work hard to make a living and to help their own
families achieve equal opportunity. In essence, on the micro level, power and privilege
are malleable and negotiable concepts, whereas based on macro-­critical theory level,
power and privilege are fixed, static entities. We are all privileged through different
forms of earned (e.g., our earned college degree) or unearned badges (e.g., by good
fortune coming from a middle-­class family) in different social settings, and the concept
of privilege is also highly dependent on the social groups with which we are associated
or compared. Even within our ingroup (e.g., in the Hispanic/Latino/a American group),
we can be more privileged if we know the ingroup language, however we can be viewed
as an outsider if we cannot code-­switch fluently between English and Spanish. Thus, it
is vital for intercultural scholars and research activists to use a more dynamic perspec-
tive to conceptualize power and privilege issues within and between social groups,
in order to move toward a truly domestic inclusive or global social justice stance. A
genuine global position on social justice emphasizes the importance of achieving an
equitable distribution of resources and of gaining the full participation for members of
diverse identity groups both in a particular society and on a worldwide level.
To understand the relationships among macro-level ethnocentrism, power, and
privilege, we need only to consult any world atlas; every nation shows itself in a central
position on the map, with neighboring states depicted as peripheral. Historically speak-
ing, genocide is an extreme example of ethnocentric power and privilege. In the context
of linguistic skills, attributing intelligence to individuals who speak and write fluently
in the English language as compared to speaking and writing well in other languages,
including native heritage languages, is an ethnocentric example of power and privilege.
Ethnocentric power also exists in other contexts (e.g., sports). For example, the winner
of the U.S. football competition is named the Superbowl “World” Champion, although
no one else in the world plays U.S. football.
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 291

Stereotypes and prejudice also involve power and privilege. In any society, there
are dominant and minority groups based on ethnolinguistic vitality dimensions (Giles
& Johnson, 1987). In general, power and privilege are associated with the dominant
group and its members (e.g., the Euro-­American group and its members in the United
States and the Han Chinese in China). Minority group members struggle to adapt to all
things dominant (e.g., in its culture, language, education system, communication norms
and style, and work environment) on the one hand, and maintain and transmit their
own ethnic heritage, language, and communication style to the younger generation on
the other hand. For example, the media’s depiction of “character types” and their fit-
ting members of specific ethnic groups into these stereotypical typecasting characters
and roles speak volumes about the relationships among stereotypes, power, and privi-
lege (Mastro, Behm-­Morawitz, & Kopacz, 2008). Usually, in Bollywood movies, the
dominant group members are cast as “the good guys” (e.g., heroes and saviors), and the
minority members are cast as “the bad guys” (e.g., gangsters and victims). Rarely are
good role models found for minority members in these movies. It seems that the media
stereotypes are deeply ingrained in people’s minds—so much so that if the “character
types” are switched in the shows (i.e., minority members are cast as the good guys and
dominant members as the bad guys), audiences tend to disbelieve the storyline and
typecast (usually meaning the movie becomes a flop).
Moreover, power and privilege are inextricably linked to discrimination and rac-
ism. Following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, Jane Elliott
created a powerful experiment called “Blue Eyes and Brown Eyes” to demonstrate
to her third graders that prejudice and discrimination are related to power, privilege,
and racism (Peters, 1987). She has modeled similar experiments to train correctional
facility staff to understand and prevent prejudice and discrimination. While preju-
dice refers to antagonistic feelings and biased attitudes toward outgroup members,
discrimination refers to both verbal and nonverbal actions that carry out such preju-
diced attitudes.

Discriminatory Practices and Racism

According to Feagin and Feagin (2011), four basic types of discriminatory practices
exist in a society: (1) isolated discrimination; (2) small-group discrimination; (3) direct
institutional discrimination; and (4) indirect institutional discrimination. Each type
involves power and privilege.
Isolated discrimination refers to harmful verbal and nonverbal action taken inten-
tionally by a member of a group toward an outgroup member without the outright
support of the larger organizational or community network. It refers to discriminatory
activity on an individual basis, ranging from racist slurs to violent physical actions.
For example, in their interactions, privileged dominant members allege that individual
Mexican Americans are illegal immigrants and they threaten to report them to the
authority, or they may tell individual Asian Americans with accents to “go home.”
292 Boundary Regulation

Small-group discrimination refers to action taken by individuals belonging to an

identifiable group who engage in hostile and abusive actions against members of an out-
group. However, these actions do not have the normative support of the larger organi-
zational or community network. Activities of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the
detention of Muslim Americans, or persons looking like Muslims, since 9/11 at airports
for security reasons are examples of this type of discrimination.
Direct institutional discrimination refers to institutionally prescribed endorse-
ments of discriminatory practices. These practices are not isolated incidents but are
carried out routinely by a large number of individuals protected by laws and policies.
For example, as noted earlier, a blatant institutional discriminatory action against Japa-
nese Americans was carried out during World War II when 110,000 Japanese Ameri-
cans were incarcerated in internment camps. Other historical examples include the
segregation of African Americans in schools, on public buses, and in the use of drinking
fountains and public restrooms until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Indirect institutional discrimination consists of practices that have a negative
impact on group members, even though the original intent of the institution’s estab-
lished guidelines was not malicious. Examples of indirect institutional discrimination
are educational IQ tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test, Graduate Record Exami-
nation, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Childen—­Revised, Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-­Revised, and Stanford IQ tests, the verbal dysfluency diagnostic test, and the like,
together with the use of a “homogenized” standard (with a strong White middle-­class
orientation) to test the intelligence or verbal fluency level of all children in a pluralistic
immigrant culture. Even without hostile intent, the improper use of such “standard-
ized” instruments in diverse ethnic and immigrant populations in the United States
can lead to an exclusion of group members seeking better educational opportunities
and job promotions.
Moving beyond the kinds of discrimination that exist in a society, Merton (1957)
presents a model that links the relationship between prejudice and discrimination
and develops a typology of prejudice–­discrimination types based on low- and high-­
prejudiced attitudes and low or high discriminatory practices (see Figure 9.3).

DISCRIMINATION
Yes No
Active Timid
Yes Bigot Bigot
PREJUDICE
Fair-Weather Proactive
No Liberal Change Agent

FIGURE 9.3. A prejudice–­discrimination typology. Data from Merton (1957).

 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 293

Under certain conditions, individual members can be identified as (1) prejudiced

discriminators or “active bigots”; (2) prejudiced nondiscriminators or “timid bigots”; (3)
nonprejudiced discriminators or “fair weather liberals”; and (4) nonprejudiced nondis-
criminators or, as we term this category, “proactive change agents.”
Individuals of the first type, active bigots, possess prejudiced attitudes and actively
discriminate against outgroup members. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the
Nazis serve as prime exemplars of this type. Individuals of the second type, timid big-
ots, hold prejudiced attitudes toward outgroup members but learn to sublimate their
hostility or resentment because of social pressures or norms. However, they do engage
in covert discriminatory practices. For example, a timid bigot acting in a hiring capac-
ity might pay lip service to the fairness of nondiscriminatory hiring practices but might
turn down perfectly suitable outgroup candidates owing to covert discrimination. The
third type, fair-­weather liberals, do not harbor strong hostilities toward outgroup mem-
bers. However, because surrounding peer group members talk in a prejudiced manner
or engage in racist jokes, they feel compelled to either join in or maintain silence for
purposes of social expediency. The fourth type, proactive change agents, take an activist
stance in promoting true equality between all cultural, ethnic, and gender groups with
commitment to eliminate unfair racial, gender, and social practices. They are likely to
speak up against perceived discriminatory practices in their surrounding environment,
but they adopt a nonviolent approach to achieve peace-­building goals. Mohandas K.
Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson R. Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa,
Malala Yousafzai, and Kailash Satyarthi are some prime examples. They can also be
“ordinary people” who intervene directly or indirectly (and appropriately to the situa-
tion) when they witness a discriminatory case.
While some individuals can be identified as belonging to one of these four cat-
egories, most individuals typically oscillate in their dealing with such ingroup and
outgroup feelings. Prejudice can also manifest in various forms such as “arm’s-­length
prejudice” or “symbolic racism” (Brislin, 1993).
On the one hand, arm’s-­length prejudice refers to actions by individuals who
engage in cordial, positive behaviors toward outgroup members in semiformal social
situations (e.g., the work or business party setting), while treating the same outgroup
members at arm’s-­length when the contacts involve intimate situations (e.g., at-home
dinner invitations, dating, or more intimate friendship developments). These individ-
uals are uncomfortable sharing personal thoughts or feelings and treating outgroup
members as true equals. Symbolic racism, on the other hand, refers to the perceived
threat viewed by a group of individuals who believe that outgroup members are inter-
fering with the symbols of their culture. These symbols can be abstract or concrete,
and they include: “(a) the belief [in hard work] as the backbone of society, and (b) the
importance of standing on one’s own two feet and solving one’s own problem. Concrete
symbols include (c) the classroom as a place for learning the basics, not a place to deal
with everyone’s social problems, and (d) the job interview as a ‘level playing field’ where
some people should not have an advantage because they are from a minority group”
(Brislin, 1993, pp. 186–187).
294 Boundary Regulation

According to Auletta and Jones (1994), racism occurs in various contexts and on
multiple levels—­personal, institutional, and cultural. Personal racism involves the
belief that certain physical traits determine social, moral, and intellectual character,
so that skin color, for example, would signal inferior moral character. Institutional rac-
ism is an extension of personal racism and includes those institutional practices that
operate to restrict groups of individuals on a low power status level. Cultural racism
combines elements of personal and institutional racism to perpetuate the belief in the
cultural superiority of one race and the cultural inferiority of all others. Auletta and
Jones (1994) observe that “[r]acism can be reduced, but it cannot be eliminated in our
lifetime. Racism is so intricately woven into our personal and collective unconscious
that only constant vigilance will reduce it in our lifetime” (p. 170).

Microaggressions
Sue (2010a) and his colleagues (Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2007; Sue, Capodi-
lupo, & Torino, 2008) examined microaggressions directed toward groups stigmatized
for racial, gender, and sexual orientation reasons. Sue (2010a) defines racial microag-
gressions as: “commonplace verbal, behavioral or environmental indignities, whether
intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostility, derogatory, or negative racial
slights and insults to people of color” (p. 29). To put it simply, microaggressions are
brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to marginalized groups.
For example, a teacher may say to a Native American college student (in a patronizing
tone), “You’re such a credit to your race, you’re so articulate and smart!” (Thus, we have
a micro-­insult message with the metacommunicative meaning level that the Native
American group is not viewed as smart.) Or as another example, a third-­generation Jap-
anese American is being complimented by a White classmate for speaking such “good
English.” (Here we have a micro-­invalidation message that the Japanese American is
the foreign other; Sue et al., 2007).
The researchers also reasoned that microaggressions often stemmed from domi-
nant groups with no intentions of offending, but nevertheless marginalized groups per-
ceived the slights, the implicit patronizing attitude, or the nuanced insults embedded
in and informed by the fact that they were frequent recipients of these indignities.
Microaggressions have been considered the “new face of racism” on the more subtle,
daily interaction level. Microaggressions in the daily lives of racial minorities, women,
and gays have also been correlated to detrimental biological health effects, depression
and negative subjective well-being, and cognitive disruptions (Feagin, 2006; Hwang &
Goto, 2008; Steele, 2003).
Microaggressions appear in three forms: (1) Microinsult (often unconscious): com-
municative messages that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person’s racial
heritage (e.g., ascription of intelligence, second-­class citizenship, ascription of criminal
status, and pathologizing cultural values/communication styles as in “why do you always
have to speak so loudly and emotionally!” to an African American coworker); (2) micro
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 295

invalidation (often unconscious): communicative messages that exclude, negate, or nul-

lify the psychological thoughts, feelings, and experiential reality of a person of color
(e.g., making the target feel as an alien in his/her own land, colorblindness talk, myth of
meritocracy trumps all racial barriers, and denial of individual racism as in “I’m not a
racist, I’ve friends from all rainbow colors!”); and (3) microassault (often conscious and
reflecting classic racism messages): explicit racial derogations characterized by violent
verbal and nonverbal attacks, or hostile environmental (i.e., perceived demeaning politi-
cal, economic, social, educational, and religious cues such as working in an “alienat-
ing or hostile work climate”) atmosphere meant to derail or hurt the intended targets
through name-­calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory practices (Sue,
2010a, p. 29). Microaggressions often reinforce the implicit biased stereotypes of the
beholders by making their targets feel demeaned, soiled, smaller, invalidated, and with
an emotional double-­take response turn. Through subtle implications, the perpetra-
tor continues to hold onto the mainstream dominant culture outlook in reaffirming the
“power” and “privilege” that she or he occupies and that the minority group member
is an anomaly or an outcast member. It is also indeed (see Chapter 8) not the content of
the message being conveyed (i.e., the use of microinsults and microinvalidations) but the
paralinguistic aspect of the message that betrays the biased one up–one down attitudes
behind the brief “innocuous” verbal phrases in a particular interactional context.
Sue (2010a, 2010b) and Sue and Constantine (2008) advocated that by having the
specific terms to talk about microaggression interactions, by making the invisible vis-
ible, by deconstructing the hidden messages, and by engaging in difficult but essential
dialogues among members of all multiple identity groups, we can come to better inter-
group understanding and deepen each other’s interpretive sensibilities. Sue concludes
(2010a) with the following constructive dialogue principles:

1. Learn about the people of color, women, and LGBTs within the group via a
variety of sources: minority-­run businesses, ethnic TV stations, ethnic poetry
and writing, and so on.
2. However, do move beyond surface mass media and social media knowledge,
and learn from diverse individuals through face-to-face channels and from
diverse strata of the group as well as through strong ethnic role models, lead-
ers, and social activists.
3. Learn from experiential reality through actual deep immersion in that group
community and also be willing to be guided and coached by a wise cultural-­
bridge person in order to attain better intergroup understanding.
4. Learn from constant vigilance of your own biases and fears due to intergroup
anxiety, guilt, and defensiveness.
5. Learn by being committed to personal action against racism, sexism, and het-
erosexism (Sue, 2010a, pp. 279–280; Sue, Lin, Torino, Copodilupo, & Rivera,
2009).
296 Boundary Regulation

Reduction of Prejudice and Discrimination

People have prejudiced attitudes and engage in discriminatory practices because of
many factors. One such factor is the fundamental emotion of insecurity or fear. Accord-
ing to the IINT (see Chapter 2), fear gives rise to emotional vulnerability and identity
insecurity and exclusion. Individuals are worried that their cultural or social habits,
and hence their identities, are being attacked because of the influx of outsiders or immi-
grants or cultural strangers whom they perceive to be fragmenting a nation or a com-
munity.
Individuals are apprehensive of losing power or domination because all these new-
comers compete for scarce resources in an institutionalized setting. They are scared
because outgroup members bring in with them alternative values, norms, and lifestyles,
thereby directly challenging their fundamental way of existence. This fundamental fear
or perceived threat triggers a package of other feelings such as resentment, frustration,
anger, and anxiety. While some of these feelings may be legitimate, others are probably
completely groundless.
The seminal ideas on intergroup–­intercultural communication competence focus
on the reduction of emotional or identity threat and promotion of accurate knowledge
between the two polarized identity groups. Stephan and Stephan (2003) recommended
some possible productive intergroup contact remedies to lighten the perceived emo-
tional anxiety and intergroup threat loads:

1. Gaining accurate knowledge of major cultural value difference dimensions to

enhance mutual understanding and decrease ignorance.
2. Promoting information about overriding human values (such as family security,
respect, and compassion) common to all cultures in order to decrease prejudice
about outgroup members.
3. Pursuing accurate data concerning the exaggerated nature of people’s beliefs
concerning the scarcity of resources in a conflict situation.
4. Creating or developing superordinate identities so that both cultural groups
can realize the connected humanistic souls that exist between them.
5. Reminding people of the multiple social categories or overlapping circles to
which they belong.

Setting up opportunities for two or more identity groups to engage in cooperative

learning techniques (e.g., team-­building activities and working on positive interdepen-
dent tasks) would help both groups to see the “human face” beyond the broad-based
stereotypical group membership labels. Cooperative learning techniques include face-
to-face active communication engagements between dominant group and co-­culture or
minority groups. In solving an interdependent community problem together, for exam-
ple, and with enough institutional resource support and incentive (e.g., a community
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 297

initiative grant to develop a neighborhood health care center), polarized group mem-
bers can get acquainted and cooperate more productively.
More importantly, both groups should be able to make some concrete interdepen-
dent contributions to the problem-­solving task. Cooperative learning techniques also
have built-in semistructured time to promote the formation of deeper friendships and a
mutual personalized, self-­disclosure process. Thus, the contact condition should allow
individuals to get to know each other on a personalized, culture-­sensitive sharing level
versus the superficial, stereotypical level. Finally, the intergroup contact process should
be strongly supported by key authority figures or change agents in the organization or
the community and, hopefully, with adequate resource support, space, and funding
allocations. In these cooperative settings, the positive goal interdependence between
cultural and ethnic groups has been identified as the key causal factor in accomplish-
ing a positive interpersonal relationship and achievement outcome (Hewstone & Swart,
2011; Stephan & Stephan, 2001).
On a micro level of prejudice reduction, to reduce prejudice and discriminatory
practices effectively, we should conduct a mind-set analysis along the following lines:
First, we must be honest with ourselves—­we need to confront our own biases and
ethnocentric attitudes. We should question where we have learned our biases about
outgroup members. We should also figure out how strongly or rigidly we buy into this
set of preconceived stereotypes about others.
Second, we should critically assess the contents of our stereotypes and check
against our actual interactions with outgroup members. In sum, we should be mindful
of stereotyping both self-­identity and other-­identity based on social group memberships.
Third, we should work on deepening the complexity of our intergroup perceptions,
that is, use the principle of heterogeneity to counteract the principle of homogeneity and
break down the broad social categories (e.g., Asian Americans) into subunits (e.g., recent
Asian immigrants vs. native-­born Asian Americans), and with finer distinctions (e.g.,
Korean Americans, Vietnamese Americans, Japanese Americans) and intersecting with
multifaceted identity variations (e.g., generation, age, social class, LGBTQ identity, rela-
tional role, professional role, hobbies, unique personality traits, and personal desires).
We should be willing to spend time to get to know members of an outgroup as individu-
als and as distinctive members of salient social identity groups and also their real likes
and dislikes, their fears, and their dreams for their individual and communal future.
Fourth, we should use mindful, qualifying language (e.g., “From my contacts
with several Vietnamese American students, they appear to be on the quiet side”) in
describing the behaviors of dissimilar others. We should use “neutral” language in our
descriptions or analysis and adopt “situated language” in qualifying or “contexting” our
understanding.
Fifth, we should be able to recognize that others may have experiences that we
may not be able to grasp fully. With our passion, we need humility. We should learn to
say: “It must be very stressful for you. Help me to understand some more . . . ” or “I’m
here for you. I’m ready to listen and learn.”
298 Boundary Regulation

Sixth, we should be empathetic, able to reach deep down and feel the experiences
and traumas of others; but we should be sensitive without being excessively so (thus,
being overwhelmed by our emotions to the point of inaction).
Seventh, we should put ourselves in frequent intergroup contact situations so that
we will be comfortable with group-based differences. We can gain more realistic and
accurate information based on increased positive contacts with a variety of individu-
als from a wide spectrum of the identity group. At the same time, we should learn to
honor group-based differences; we should not totalize the differences and forget about
genuine human commonalities.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

I ntergroup communication is ubiquitous. When intergroup strangers meet, as a result

of anxiety and uncertainty about each other, they are more likely to use their own
sociocultural ingroup scripts as standard to interact with each other. Communica-
tion is largely filtered through intergroup perceptual biases, such as ethnocentrism
and stereotypes, and, oftentimes, we do not heed the personal attributes of the unique
individual interacting with us. In other words, in intergroup interactions, a cultural
stranger’s holistic and unique personal self is often deemphasized or dismissed, while
the “essentialized stereotypic image” of a cultural stranger of an identity membership
group is enlarged or overemphasized. We also often lack the dialogue skills and sacred
space to discuss group membership identity issues in a meaningful and authentic man-
ner without provoking further intergroup threats or negative stereotypes.
In this chapter, we expounded core concepts of social identity theory such as
social categorization, social comparison, and boundary regulation based on inter-
group perceptions, ingroup versus outgroup distinctions, and rigidified ethnocentrism
and stereotypes. We furthered the discussion of the intergroup sense-­making pro-
cess through attribution theory and intergroup attribution theory. We illustrated how
biased attributions—­dispositional or internal attribution versus situational or external
attribution—­are employed based on social group memberships as an explanatory cal-
culus for understanding intergroup successes and failures. Finally, we presented per-
ceived intergroup threat leading to extensive discussion of the relationships among
communication and some of the major intergroup perceptual filters, namely, prejudice
and discrimination, as well as power and privilege and microaggressions.
As intergroup communicators, we have to understand the basic assumptions that
undergird the formation of our cultural or social identities, and we have to recognize
how these identities, in turn, impact our desired personal identities. According to the
IINT, the need for identity emotional security, inclusion, and interactive trust leads
us to engage in ingroup favoritism and outgroup exclusion. When we perceive identity
threats from outgroup members, we often tighten our ingroup boundaries and reinforce
our ingroup solidarity and loyalty. Additionally, mind-set filters such as ethnocentrism,
stereotypes, and prejudice create cognitive and affective distortions.
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 299

To become mindful intergroup communicators, we need to do the following:

1 Recognize the fact that all human beings are ethnocentric to a certain degree
and at different levels. We should be aware of our ethnocentric tendencies and
their sources, including cultural upbringing, religious practices, educational sys-
tem, mass media, government, digital media, and peer influences.

2 Acknowledge that the concept of “power” underscores many of the inter-

plays between “dominant” and “nondominant” group relations within the
larger society. Typically, members of a dominant group hold more power and sta-
tus control than members of a less privileged group in any system. To promote
quality intergroup relations, both groups need to learn to share power and assert
power productively, responsively, and responsibly. Sharing power can be mani-
fested through willingness to listen and readiness to incorporate the other group
member’s point of view; willingness to delegate and let others take on more task-­
oriented responsibilities; the honesty to give useful, critical feedback when neces-
sary for improving task-­oriented and relationship-­oriented issues; and willingness
to mentor, motivate, and act as role models of members of diverse groups.

3 Express responsible power by learning to act affirmatively through assert-

ing one’s viewpoint responsibly and at the same time respecting the different
voices of members of diverse groups; learning to separate constructive feedback
from group membership identity issues (i.e., not every comment is intended to be
a “racist” or “antiracist” comment); learning to develop identity security in the self
and others within and across diverse groups through supportive identity work; and
willingness to assume leadership roles and take chances in improving oneself.

4 Monitor our inflexible or mindless stereotyping of outgroup members. We

should realize that in stereotyping outgroup members in social interactions,
we are categorizing the behavior of a large group of individuals under generalized
labels or categories. Since stereotyping is an inevitable process, we have to moni-
tor our typecasting process of outgroup members (and that of our own groups). We
have to mindfully “mind” our own social categorization process.

5 Understand the basic functions of prejudice and discrimination. Often these

are developed through ignorance and identity-­defensiveness functions. We
need to increase our cultural and ethnic literacy regarding different ethnic groups
within different cultures. While members of an identity group share many similar
values, norms, and characteristics, no two individuals are ever alike in all attri-
butes, likes, and dislikes. We should learn to honor and affirm both the group
membership and personal identities of individuals with unique experiences,
attributes, and competencies in the communication process. We should learn to
understand the historical conditions that frame the marginalization experiences of
“minority” group members. Only by assuming an inclusive stance and an equality
mind-set can intergroup racism be reduced.
300 Boundary Regulation

6 Practice ethnic-­sensitive identity confirmation skills. We should address mem-

bers of different cultural and ethnic groups by their preferred titles and names.
For example, individuals sometimes may identify strongly with their ethnic-­based
membership or religious denomination (e.g., as African Americans, Cuban Ameri-
cans, or Italian Americans, or as Jews, Lutherans, Buddhists, Amish, or Quakers)
and sometimes with their person-­based identities. By being sensitive to people’s
self-­images in particular situations and by according due respect to their desired
identities, we confirm and support their self-worth.

7 Practice using inclusive language rather than exclusive language (e.g., “you gay
people”) and using situational language rather than polarized language as part
of identity support skills. Inclusive language means that we are mindful at all times
of our use of verbal messages when we converse with both ingroup and outgroup
members in a small group setting. We should cross-check our own verbal habits
and direct our comments to both ingroup and outgroup members on an equitable
basis. Inclusive language usage also includes the use of inclusive nonverbal behav-
ior (e.g., give eye contact evenly to both ingroup and outgroup members). Situ-
ational language use means willing to take situational contingencies into account
in understanding the behavior of outgroup members with the same courtesy as we
accord ingroup members. In sum, we honor the identities of outgroup members as
if they were members of a superordinate group to which we all belong rather than
overemphasize ingroup/outgroup circles.

8 On a macro level of social justice, social justice is about listening to all group
identity voices and stories and creating inclusive equitable participation oppor-
tunity for all identity group members so that they can excel and fulfill their respec-
tive interests, needs, dreams, and hopes.

Thus, we confirm and disconfirm dissimilar others by the words we choose to address
them and by the attitude behind the words with which we “name” them. Sometimes we
may want to downplay group-based identities because members who belong to dissimi-
lar groups do not necessarily identify strongly with their groups. However, we may also
be interacting with dissimilar individuals who value their group memberships enor-
mously. To communicate mindfully on an intergroup level, we must pay close attention
to people’s identity affiliation process in particular relationships and situations. Mind-
ful intercultural–­intergroup communicators are willing to experiment with new para-
digms of experiencing, communicating, adapting, and confirming. They are willing to
admit their ethnocentrism and reframe their mind-sets through ethnorelative thinking.
They are willing to “struggle with” rather than “struggle against” dissimilar others.
 Perceptual Filters, Biases, and Communicative Distance 301

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. How would you differentiate between intergroup communication and interpersonal
communication from an identity perspective? Explore how and why social group
memberships or social identities take over personal identities in intergroup interac-
tions.

2. Informed by intergroup attribution theory, explore how and why we engage in biased
intergroup attributions to explain the ingroup’s success and failure versus the out-
group’s success and failure in three different contexts, such as academic, work-
place, and relational setting.

3. In what ways do you see that everyday communication is filtered through intergroup
perceptual biases? Revisiting the opening story between Ms. W and Dean Pauline,
what can we do to prevent, reduce, and counteract intergroup biases, such as race
and education or housing issues, for effective intergroup communication?

4. What is your understanding of power and privilege? What power and privilege are
associated with self and other’s group membership/s? How do you feel about the
lack of power in certain communicative situations? How do you feel about the per-
ceived abundance of power and privilege accorded to your own group? What are the
pros and cons of being perceived as having high power versus having low power,
especially in intergroup social contact situations? How would you connect these
questions to the opening story that reflects racism, power, and privilege?

5. How do you understand the role of microaggressions from both a dominant group
membership perspective and a stigmatized identity perspective? What are your
observations of microaggressions in your everyday life? What are the most effective
verbal and nonverbal strategies you can use as an intercultural bystander when oth-
ers use microaggressive messages to a minority target? Will you stand up and be
counted?
 C H A P TE R 10

Attending to Intercultural
and Intergroup Conflict Issues

„„Introduction
„„Intercultural Conflict Competence: Criteria and Components
††Intercultural Conflict Competence: Criteria
††Intercultural Conflict Competence: Components
„„A Culture-­Based Situational Conflict Model
††Cultural and Individual Socialization Value Patterns
††Situational Role and Relational Distance Parameters
„„Identity-­Based Threats and Face-­Threatening Process
††Integrated Threat Theory
††Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: A Brief History
„„Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: Core Assumptions, Key Conditions,
and Research Findings
††Core Assumptions
††Key Conditions
††Essential Constructs and Related Research Findings
††Cultural and Individual Variability and Facework Strategies
„„Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: Recent Research Trends
††Cross-­Cultural Face-­Sensitive Emotions
††Cross-­Cultural Conflict Forgiveness
††Intergenerational Face and the Dark Side of Face
††Researching Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: Future Directions
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

302
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 303

A M otivational or D emotivational S peech?: A Case S tory

A Japanese multimedia subsidiary in the United States had just completed a very suc-
cessful year, surpassing its stated goals. As a result, the annual sales conference was
held in Disneyland Resort Hotel in California for celebration and a well-­earned vacation
for the employees and their families. The audience at the dinner celebration consisted
of mostly American salespeople and their spouses, as well as some Japanese technical
support personnel. The Japanese president gave a brief welcome in halted English, but
the audience appreciated his remarks.
Next, the American director of sales, William Wilde, introduced the Japanese
vice president, Satoshi Watanabe-­san. They had planned to give two short motiva-
tional speeches to kick off the conference. Watanabe-­san was about 50 years old, and
he had used the last 2 weeks to memorize his carefully prepared speech in English.
When Watanabe-­san stood up, his posture was rigid, his face was serious, and his tone
sounded harsh. Here is what he said:

Thank you for your hard work this fiscal year. We have broken many records, but
. . . we need to be careful and not to appear too proud. We need to keep up our
fighting spirit! Our competition is working to defeat us this very minute while we are
celebrating. You have done a good job . . . but you must do more. There’s no time
for frivolous activities. You must prepare yourselves to work twice as hard this com-
ing year. The company has invested a lot of money in new manufacturing facilities.
These facilities are producing our new product lines. It is your duty to this company
to sell these products as efficiently as possible. You must not fail! You must not be
content! I hope you do a better job in the new fiscal year. Thank you.

The American audience sat in stunned silence during most of Watanabe-­san’s

speech. William Wilde, stood up quickly, physically backed away from the Japanese
vice president of sales, and with an awkward smile said:

Disregard everything he just said. We are here to celebrate your fantastic achieve-
ments this year! We’ve outperformed all our competitors this past year and your
success is far beyond expectations. So give yourselves a big round of applause,
and, let the festivities begin!

The audience applauded. William gave the signal to the hotel staff to serve the
dinner. For the rest of the conference, the tension between Watanabe-­san and William
Wilde was obvious, and most of the other Americans looked irritated.

—Adapted from Clarke and Lipp (1998, pp. 232–235)

304 Boundary Regulation

Introduction

The opening story presents an intercultural conflict situation and an intercultural rhe-
torical situation. After reading it, how would you evaluate Mr. Watanabe-­san’s speech
and Mr. Wilde’s reaction to it? What do you think of Mr. Watanabe-­san’s speech—­was
it a motivational speech or a demotivational speech? What about his speech delivery—­
was it an appropriate and effective speech or an inappropriate and ineffective speech?
By what cultural standards are you evaluating his speech? Who do you think is the
audience in Mr. Watanabe’s mind-set? What identity do you think he projected to his
audience? What do you think of Mr. Wilde’s reaction? Was it appropriate or inappropri-
ate? We hope the various intercultural conflict concepts and facework lens discussed
in this chapter will enable you to reread the opening story with fresh multiple cultural
perspectives. By understanding cross-­cultural perspectives on conflict face-­saving and
face-­giving, and the diverse conflict styles, this chapter should enhance your intercul-
tural and intergroup conflict knowledge currencies in managing different conflict situ-
ations with astute value dimension analysis and identity attunement sensitivity.
Developing intercultural conflict competence within the larger intercultural com-
petence setting is critical because conflict creates perceptual distortions and emotional
flooding in the cultural encountering process. Sharpening the knowledge, mindful-
ness, and skills of intercultural conflict competence can simultaneously enhance gen-
eral intercultural competence tendencies and vice versa. Under emotional anxiety and
stress, even if an individual is well honed in general intercultural competence, she or he
might still be overwhelmed by her or his verbal and nonverbal ineptness and awkward-
ness in a stressful conflict situation.
Thus, it is important to pay close attention to the topic of intercultural conflict
competence within the broad umbrella of intercultural competence. Learning to man-
age antagonistic intercultural conflicts competently involves applying multiple perspec-
tives and differentiated viewpoints in a conflictual relationship. Intercultural conflict
is defined in this chapter as the perceived or actual incompatibility of cultural values,
norms, face orientations, goals, emotions, scarce resources, styles/processes, and/or
outcomes in a face-to-face (or mediated) context within a sociohistorical embedded
system. Intercultural conflict negotiation can be about substantive, relational, and/or
identity conflict goal issues.
Within intercultural competence development, it is also important to consider
cultural distance, which is a key contributor to intercultural conflict. The greater the
cultural distance between the two conflict parties, the more likely the assessment of
the conflict negotiation process will be misconstrued (see also Cai & Fink, 2017). The
cultural membership distances can include deep-level differences such as historical
grievances, cultural worldviews, and beliefs. Concurrently, they can also include the
mismatch of applying different expectations in a particular conflict episode. Individu-
als from contrasting cultural communities often bring with them different value pat-
terns, verbal and nonverbal habits, and interaction scripts that influence the actual
conflict interaction process. Intercultural conflict often starts with diverse expectations
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 305

concerning what constitute appropriate or inappropriate verbal and nonverbal behav-

iors in a conflict encounter scene. Violations of expectation, in turn, often influence the
attributional patterns and the communication strategies that individuals use in their
conflict interaction process (Canary & Lakey, 2006; Canary et al., 2013; Hinner, 2017).
Intercultural conflict competence criteria include appropriateness, effectiveness,
and interaction adaptability features. If inappropriate or ineffective conflict behaviors
continue, the miscommunication can easily spiral into a complex, polarized intercul-
tural conflict situation. More specifically, intercultural conflict competence refers to the
mindful management of emotional frustrations and conflict interaction struggles due
primarily to cultural or ethnic group membership differences.
This chapter is organized in six sections: First, the criteria and the components
of intercultural conflict competence are discussed. Second, a culture-­ based situ-
ational conflict model is introduced to provide a “big-­picture” outlook in explaining
the antecedent and moderating factors of intercultural and intergroup conflict. Third,
two identity-­based theories, the integrated threat theory and the conflict face nego-
tiation theory (CFNT), are reviewed as two plausible theories that can explain more
fully the intercultural conflict management process. Fourth, a detailed presentation of
the CFNT’s core assumptions, conditions, and essential constructs are covered. Fifth,
recent research trends and directions for future research revolving around the use of
CFNT are offered. Finally, the chapter summary and mindful guidelines are presented
with an emphasis on becoming a competent intercultural and intergroup conflict nego-
tiator.

Intercultural Conflict Competence:

Criteria and Components

According to a core assumption of the INT, intercultural identity-­based competence

refers to the optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills
in managing problematic interaction scenes appropriately, effectively, and adaptively
(Ting-­Toomey, 2005a; see also Chapters 2 and 5). An identity-­based conflict compe-
tence perspective is emphasized in this chapter because knotty identity issues often
spark affective-­based interactional support or rejection. In any intercultural or inter-
group encounter process, if repeated problematic issues arise in the same parties, it
is often not the substantive or content issue that is at stake so much as the identity or
relational issue is in jeopardy (Imahori & Cupach, 2005; Rothman, 1997). For example,
in the opening case story, beyond a content expectancy clash of what constitutes an
appropriate and effective “motivational” versus a “demotivational” speech in the Japa-
nese versus the U.S. cultural setting, both Mr. Watanabe-­san and Mr. Wilde’s profes-
sional and personal identities are in high-wired tension. Both conflict parties probably
feel embarrassed in the public celebratory annual sale conference.
Identity is viewed as an anchoring point at which sojourners, immigrants, inter-
national businesspersons, and local hosts have to deal with on an everyday interaction
306 Boundary Regulation

basis (Kim, 2001, 2004, 2013). Furthermore, when it involves intercultural conflict
negotiation process work, most entangled conflict situations between polarized groups
or individuals have a strong identity locus. Identity is conceptualized in this chapter as
reflective sociocultural group membership, sociorelational role identities, and individu-
alized self-­images that are constructed, experienced, and communicated by the indi-
viduals within a culture and in a particular interaction scene. This section addresses
the criteria and components associated with becoming a competent intercultural con-
flict negotiator from the identity negotiation framework.

Intercultural Conflict Competence: Criteria

The criteria of communication appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability can
serve as evaluative yardsticks of whether an intercultural conflict communicator has
been perceived as behaving competently or incompetently in a conflict interaction epi-
sode (Spitzberg, Canary, & Cupach, 1994; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Appropriate-
ness refers to the degree to which the exchanged behaviors are regarded as proper
and match the expectations generated by the insiders of the culture or social ingroup
members in an intergroup context. To behave “properly” in any given cultural situation,
competent conflict negotiators need to have the relevant value knowledge schema of the
larger situational norms that guide the interaction episode. They also need to acquire
the specific conflict knowledge schema of what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate
conflict style patterns that can promote constructive versus destructive conflict out-
comes. Thus, the criterion of “appropriateness” is theorized as a socioculture-­sensitive
attunement process in which individuals have mastered the deep knowledge structures
of the values and norms of the conflict situation and are able to connect such knowledge
structures with skillful conflict practice. It also means the ability to implement and
perform situationally relevant, constructive conflict behaviors.
The criterion of “effectiveness” refers to the degree to which communicators achieve
mutually shared meaning and integrative goal-­related outcomes in the conflict episode.
To engage in effective conflict communication strategies, intercultural conflict nego-
tiators need to have a wide range of verbal and nonverbal conflict repertoires to make
mindful choices and options. They need to engage in more neutrally toned attributions
such as viewing the conflict trigger as unintentional or situationally induced, unstable,
and particularized. In polarized blameworthy attributions, conflict parties often tend to
make internally driven negative attributions and stable negative trait assumptions, and
they perceive the conflict as a generalized-­chronic problem (Canary & Lakey, 2006).
On the intergroup conflict interpretation level, competent conflict negotiators
need to mind their ESP factors (e.g., ethnocentrism, stereotypes, and prejudice iden-
tity threat factors), namely, their own ethnocentric mind-set, their rigid stereotypes of
outgroup members, and their prejudiced tendencies (Neuliep & Speten-­Hansen, 2013).
Along with an ethnorelative mind-set (Bennett & Bennett, 2004), individuals also
need to master strategic conflict negotiation skills to integrate divergent conflict goals
constructively. Conflict interaction effectiveness has been achieved when multiple
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 307

meanings are attended to with accuracy and in an unbiased manner, and mutually
desired interaction goals have been conjointly worked out in a strategic and creative
manner (see Putnam, 2013; Putnam & Powers, 2015). Elsewhere, Ting-­Toomey and
Dorjee (2015) argued that “an integrative theorizing effort on intercultural–­intergroup
communication competence will enhance our identity-­sensitive awareness, knowledge,
open-­hearted attitudes, and skillsets in communicating with diverse sociocultural
membership groups responsively” (p. 503). They also proposed a new model, namely,
the Intercultural and Intergroup Communication Competence: A Working Model (for
details, see Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2015).
Appropriateness and effectiveness criteria are positively interdependent. When
one manages a conflict appropriately, the “good-faith” behaviors can induce reciprocal
interaction effectiveness. Likewise, when one promotes effective conflict and mutual
goal-­directed interaction paths, the effectiveness posture can induce appropriate inter-
action behaviors from the other conflict party. More specifically, the appropriateness
criterion emphasizes the importance of tending to socioemotional or relational conflict
goals in the conflict negotiation situation, while the effectiveness criterion stresses the
importance of tending to instrumental or task-­oriented conflict goals in the conflict
management process and moving the polarized positions incrementally to win–win
productive outcomes.
To behave both appropriately and effectively in managing a diverse range of inter-
cultural conflict situations, one needs to be cognitively and behaviorally flexible and
adaptive. Communication adaptability refers to our ability to change our interaction
behaviors and goals to meet the specific needs of the situation. It implies cognitive,
affective, and behavioral agility in dealing with the intercultural conflict situation. It
signals attuning to the other conflict party’s perspectives, interests, goals, and conflict
communication approach, plus willingness to modify our own behaviors and goals to
adapt to the emergent conflict situation. Communication adaptability connotes dynamic
code-­switching ability in an intercultural conflict interaction scene (Molinsky, 2007).
To behave appropriately, effectively, and adaptively, an interculturally astute conflict
negotiator needs to attend to and learn about the specific components of intercultural
conflict competence.

Intercultural Conflict Competence: Components

According to the face negotiation theory (FNT; Ting-­Toomey, 2005b), knowledge is
the most important component that underscores the other components of competence.
Without culture-­sensitive knowledge, conflict communicators would continue to use
their implicit “ethnocentric lenses” to assess cultural stranger’s dissonance behaviors
in an intercultural conflict interaction scene. Without knowledge, people can neither
have an accurate perspective nor reframe their interpretation of a problematic com-
munication situation from the other’s cultural frame of reference. Knowledge enhances
cultural self-­awareness and other-­awareness. Knowledge here refers to developing an
in-depth understanding of relevant intercultural concepts (e.g., cultural value patterns,
308 Boundary Regulation

preferred conflict mediation styles) that can help to manage culture-­based conflict
issues competently. To be an astute decoder of a complex intercultural conflict situ-
ation, one must develop a mindful, layered systems outlook in assessing the macro-
and micro-level features of an intercultural conflict problem (Oetzel, Ting-­Toomey, &
Willow, 2013). Knowledge and an open-­minded attitude are closely intertwined and
reciprocally influence one another. Alternatively, according to Deardorff (2004), atti-
tudes of respect, openness, and curiosity can lead to acquiring more culture-­sensitive
knowledge. Knowledge and a discovery attitude can facilitate a mindful consciousness.
Mindfulness, in the intercultural communication competence context, means
attending to one’s internal communication assumptions, cognitions, and emotions and,
at the same time, becoming exquisitely attuned to the other’s communication assump-
tions, cognitions, and emotions (LeBaron, 2003; Ting-­Toomey, 1999, 2010a, 2010b,
2015a; see Chapter 5). Mindful reflexivity requires us to tune into our own cultural
and personal habitual assumptions in scanning a problematic interaction scene. To be
mindful of intercultural conflict differences, we have to learn to see the unfamiliar
behavior from multiple cultural angles (Langer, 1989, 1997). In the context of the inter-
cultural conflict negotiation process, for example, we have to deal with our own vul-
nerable emotions regarding identity and face-­threatening behaviors. At the same time,
we have to be responsive to the new interaction scripts awaiting us. We also need to
develop multiple lenses in understanding the culture-­level and situational-­level factors
that shape the problematic conflict episode (recall your analysis of the opening story).
Mindfulness is part of the metacognition process that is a key feature in the cultural
intelligence research literature (Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Peterson, 2004). Accord-
ing to Ang et al. (2007), metacognition refers to the “higher-­order mental capability to
think about personal thought processes, anticipate cultural preferences of others and
adjust mental models during and after intercultural experiences” (p. 341). Mindfulness
of the mind is the mediating step in linking knowledge with the intentional application
of constructive conflict skill practice.
We can also use some critical reflective questions to guide our mindful conflict
transformative “U” learning process (Fisher-­Yoshida, 2005; Mezirow, 2000). For exam-
ple, if a disputant in an intercultural mediation session is constantly using “silence”
or indirect response to every question a mediator asks during the conflict storytelling
phase, the mindful transformative questions that the mediator can process within her-
self or himself are:

First (a content reflection question), what are my cultural and personal assessments
about the use of “silence” in this particular mediation scene?
Second (a process critical reflection question), why do I form such assessments, and
what are the sources of my assessments?
Third (a premise-­value question), what are the underlying assumptions or values
that drive my evaluative assessments?
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 309

Fourth (a premise-­self-­challenge question), how do I know that they are relevant

or valid in this conflict context?
Fifth (an identity transformation question), what reasons might I have for main-
taining or changing my underlying conflict premises?
Sixth (a mind-set transformation question), how should I shift my cultural or per-
sonal premises into the direction that promotes deeper intercultural understand-
ing?
Seventh (a behavioral transformation question), how should I flex adaptively
on both verbal and nonverbal conflict-­style levels in order to display facework-­
sensitive behaviors and to facilitate a productive common-­interest outcome?

The first three questions are based on Fisher–­Yoshida’s work (2005, 2013) concern-
ing the importance of engaging in deeper double-­loop thinking in analyzing the role of
the self-in-­conflict context. The last four questions are an extension of Ting-­Toomey’s
(2005a) mindful identity transformation work.
Constructive conflict communication skills refer to our operational abilities to
manage a problematic interaction situation appropriately, effectively, and adaptively
through skillful verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors. Of the many possible
conflict management skills (see, e.g., Ting-­Toomey, 2004; Ting-­Toomey & Chung, 2012),
skills such as deep listening, mindful reframing, decentering, face-­sensitive respect-
ful dialogue skills, and collaborative conflict negotiation skills (e.g., the skillset of the
“AEIOU” negotiation, which stands for “Attack, Evade, Inform, Open, Unite,” devel-
oped by Coleman & Raider, 2006) across cultural and ethnic–­racial lines are essen-
tial practices. Intercultural sensitivity training strategies such as dynamic behavioral
code-­switching skills (Molinsky, 2007) and relativism commitment strategies can also
move the conflict communicators from an ethnocentric stage to an ethnorelative stage
(Bennett, 2003; Pedersen, Crethar, & Carlson, 2008; see Chapter 9). Having discussed
the criteria and components of intercultural conflict competence as the backdrop, the
following section will fill in the knowledge gap that is essential to becoming a compe-
tent intercultural–­intergroup conflict communicator.

A Culture‑Based Situational Conflict Model

As cultural beings, we are socialized or “programmed” by the values and norms of

our culture to think and behave in certain ways. Our family, peer groups, educational
institutions, mass media system, social media platform, political system, and religious
institutions are some of the forces that shape and mold our cultural and personal values.
Our learned values and expectancy norms are, in turn, expressed through the way we
communicate. To deeply understand the value assumptions, filters, and behaviors in
conflict across cultures, we need a conceptual map or framework to explain in depth
310 Boundary Regulation

why and how cultural value dimensions and value orientations are different or similar
to those presented in Chapter 6. Understanding the deep level of a cultural community
and its associated traditions and beliefs, values and norms, and conflict tendencies and
styles can help us to decode the others’ conflict styles with cultural sensitivity and
interpersonal responsiveness.
Conflict styles can be understood through three conflict approaches: the disposi-
tional, the situational, and the systems. The dispositional approach emphasizes both
cultural-­level dispositional tendencies (e.g., individualists versus collectivists’ conflict
interaction patterns) and individuals’ personality trait tendencies, such as introversion
or extroversion, in dealing with conflict situations in various situations and across cul-
tures. This approach emphasizes the relative consistency or stability of using a proto-
typical conflict style in a wide variety of conflict situations.
The situational approach emphasizes the importance of asking contextual ques-
tions concerning the when, where, what, and with whom the intercultural conflict clash
happened. Situational features such as the proper/improper timing, the situational
locale and context and occasion, the expected process and goal, and the relationship
between the conflict communicators would affect the adoption of different conflict
styles in the conflict episode. Cultural conflict negotiators would tailor their conflict
styles and strategies to handle the particular conflict scene. The situational approach
emphasizes the importance of situational context in shaping our outlook, attitudes, and
behavioral styles in approaching the conflict scenario.
The systems approach emphasizes both the dispositional and situational factors
needed to deal with conflict. It takes into account macro level intergroup contact con-
ditions, intergroup conflict histories and hostilities, cultural and individual socializa-
tion patterns, membership-­level and interindividual-­level ethnocentrism–­stereotypes–­
prejudice-­plus 3 (prejudice, power, and privilege) mind-sets, and perceived identity and
face threats, conflict facework styles, and conflict competence knowledge and skills.
From a broad vision of the systems approach, the culture-­based situational conflict
model (with a combined emphasis on the situational and dispositional views) is devel-
oped. This section reviews the culture-­based situational conflict model (Ting-­Toomey,
2009b; Ting-­Toomey & Oetzel, 2001, 2013; see Figure 10.1).

Cultural and Individual Socialization Value Patterns

Cultural Socialization Patterns
The cultural socialization patterns that profoundly influence conflict behaviors can
include the study of the value patterns of individualism–­collectivism and small-large
power distance (Hofstede, 2001). Indeed, the most recent GLOBE (Global Leadership
and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness—­A Research Program Study of 62 societ-
ies) research project (House et al., 2004) provided additional evidence that the founda-
tional constructs of individualism–­collectivism and small-large power distance perme-
ate 62 countries (with a sample size of 17,370 middle managers from three industries) at
 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS EMBEDDED SYSTEMS
(e.g., intergroup history) (e.g., intergroup contact conditions)

SITUATIONAL ROLE AND RELATIONAL

Perceptual DISTANCE PARAMETERS Perceptual
Filters Sociocultural Role and Interactional Filters
Appraisal Processes
Relational Distance Parameters
INDIVIDUAL SOCIALIZATION (e.g., ingroup–outgroup meanings) INDIVIDUAL SOCIALIZATION
PATTERNS PATTERNS
Intergroup Attitudes Intergroup Attitudes
Personality Tendencies—for example: Personality Tendencies—for example:
• Independent Self • Interdependent Self
Cultural–Ethnic Personal Identity Issues Cultural–Ethnic Personal Identity Issues

IDENTITY THREAT AND FACE THREAT

CULTURAL SOCIALIZATION IDENTITY-BASED CONFLICT PROCESSES CULTURAL SOCIALIZATION
PATTERNS PATTERNS
Identity Vulnerability Threat Types
Cultural Value Patterns Cultural Value Patterns
(e.g., individualism, small power Facework Concern Sensitivity (e.g., collectivism, large power
distance) distance)
Conflict Communication Styles
Systems’ Conflict Approaches Systems’ Conflict Approaches
(e.g., impartial conflict approach) Facework Strategies and Emotions (e.g., benevolent conflict
approach)

Cultural Socialization Knowledge Cultural Socialization

and Awareness Knowledge and Awareness

INTERCULTURAL CONFLICT AND FACEWORK

System/Person A COMPETENCE System/Person X
Mindful Conflict Management Process
Dynamic Conflict Transformation Outcome

FIGURE 10.1. A culture-­based situational conflict model. Data from Ting-­Toomey (2009b).

311
312 Boundary Regulation

the societal, organizational, and individual levels of analysis. Basically, individualism

refers to the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasizing the importance of the
I identity over the we identity, individual rights over group interests, and individuated-­
focused emotions over social-­focused emotions. In comparison, collectivism refers to
the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasizing the importance of the we iden-
tity over the I identity, ingroup interests over individual desires, and other-face con-
cerns over self-face concerns. These contrasting value tendencies are manifested in
everyday interpersonal, family, school, and workplace social interactions.
Beyond individualism–­collectivism, power distance is another important value
dimension that is critical to understanding workplace conflict interaction competence
(Carl, Gupta, & Javidan, 2004). Power distance, from the workplace values’ analysis
standpoint, refers to the way in which a corporate culture approaches and deals with
status differences and social hierarchies. Individuals in small power distance corporate
cultures tend to value equal power distributions, symmetrical relations, a mixture of
positive and negative messages in feedback sessions, and equitable reward and cost
distributions based on individual merits. However, individuals in large power distance
corporate cultures tend to accept unequal power distributions, asymmetrical relations,
authoritative feedback from the experts or high-­status individuals, and rewards and
sanctions based on rank, role, status, age, and perhaps even gender identity.
In combining both individualism–­collectivism and small-large power distance
value patterns, we can discuss four predominant corporate value dimension approaches
along the two grids of the individualism–­collectivism continuum and the small-large
power distance continuum: impartial, status achievement, benevolent, and communal
(Ting-­Toomey & Oetzel, 2001; see Figure 10.2).
The impartial approach reflects a combination of an individualistic and small
power distance value orientation; the status-­achievement approach consists of a com-
bination of an individualistic and large power distance value orientation; the benevo-
lent approach reflects a combination of a collectivistic and large power distance value
orientation; and the communal approach consists of a combination of collectivistic and
small power distance value orientation.
Thus, managers and employees around the world have different expectations of
how a workplace conflict episode should be interpreted and resolved—­depending on
whether the workplace culture emphasizes impartial, status achievement, benevo-
lent, or communal interaction rituals. More specifically, for example, in the impartial
approach to workplace conflict, the predominant values of this approach are personal
freedom and equality (Smith, Dugan, Peterson, & Leung, 1998). From this conflict
approach lens, if an interpersonal conflict arises between a manager and an employee,
the manager has a tendency to deal with the conflict in an upfront and direct manner.
Specific feedback and concrete justifications are expected from the manager. Concur-
rently, an employee is also expected to articulate clearly his or her conflict viewpoints
and justify his or her conflict concerns. In an equal-rank employee–­employee conflict,
the manager would generally play the “impartial” third-party role and would encourage
the two employees to talk things over and find their own workable solution. Both the
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 313

INDIVIDUALISM

IMPARTIAL STATUS-ACHIEVEMENT
CONFLICT APPROACH CONFLICT APPROACH

SMALL POWER DISTANCE LARGE POWER DISTANCE

COMMUNAL BENEVOLENT
CONFLICT APPROACH CONFLICT APPROACH

COLLECTIVISM

FIGURE 10.2. Corporate values’ cultural grid: Four conflict approaches.

manager and the employees would rely on the principle of objectivity or a fact-finding
approach to resolve a conflict situation. Managers in large corporations in Denmark,
the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway appear to practice the impartial communication
approach (Hofstede, 2001).
Alternatively, from a status-achievement approach to conflict, the predominant
values of this approach are personal freedom and earned inequality. For example, in
France, employees often feel they have the freedom to voice their grievances directly
and to complain about their managers in the workplace (Storti, 2001), but they do not
expect their managers to change much because of status difference. The managers also
expect conflict accommodations from their subordinates. When the conflict involves
two same-rank coworkers, the use of upfront conflict tactics to aggression tactics is a
hallmark of the status-achievement approach. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001) observed
that the U.S. management style often follows a conjoint impartial approach and a status
314 Boundary Regulation

achievement approach because the larger U.S. culture emphasizes that through indi-
vidual hard work, personal ambition, and fierce competitiveness, status and rank can
be earned and status cues can be displayed with pride and credibility. Unfortunately,
while much research work has been conducted in the United States, little research
studies exist concerning eastern European, African, and Asian or Latin American con-
flict management styles.
In comparison, many managers in other parts of the globe tend to see themselves
as interdependent and at a different status level than others. These managers think of
themselves as individuals with interlocking connections with others and as members
of a hierarchical network. They practice the benevolent approach of management style
(Ting-­Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). The term “benevolent” implies that many managers
play the authoritative parental role in approaching or motivating their employees. Two
values that pervade this approach are obligation to others and asymmetrical interac-
tion treatment. Countries that predominantly reflect the benevolent approach include
most Latin and South American nations (e.g., Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile), most
Asian nations (e.g., India, Japan, China, South Korea), most Arab nations (e.g., Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Jordan), and most African nations (e.g., Nigeria, Uganda; Hofstede, 2001).
For many of the large East Asian corporations, Confucian-­driven hierarchical princi-
ples promote a parent–­child relationship between manager and subordinate. However,
more cross-­cultural studies on international management and intercultural communi-
cation are needed to understand how the concept of “benevolence” plays out differently
in collectivistic cultural communities, as many of these communities are in flux thanks
to accelerated globalization and technological influence.
Under the benevolent conflict approach, while a manager can confront his or her
employees to motivate them to work harder, only rarely will subordinates directly
challenge the manager’s authority or face during a conflict interaction process. How-
ever, subordinates might resort to passive–­aggressive or sabotage conflict strategies
to deal with the workplace conflicts. In dealing with low-­premium conflicts, manag-
ers would consider “smooth-­over” relational tactics or subtle face-­pressuring tactics to
gain employees’ compliance or cooperation. However, in dealing with high-­premium
conflicts, benevolent managers may act in a directive or autocratic and controlling man-
ner. They might also practice preferential treatment or particularistic value by treating
senior employees more favorably than junior employees.
The communal approach is the least common of the four conflict approaches (Ting-­
Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). The values that encompass this approach are the recognition
of authentic interdependent connection to others and genuine interpersonal equality.
Costa Rica is the only country in the world that fits this approach (Hofstede, 2001).
Nonprofit mediation centers or successful start-up small businesses also appear to prac-
tice some communal decision-­making behaviors and participatory democracy, so that
everyone has a say and also takes turns to rotate leadership. Similarly, feminist prin-
ciples include holistic and integrative problem solving and the importance of engaging
in mutual face-­sensitive, collaborative dialogue (Barge, 2006; Barge & Andreas, 2013).
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 315

Individual Socialization Patterns

Individual socialization patterns can include the study of the personality tendencies
of independent self and interdependent self. Self-­construal is a major individual fac-
tor that focuses on individual variation within and between cultures. Self-­construal
is one’s self-image and consists of an independent and interdependent self (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991, 1998).
The independent construal of self involves the view that an individual is a unique
entity with an individuated repertoire of feelings, cognitions, and motivations. In con-
trast, the interdependent construal of self involves an emphasis on the importance
of relational or ingroup connectedness. Self-­construal is the individual-­level equiva-
lent of the cultural variability dimension of individualism–­collectivism. For example,
Gudykunst et al. (1996) argued that independent self-­construal is predominantly associ-
ated with people in individualistic cultures, while interdependent self-­construal is pre-
dominantly associated with people of collectivistic cultures. However, both dimensions
of self exist within each individual, regardless of cultural identity. In individualistic cul-
tural communities, there may be more communication situations that evoke the need
for independent-­based decisions and behaviors. In collectivistic communities, there
may be more situations that demand the sensitivity for interdependent-­based decisions
and actions. These self-­construals should have a profound influence on the expectan-
cies of what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate communication responses in a
wide variety of conflict interactional situations across a diverse range of cultures.
For example, in a cross-­national conflict study in four nations, Oetzel and Ting-­
Toomey (2003) found that, on the one hand, independent self-­construal is associated
positively with self-face concern and the use of dominating/competing conflict strate-
gies. Interdependent self-­construal, on the other hand, is associated positively with
other-face concern and the use of avoiding and integrating conflict tactics. It would
appear that independent self-­construal fosters the use of direct, upfront, and low-­
context assertive to aggressive communication responses, while interdependent self-­
construal emphasizes indirect, circumspective, high-­context, and accommodating and
nonconfrontational communication interaction patterns.

Situational Role and Relational Distance Parameters

Situational Role Parameters
The culture-­based situational conflict model also emphasizes the importance of under-
standing the expectancy features of each communication domain such as workplace/
organizational, classroom/school, community or neighborhood, and family or intimate
relationship domain. For example, three of the possible factors that moderate the acti-
vation of an independent versus an interdependent self in a conflict communication epi-
sode can include a general situational appraisal process, a sociocultural role appraisal
process, and an interactional appraisal process analysis (Ting-­Toomey & Takai, 2006).
316 Boundary Regulation

A general situational appraisal process can include an assessment of the degree of

formality of the setting, the mood/climate of the situation, artifact displays, the arrange-
ment of seating, and the room design where the conflict negotiation will take place. A
sociocultural role appraisal process can include an assessment of the role expectancies
between the conflict parties such as professional role identities, cultural–ethnic iden-
tity issues, and other salient sociocultural membership identity concerns. The appro-
priate role displays and enactments would greatly influence the effective development
of trust, conflict goal movements, and collaborative versus competitive conflict out-
look. An interactional appraisal process includes an analysis of anticipated rewards/
costs/alternative calculations, appropriate language usage, culture-­sensitive interaction
channels, relevant conflict openings, convergent relational rhythms, and the conflict
competence skillsets needed to manage the conflict flexibly and adaptively.

Relational Distance Parameters

Many relational distance factors are important in competent intercultural conflict nego-
tiation, such as how a particular cultural community defines ingroup and outgroup and
what constitutes appropriate ingroup versus outgroup conflict symbolic exchange pro-
cesses. Take, for example, from the Japanese communication lens, Midooka (1990), who
categorized four groups of relationships: the ingroup consisting of kino-­okenai-­kankei
and nakama and the outgroup consisting of najimi-­no-tanin and muen-no-­kankei.
Kino-­okenai-­kankei (“intimate in­groups”) consists of intimate or equal-­status rela-
tionships in which communication is causal, open, and direct. Examples of such rela-
tionships are best friends, family/siblings, close relatives, childhood buddies, and dat-
ing relationships. In these relationships, differences in age or seniority are superseded
by intimacy, and no hierarchical rituals, especially in the “best friends” category, are
heeded. Thus, in Japanese “best friends” conflict situations, the process can involve
more heart-to-heart talks to direct conflict self-­disclosure. Nakama (“familiar interac-
tive ingroups”), in contrast, are close-­contact ingroup relations, especially in terms of
everyday familiarity, yet not so much as to override status differences. These typically
include everyday colleagues in the same workplace, and here maximum care must be
taken to observe interpersonal rituals and preserve relational harmony even under
stressful conflict conditions. A certain level of decorum or formality is expected to be
maintained in this particular relationship category.
Najimi-­no-tanin (“acquaintance interactive outgroups”) refers to a less intimate,
acquaintance relationship, characterized more as an outgroup rather than as an ingroup
relationship—­for example, acquaintance colleagues in other universities or a friend of
a close friend who needs a favor. While interacting in a tannin (a familiar yet distant
person) relationship, communication behaviors toward this “familiar” outgroup mem-
ber would differ greatly depending on the perceived value or reward/cost appraisal
process of the relationship. However, since Japan is an overall group-­oriented society,
social ties have interlocking importance and wider interdependent implications from
one spectrum of the society to the next (Ting-­Toomey & Takai, 2006). If the relationship
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 317

poses a threat to one’s public face, one is still careful to observe appropriate interaction
formality and diplomatic conflict rituals. Cautious formality is exercised more so in the
tanin situation than in the nakama, as one misstep can be costly and can ruin one’s
reputation or face beyond just the outgroup circle. Finally, muen-no-­kankei (“stranger
outgroups”) indicates a purely outgroup, stranger relationship, also referred to as aka-
no-tanin. Since strangers are way beyond the bounds of accepted social or personalized
ties, often no form of considerate behavior needs to be extended between the stranger-­
pair lacking an emotional tie. Indifference can be part of the conflict ritual in this
peripheral outgroup category.
In sum, the factors in the situational role and relational distance parameters have a
strong impact on what appropriate and effective conflict styles and facework behaviors
should be used in conflict situations in different cultural communities. An intercultur-
ally competent conflict communicator would need to increase his or her awareness
concerning self and others’ cultural and individual socialization process and mindfully
connect the value pattern orientations with situational and relational expectancy issues
in the adaptive intercultural conflict exchange process.

Identity‑Based Threats and Face‑Threatening Process

Intercultural conflict interaction processes can include study of conflict communication

styles and patterns that are used in a conflict episode. Competent conflict negotiators
also need to have a firm grasp of ESP factors that create additional anxiety and uncer-
tainty in the conflict situation. Owing to space limitations, the discussion will focus on
some of the conditions that induce identity threats in intergroup conflict situations and
also outline a brief background to the development of FNT, all of which are important
in developing intercultural conflict competence.

Integrated Threat Theory

Stephan, Stephan, and Gudykunst (1999) have collaborated for many years and mutually
influenced development of ITT and AUM (Gudykunst, 2005a, 2005b). ITT (Stephan,
1999; Stephan & Stephan, 2000, 2001) fuses various affective theories in the social
identity and intergroup prejudice literature and emphasizes one key causal factor in
prejudice: feelings of fear or threat. Feelings of fear or identity threat prompt inter-
group animosities and conflicts and are closely aligned with Gudykunst’s (2005a) posi-
tion on anxiety management issues and ineffective communication concepts.
ITT is a macro-level conflict theory that explains intergroup or intercultural antag-
onism. Macro-level theory refers to the “big-­picture” socioeconomic, institutional, and/
or historical factors that frame a society’s intergroup relations. According to ITT, the
four antecedent conditions of perceived threat types are prior conflict history, igno-
rance or knowledge gap, contact, and status. First, according to Stephan (1999), inter-
group conflict history is “the single most important seedbed of prejudice” (p. 32). More
318 Boundary Regulation

importantly, past intergroup conflict history serves as a backdrop to current intergroup

contact relations. The more damaging and protracted the past conflict, the more per-
ceived threats and prejudiced attitudes arise in intergroup relations.
Second, intergroup knowledge gap or ignorance of the outgroup refers to the fact
that when intergroup members know little of each other or think they know too much
(i.e., based on their overgeneralized, negative stereotypical lens), then they are likely to
perceive each other as threatening in the context of the intergroup hostility situation.
Here, the one group is likely to perceive the other group as threatening in the context
of the intergroup hostility situation.
Third, the type (positive vs. negative) and frequency of intergroup contact also
affect feelings of security or insecurity, familiarity or unfamiliarity, and trust or mis-
trust between members of different identity groups (Ting-­Toomey, 1993, 2005a). The
more positive and personalized the contact, the more likely members of both groups
can see the “human face” beyond the broad-based identity group categories. The more
negative and surface level the contact, the greater the perceived negative stereotypes
and prejudice justifications.
Fourth, societal/group membership power status refers to both institutional power
dominance/resistance issues and individual power perception issues. On the institu-
tional power level, dominant group members in a society can be perceived as control-
ling the key political, economic, and media functioning of a society. On the individual
power level, it can refer to high- or low-­status perceptions based on group memberships
in a society or institutional setting. Often, “high-­status” or dominant group members
may want to reinforce their own power positions to maintain the status quo. They might
also worry about hostility or competition from “low-­status” members. Because of their
long history of inequality, injustice, prejudice, and unfair treatment, minority group
members might indeed resent the power institutions and challenge the dominant group
members The wider the cultural relation and perceived power schisms, the more anxi-
ety or fear is generated in escalatory conflict cycles.
The four basic identity threat types that lead to escalatory prejudice and conflict
cycles are intergroup anxiety, rigid or negative stereotypes, tangible/realistic threats, and
perceived value/symbolic threats. ITT also emphasizes subjectively perceived threats
posed by the other “enemy” group (Stephan, 1999). The first type of threat, intergroup
anxiety/anticipated consequences, often arises in unfamiliar intergroup encounters
(Gudykunst, 1995, 2005b). In intergroup encounters, people can be especially anxious
about anticipated negative consequences such as negative psychological consequences
(e.g., confusion, frustration, feeling incompetent), negative behavioral consequences
(e.g., being exploited, harmed), and negative evaluations by outgroup members (e.g.,
rejection or being identified with marginalized outgroup members). Individuals antici-
pate intergroup anxiety because they are concerned about potential face threats or
about the possibility that their identities will be stigmatized, embarrassed, rejected, or
even excluded in intergroup contact situations (Jackson, 1999, 2002).
The second type of threat, rigid or negative stereotypes, poses a threat to the
ingroup (especially the dominant ingroup) because ingroup members typically learn
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 319

the negative images and traits of outgroups through the mass media and secondhand
sources. These negative images can generate negative self-­fulfilling prophecies and
expectations and thus create negative intergroup encountering processes and out-
comes. Rigid positive stereotypes (e.g., the minority model) can also be considered a
potential intergroup threat because of the fear that this particular group is taking over
education, technology, and health care. Overly positive and negative stereotypes can
activate both dominant–­minority and minority–­minority intergroup conflicts in a mul-
ticultural society.
The third type of threat, tangible/realistic threats, refers to perceived content
threats from outgroups such as the battle for territory, wealth, scarce resources, and
natural resources, as well as perceived threats and competitions involving economics,
housing, education, and politics.
The fourth type, perceived values/symbolic threats, is founded in cultural–­ethnic
membership differences in morals, beliefs, values, norms, standards, and attitudes.
These are threats to the dominant ingroup’s “standard way of living” and “standard way
of behaving.” Outgroups who hold worldviews and values that are different from those
of ingroups threaten the ingroup’s core value system, which may then lead to fossilized
ingroup ethnocentrism and outgroup avoidance or rejection.
Research studies testing the four threat types demonstrate that three of the four
threat types (intergroup anxiety, tangible threats, and values/symbolic threats) con-
sistently predicted prejudice and attitudinal animosity from mainstream dominant
groups (e.g., European Americans) toward minority groups (e.g., African Americans,
Asian Americans, and Mexican Americans; Hecht et al., 2003; Orbe et al., 2013; Plant
& Devine, 2003; Stephan, Diaz-­Loving, & Duran, 2000) and also immigrant groups
(e.g., Cuban American immigrants; Spencer-­Rodgers & McGovern, 2002; Stephan et
al., 1999) in a multicultural society.
In sum, intergroup anxiety and fear can color our expectations and intensify our
perceived identity threat levels when we are dealing with culturally dissimilar strang-
ers or what we consider our “enemies.” Using historically tainted glasses and competing
for scarce resources, members from dominant and minority groups might view each
other with mistrust, suspicion, and disrespect, and thereby adopt an annihilation out-
look (e.g., vicious verbal attacks and name-­calling cycles). Intercultural or intergroup
conflict often entails the back-and-forth threatening messages, face-­defensive moves,
and face-­recuperating strategies.

Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: A Brief History

Intercultural conflict often involves face-­losing and face-­saving behaviors. Face refers to
a claimed sense of desired social self-image in a relational or international setting (Ting-­
Toomey, 2004, 2005b). Loss of face occurs when we are being treated in such a way that
our identity claims are being directly or indirectly challenged or ignored. It can occur on
an individual or identity group level, or both. Repeated loss and threat of face often lead
to escalating conflict spirals or an impasse in the conflict negotiation process.
320 Boundary Regulation

In response to the heavy reliance on the individualistic Western perspective in

framing various conflict approaches, Ting-­Toomey (1985, 1988; Ting-­Toomey & Kurogi,
1998) advanced a cross-­cultural conflict FNT to provide a collectivistic Asian perspec-
tive designed to broaden various conflict orientations. FNT (Ting-­Toomey, 1985, 1988,
2005b, 2015c) explains the culture-­based, individual-­based, and situational factors that
shape communicators’ management of conflicts in diverse situations. The outcome com-
ponents of FNT also address the competence components and criteria needed to arrive
at an intercultural harmonizing state.
“Face” is generally conceptualized as how we want others to see us and treat us
and how we actually treat others in association with their social self-­conception expec-
tations. In everyday interactions, individuals constantly make conscious or semicon-
scious choices concerning face-­saving, face maintenance, and face-­honoring issues
across interpersonal, workplace, and international contexts. While face is about a
claimed sense of social interactional identity in situ, facework is about verbal and non-
verbal behaviors that protect/save self-face, other-face, mutual-­face, or communal face.
Research on facework can be found in a wide range of disciplines, including
anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics/English as a Second Language, man-
agement, international diplomacy, and human communication studies. The concept of
face has been used to explain linguistic politeness rituals, apology acts, embarrassment
situations, requesting behaviors, and conflict interactions, among others. The formation
of FNT was influenced by Hsien Chin Hu’s (1944) anthropological essay, “The Chinese
Concept of Face,” Erving Goffman’s (1955) sociological article on “On Face-Work,” and
Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s (1987) linguistics monograph, Politeness.
The study of intercultural conflict communication involves, at least in part, cul-
tural group membership differences and identity/face dissonance. Intercultural har-
mony can be experienced by increasing our awareness and knowledge of how different
cultural perspectives enact various face concerns and engage in different conflict styles.
Intercultural harmony can be attained by integrating culture-­sensitive knowledge,
mindfulness, and adaptive facework practice in managing the problematic conflict situ-
ation skillfully and arriving at a peace-­building state.

Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: Core Assumptions,

Key Conditions, and Research Findings
Core Assumptions

In 1985, the introductory conflict face negotiation theoretic framework emphasized the
functional connection between Edward T. Hall’s (1976, 1983) low-­context and high-­
context cultural schema with different conflict styles (Ting-­Toomey, 1985). Altogether,
eight theoretical propositions were introduced. Among these propositions, Proposition
5 stated that individuals from low-­context cultures tend to have a direct, confrontational
conflict attitude and style, and Proposition 6 stated that individuals from high-­context
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 321

cultures tend to be characterized by indirect/tactful, nonconfrontational attitude and

style.
In 1988, the formal seed version of FNT became available—­with 5 core assump-
tions and 12 theoretical propositions—­stating the relationship between individualism
and collectivism (Hofstede, 1991, 2001; Triandis, 1995, 2002) and self-face concern
and other-face concern issues. Four particular facework types were also identified:
self-­concern and other-­concern autonomy face (“negative face”), and self-­concern and
other-­concern approval face (“positive face”) maintenance strategies. Furthermore,
specific conflict communication styles were delineated: dominating versus smoothing/
obliging, and direct closure–­orientation versus indirect avoidance style (Ting-­Toomey,
1988). A cultural variability framework of “I identity” and “we identity” cultures was
used to connect culture-­level analysis with face concerns and conflict styles. For exam-
ple, Proposition 9 stated that members of individualistic, low-­context cultures tend to
use more dominating or controlling strategies to manage conflict than do members of
collectivistic, high-­context cultures; and Proposition 10 stated that members of col-
lectivistic, high-­context cultures tend to use more obliging or smoothing strategies to
manage conflict than do members of individualistic, low-­context cultures;
In 1998, a second formal version of the conflict FNT with 7 assumptions and 32
propositions was issued (Ting-­Toomey & Kurogi, 1998), accentuating the importance
of investigating individual-­level factors with face concern issues and conflict styles. In
addition, three key conflict content competence dimensions (culture-­sensitive knowl-
edge, mindfulness, and conflict interaction skills), together with four facework compe-
tence criteria (perceived appropriateness, effectiveness, mutual adaptability, and satis-
faction), were incorporated. In 2005, based on the results of several large cross-­cultural
conflict data sets, a third formal version of the FNT was presented. This version main-
tained the 7 core assumptions and updated 24 theoretical propositions (scaled back
from Version 2’s 32 propositions; Ting-­Toomey, 2005a).
The seven core FNT assumptions (Ting-­Toomey & Kurogi, 1998; Ting-­Toomey,
2005b) are as follows:

1. People in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication
situations.
2. The concept of face is especially problematic in emotionally threatening or
identity-­vulnerable situations when the situated identities of the communica-
tors are called into question.
3. The cultural value spectrums of individualism–­collectivism and small/large
power distance shape facework concerns and styles.
4. Individualism and collectivism value patterns shape members’ preferences for
self-­oriented face concern versus other-­oriented or mutual-­oriented concern.
5. Small and large power distance value patterns shape members’ preferences for
horizontal-­based facework versus vertical-­based facework.
322 Boundary Regulation

6. The value dimensions, in conjunction with individual, relational, and situ-

ational factors, influence the use of particular facework behaviors in particular
cultural scenes.
7. Intercultural facework competence refers to the optimal integration of knowl-
edge, mindfulness, and communication skills in managing vulnerable identity-­
based conflict situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively.

Key Conditions
When an individual’s face image is being threatened in a conflict situation, she or he
likely experiences identity-­based frustration, emotional vulnerability, anger, defensive-
ness, hurt—and even a thirst for vengeance. The threats to face can be on a group mem-
bership or individual level. In 2005, in a third formal version of the FNT (“The Matrix
of Updated Face Negotiation Theory”; Ting-­Toomey, 2005b), five triggering conditions
are added to predict the activation and the valence direction of an intercultural face-­
threatening process (FTP): First, the more the culturally appropriate facework rule is
violated, the more severe the perceived FTP. Second, the larger the cultural distance
between the conflict parties, the more mistrust or misunderstanding cumulate in the
FTP. Third, the more important the perceived conflict topic or imposition of the con-
flict demand, as interpreted from distinctive cultural angles, the more severe the per-
ceived FTP. Fourth, the more power the conflict initiator has over the conflict recipi-
ent, the more severe the perceived FTP by the recipient. Fifth, the more harm the FTP
produces, the more time and effort needed to repair the FTP—self-face protective or
defensive concern becomes incrementally more salient.
For example, individuals are likely to move toward self-face-­saving and ingroup
communal face-­saving as they perceive escalating face-­threatening conditions directed
at them or their salient ingroups. Cultural worldview perspectives, individual person-
ality tendencies, relational parameters, and situational pressures frame the underlying
interpretations of a severe intercultural “face-­threatening” interaction episode.

Essential Constructs and Related Research Findings

Because of space limitations, this section reports only those research findings related
to FNT from 2000 to 2015; for earlier FNT-­related conflict research results, consult the
overview articles in the FNT versions (Ting-­Toomey, 2005b; Ting-­Toomey & Kurogi,
1998) and theoretical variations and research articles in Ting-­Toomey and Cole (1990:
intergroup facework diplomatic communication—­Cuban Missile Crisis case study);
Ting-­Toomey et al. (1991: a five-­culture study—China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the
United States); Trubisky, Ting-­Toomey, and Lin (1991; a two-­culture study—­Taiwan
and the United States); Cocroft and Ting-­Toomey (1994: Japan and the United States);
Ting-­Toomey (1994: an edited book on cross-­cultural facework); and Gao (1998) and
Gao and Ting-­Toomey (1998: a coauthored book on Chinese communication patterns).
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 323

Multiple Facets of Face Concerns

The struggle for face respect or face deference in a conflict episode consists of three
facets: (1) locus of face—­concern for self, other, or both, plus communal face; (2) face
valence—­whether face is being defended, maintained, or honored, and (3) temporality—­
whether face is being restored or proactively protected. Locus of face is the primary
dimension of face that has been tested extensively; this face facet shapes the direction
of the subsequent conflict messages (Ting-­Toomey, 2005b; Ting-­Toomey & Takai, 2006).
On one hand, self-face is the protective concern for one’s image when one’s own
face is threatened in the conflict situation. Other-face, on the other hand, is the con-
cern for accommodating the other conflict party’s image in the conflict crisis situation.
Mutual-­face is the concern for both parties’ images and/or the “identity expectancy
image” of the relationship (Ting-­Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Communal face is the con-
cern to uphold ingroup membership face in assessing ingroup/outgroup face expectan-
cies and reactions (see, for example, Ting-­Toomey & Cole, 1990, on intergroup diplo-
matic communication; and Dorjee, Baig, & Ting-­Toomey, 2013, on honor killing; see
also other scholarly conceptualizations of face concern and facework, including Bond,
1992; Chen, 2014; Cupach & Metts, 1994). From an intergroup perspective, four face
concerns can be imagined: ingroup membership, outgroup membership, intergroup
membership, and community membership (for details, see Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee,
2014). These face concerns can explain why group members use different communica-
tive strategies in intergroup facework negotiation setting.
More specifically, in a direct empirical test of the theory (Oetzel, Garcia, & Ting-­
Toomey, 2008; Oetzel, Myers, Meares, & Lara, 2003; Oetzel & Ting-­Toomey, 2003; Oet-
zel et al., 2001; Ting-­Toomey et al., 1991), the research program with multiple empirical
studies tested the underlying assumption of the face negotiation theory that face is an
explanatory mechanism for cultural membership’s influence on conflict behavior. For
example, in Oetzel et al.’s (2001) international study, a questionnaire was administered
to 768 participants in four national cultures (China, Germany, Japan, and the United
States) in their respective languages asking them to recall and describe a recent inter-
personal conflict with someone of “equal status or higher status,” or with someone “very
close or not very close.” However, since the situational characteristics did not have
a strong effect on conflict behaviors in the college student respondents, results were
reported as overall findings of the FNT.
The major findings of the studies are as follows: First, cultural individualism–­
collectivism had direct effects on conflict styles, as well as mediated effects through
self-­construal and face concerns. Second, self-face concern was associated positively
with dominating style, and other-face concern was associated positively with avoid-
ing and integrating styles. Third, German respondents reported the frequent use of
direct-­confrontational facework strategies and did not care much for avoidance face-
work tactics; Japanese reported the use of different pretending strategies to act as if the
conflict situation did not exist; Chinese engaged in a variety of avoiding, obliging, and
passive–­aggressive facework tactics; and U.S. Americans reported the use of upfront
324 Boundary Regulation

expressions of feelings and remaining calm as facework strategies to handle problem-

atic conflict situations. In a recent study, Zhang, Ting-­Toomey, Dorjee, and Lee (2012)
tested FNT in an intimate relationship setting. In their investigation of conflict styles
in China and the United States, they found that Chinese individuals preferred a loyalty
conflict response in intimate relationships, whereas U.S. individuals favored an action-­
orientation exit strategy or overt anger expression strategy in dealing with emotional
transgression issues.

Facework Strategies and Conflict Styles

Facework is the communication strategy used to uphold, support, and challenge self-
face and other-face identity issues in a conflict situation. Facework is linked closely
with identity and relationship conflict goals. Facework can refer to identity-­sensitive
verbal and nonverbal messages of a broad conflict style. It can also stand alone or apart
from an interactive conflict negotiation process, as facework behaviors can be enacted
before, during, or after a conflict confrontation process.
Three broad types of facework have been identified: dominating, integrating,
and avoiding (Oetzel, Ting-­Toomey, Yokochi, Masumoto, & Takai, 2000). Dominating
facework includes being aggressive, defending a position, and expressing an opinion.
Integrating facework includes problem-­solving, displaying identity respect, private dis-
cussion of the conflict, apologizing, and remaining calm using self-­discipline during
the conflict. Avoiding facework includes pretending that the conflict does not exist,
passive–­aggressive sabotaging tactics, giving in to the other’s position, and utilizing a
third party to help manage the conflict situation (Oetzel et al., 2000; Ting-­Toomey &
Oetzel, 2001).
While facework strategies can be used as preemptive, ongoing, or retrospective
maneuvers to explain away a conflict situation, conflict styles refer to patterned conflict
communication responses used during a conflict episode. The five-style conflict model
represents one way of conceptualizing these different conflict style tendencies (Rahim,
1983, 1992) (see Figure 10.3).
The dominating style (or competitive/controlling) emphasizes conflict tactics that
push for one’s own position above and beyond the other person’s interest. It includes
aggressive, defensive, controlling, and intimidating tactics. The avoiding style involves
dodging the topic, the other party, or the situation altogether. This style includes behav-
ior ranging from glossing over the topic and denying that conflict exists to leaving the
conflict scene. The obliging (or accommodating) style is characterized by a high con-
cern for the other person’s conflict interest above and beyond one’s own conflict inter-
est. Individuals tend to use the obliging style when they value their relationship more
than their personal conflict goal. They tend to either smooth over the conflict or give
in to the wishes of their conflict partners. The compromising style, however, involves
a give-and-take concession approach to reach a midpoint agreement concerning the
conflict issue. In using the compromising style, individuals use fairness appeals, trade-
off suggestions, or reach other quick, short-term solutions. It is an intermediate style
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 325

High  Dominating/Competing  Integrating/Collaborating

Style Style

Concern for 
Self-Interest Compromising Style

Low  Avoiding Style  Obliging/Accommodating

Style

Low High
Concern for Other’s Interest

FIGURE 10.3. A five-style conflict model: A Western approach.

resulting in some gains and some losses for each party (Rahim, 1983, 1992). Finally,
the integrating (or collaborative style) reflects a willingness and commitment to find a
mutual-­interest solution and involves a high concern for both self-­interest and the other
person’s interest in the conflict situation. In adopting an integrative style, individu-
als tend to use nonevaluative descriptive messages, qualifying statements, and mutual-­
interest clarifying questions to seek common-­ground solutions.
The multiple versions of FNT development presented in 1988–2005 research stud-
ies repeatedly noted that in the U.S.-centric conflict style research literature, obliging
and avoiding conflict styles are often interpreted as negatively disengaged styles (i.e.,
acting either too passively or indifferently or fleeing the conflict scene altogether, with
no active resolution). However, according to multiple cross-­cultural research data sets,
many Asian and Latin collectivists (e.g., see Ting-­Toomey & Cole, 1990; Oetzel et al.,
2001, 2003) do not necessarily perceive these conflict styles as negative. For example,
collectivists often use these two conflict communication styles to maintain other-face
326 Boundary Regulation

interests and ingroup harmony. As seen through the collectivistic cultural lens, obliging
and avoiding conflict styles can be viewed as two constructive, face-­sensitive conflict
styles for building relationship rapport or buying time to handle conflict competently.
In addition, from the U.S.-centric individualistic conflict-­style lens, use of the com-
promising conflict style is an expedient way of giving up something to achieve a 50–50,
middle-­of-the-road split solution (“win some, lose some”) and leaving both conflict par-
ties potentially frustrated. However, for collectivists, the “compromising style” is often
viewed as a long-term conflict relational commitment strategy to gain trust and build
further relationship favors (see the discussion of the conflict style in Ting-­Toomey, 1988,
2005b; Ting-­Toomey & Oetzel, 2002; see also Kim & Leung, 2000).
In expanding the five-­conflict style model to be inclusive of ethnic pluralism issues
in a heterogeneous society, three tested cross-­cultural conflict styles were added to
the classic five styles: emotional expression, third-party help, and passive–­aggressive
neglect style (Ting-­Toomey et al., 2000) (see Figure 10.4).
Emotional expression refers to relying on emotions and gut-level responses to
guide the self-­ assertive conflict expression approach and style. Third-party help
involves seeking help from someone who is not a conflict partner for advice and for
mediation of the escalating conflict episode and reflects a moderate concern for self-
face and moderate concern for the other-face stylistic lens. Neglect refers to use of
passive–­aggressive conflict tactics to sidestep the conflict but at the same time getting

(High)
Dominating
Integrating
Neglect
(Passive–Aggressive)
Emotional
Expression

Self-Face
Concern Third-Party
Help

Compromising

Avoiding

Obliging
(Low)
(Low) Other -Face Concern (High)

FIGURE 10.4. An eight-style conflict grid: An intercultural approach. Data from Ting-­Toomey
and Oetzel (2001).
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 327

an individual’s emotion arousal reaction from the other conflict party. It also reflects a
high concern for own aggrieved self-face and moderate concern for other-face reaction.
More notably, according to the intercultural conflict style approach, the avoidance con-
flict style moves from “low concern for self- and other-face” to “low concern for self-face
but high concern for other-face.” Moreover, the compromising conflict style also dips
toward “high concern for other-face sensitivity.”
In testing FNT within the pluralistic U.S. culture, multiethnic conflict research
has uncovered distinctive conflict interaction styles in relationship to particular
cultural–­ethnic identity salience issues (Ting-­Toomey, 1986, 2005b; Ting-­Toomey et al.,
2000). To illustrate, in the U.S. cultural context, it was found that Latino/a American
and Asian American respondents tended to use more avoidance and sought third-party
help conflict strategies more so than did African Americans; Asian Americans also used
more avoidance tactics than European Americans. African American females tended to
confront intimate relationship conflicts more readily than European American females.
More interestingly, individuals who identified strongly with mainstream U.S. culture
used more integrating, compromising, and emotionally expressive conflict strategies
than individuals who identified weakly with the larger U.S. culture. Concurrently,
individual respondents who indicated strong ethnic identity affiliation also expressed
higher use of integrative conflict style than respondents with weak ethnic identity affili-
ations.
Bicultural individuals (i.e., those individuals who identified strongly with both the
larger mainstream U.S. culture and their ethnic group membership) also tended to use
more integrating and compromising conflict strategies than marginal identity individu-
als. Beyond testing cultural and ethnic identity distinctiveness issues, in the early and
mid-2000s, the FNT research program also focused on testing the individual-­level pre-
diction of face concerns and conflict styles in diverse relationship types (e.g., interper-
sonal, family, and workplace) and negotiated situations (e.g., ingroup versus outgroup
situations; role status difference and power imbalance situations).

Cultural and Individual Variability and Facework Strategies

While research studies in the 1990s and early 2000s focused on the relationship
between the value dimensions of culture-­based individualism–­collectivism and face
concern strategies and conflict styles, the mid-2000 to present conflict studies have
rediscovered the small and large power distance values and related these value dimen-
sions to facework expectancies and practices. For example, Merkin (2006) integrated
small/large power distance value dimensions with individualism–­collectivism value
dimensions in explaining face-­threatening response messages and conflict styles in
multiple cultures. She found that high-­status individuals from large power distance
cultures used both direct and indirect facework strategies to deal with face-­threatening
situations—­depending on whether they were delivering positive or negative messages.
Furthermore, Kaushal and Kwantes (2006) found that the dominant conflict style of
“high concern for self/low concern for others” was positively associated with both
328 Boundary Regulation

vertical individualism and vertical collectivism. The notion of “face” or “claimed social
interactive identity” is considered one key domain in the larger competent power dis-
tance facework negotiation process.
Ting-­Toomey and Oetzel (2013; see also Smith et al., 1998; Triandis, 1995), in com-
bining both individualism–­collectivism and small/large power distance value patterns,
identified four predominant international workplace conflict approaches: impartial,
status-­achievement, benevolent, and communal (see earlier discussion in this chapter).
Depending on whether international employees are encountering equal or unequal
status conflicts, different face concerns and conflict styles are predicted. Leung and
Cohen (2011) proposed using the CuPS approach (culture × person × situation) in which
within-­culture and between-­culture variations on cultural and individual differences
concerning the concepts of dignity, honor, and face can be explained in combination
with various situational priming experiments.

Independent versus Interdependent Self‑Construal

Self-­construal is one’s overall self-image consisting of an independent and an interde-
pendent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1998). Both dimensions of self exist within
each individual and co-vary with particular facework situations, regardless of cultural
identity. The way individuals conceive of their overall self-­images—­independent versus
interdependent selves, or both—­should have a profound influence on what constitute
appropriate or inappropriate conflict communication responses in widely varying con-
flict situations. In a more recent study, the role of relational self-­construal was also
added to test face concern issues in emotional infidelity conflict situations in China and
the United States (Zhang et al., 2012).
In a cross-­national conflict study conducted in four nations, Oetzel and Ting-­
Toomey (2003) found that independent self-­construal is associated positively with
self-face concern and use of dominating/competing conflict strategies. Interdependent
self-­construal, in contrast, is associated positively with other-face concern and use of
avoiding and integrating conflict tactics. Bicultural construal individuals also mani-
fested a wider range of conflict-­style tactics than the other three construal types (high
independent self, high interdependent self, and ambivalent self; Ting-­Toomey, Oetzel,
& Yee-Jung, 2001). In addition, Zhang et al. (2012) found that respondents in China and
the United States with high independent self-­construals preferred exit and anger voice
responses, and respondents with high relational self-­construals preferred the integra-
tive conflict style and third-party help-­seeking conflict style in dealing with intimate
relationship conflicts.
The overall findings in testing FNT revealed that individualistic cultural members
and independent self-­construal types have more self-face concerns and less other-face
and mutual-­face concerns than collectivists and interdependent types. In comparison,
collectivistic cultural members and interdependent types have more other-face empha-
sis in managing conflicts with others than individualists and independent self-­construal
types (Oetzel et al., 2001, 2008).
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 329

Conflict Face Negotiation Theory:

Recent Research Trends

Recent research testing (2010–2015a) on conflict FNT include the following themes:
face-­sensitive conflict emotions, interpersonal transgressions and forgiveness, intergen-
erational face and the dark side of face, and measurement methodological issues of
various face concern constructs.

Cross‑Cultural Face‑Sensitive Emotions

Zhang et al. (2014) linked emotion to FNT’s assumptions and probed the critical role
of anger, compassion, and guilt in understanding the complex pathways of their rela-
tionships with self-­construal, face concerns, and conflict styles in U.S. and Chinese
cultures.
Results revealed that in both U.S. and Chinese cultures anger was associated
positively with independent self-­construal, self-face concern, and competing style, and
compassion was associated positively with interdependent self-­construal, other-face
concern, and integrating, compromising, and obliging styles. Guilt was related posi-
tively to interdependent self-­construal and the obliging style in the United States, and
to interdependent self-­construal and the avoiding style in China.
Overall, emotion mediated the effects of self-­construal and face concerns on con-
flict styles in both cultures, though cultural differences did emerge. The effects of self-­
construal were mediated more through face concerns than emotions in the United
States. However, the effects of self-­construal were mediated through both face con-
cerns and conflict emotions in China (Zhang et al., 2014). The researchers explained
this interesting research finding by employing the individualized lens of the indepen-
dent self-­construal personality as a strong stand-alone trait in shaping self-face concern
in dealing with conflict issues in the United States. However, for independent-­self cul-
tural members in China, the emotion of anger (i.e., feeling irritated, angry, annoyed,
and aggravated) fully mediated self-face concern and competitive conflict style. When
aggravated anger was finally experienced and triggered in a conflict cycle, Chinese
respondents displayed a strong tendency to protect self-face from hurt or embarrass-
ment; this emotion of anger also primed the use of a dominant competitive outlook in
the conflict face negotiation situation (Zhang et al., 2014).

Cross‑Cultural Conflict Forgiveness

This particular cross-­cultural forgiveness study probed the dynamic nature of emotions
and the perceived face threat in forgiveness and reconciliation processes in China and
the United States (Zhang, Oetzel, & Ting-­Toomey 2015). The findings revealed both
interesting differences and similarities on cross-­cultural forgiveness and the emotion of
anger in conflict management.
The major findings of the research were as follows:
330 Boundary Regulation

1. Chinese participants reported more relationship-­

oriented forgiveness than
U.S. participants.
2. Relative to pre-­forgiveness, results indicated less post-­forgiveness anger and
more compassion in both the U.S. and Chinese samples—­thus, some cross-­
cultural commonalities.
3. Initial anger had a negative association with forgiveness, but initial compassion
had a positive association with forgiveness in both cultures.
4. Perceived face threat had a positive relationship with initial anger and a nega-
tive relationship with initial compassion in both cultures.
5. Anger was negatively correlated, but compassion was positively correlated,
with reconciliation in both cultures.
6. The hypothesized structural equation model (SEM) had a good fit to the data in
both cultures.

Thus, perceived face threat evokes initial emotions (i.e., anger and compassion),
which influence forgiveness, and in turn counterinfluence emotions (i.e., anger and
compassion), which then affect reconciliation. Drawing from the functional paradigm
methodology, the study’s findings contributed to an understanding of the reactive emo-
tions of anger and compassion in shaping interpersonal amends and reconciliation. The
goodness of fit of the SEM model in both China and the United States paints a more
complete picture of the direct path between forgiveness and reconciliation as well as
the mediated paths among perceived face threats, emotions, and reconciliation (Zhang
et al., 2015).
In sum, forgiveness is an essential step in effecting reconciliation in both individu-
alistic and group-based cultures. Alternatively, softening or reframing the perceived
face threat event in the relationship and developing empathy and compassion for the
transgressor may also activate forgiveness and reconciliation processes. The results of
the study offered some evidence for the fifth condition proposed in the FNT’s face-­
threatening process (FTP): “Fifth, the more harm or hurtful the FTP produces, the
more time and effort is needed to repair the FTP. . . . Self-face concern becomes incre-
mentally more salient if several of these conditions are present in a face-­threatening
communication process” (Ting-­Toomey, 2005b, p. 77). The findings of this cross-­cultural
China–U.S. forgiveness study paved the way for testing FTP conditions.
Drawing from another functional paradigm research lens, a recent methodological
study (N = 1,003 research participants) testing FNT in five nations (China, Taiwan,
Uganda, Ethiopia, and the United States) emphasized the importance of establishing
cross-­cultural measurement equivalence issues regarding facework behaviors (Fletcher
et al., 2014; see also Oetzel et al., 2000). Interested readers can also track the various
measurement scales for operationalizing self-­construals, face concerns, and conflict
styles in Ting-­Toomey et al. (1991), Ting-­Toomey and Oetzel (2001), and Oetzel and
Ting-­Toomey (2003).
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 331

Intergenerational Face and the Dark Side of Face

In a recent study, using an interpretive paradigm lens, Baig et al. (2014) used FNT as
a guiding framework in exploring how the South Asian Indian term izzat relates to the
meaning construction of face in intergenerational contexts in the United States. Based
on a qualitative design approach, the twin objectives of the research were to explore
the meanings of izzat among Asian Indian Americans and to understand how the motif
of izzat serves as a potential source for intergenerational conflict. Interview data and
thematic analysis results revealed six interpretive themes: showing respect as a perfor-
mance ritual; staging family face; reacting to complex izzat emotions; managing face
boundaries in embarrassing situations; dispelling grounds for gossip; and identifying
the acculturation change process and izzat socialization.
Participants viewed izzat primarily as relating to family respect and embarrass-
ing situations. They also used active concealment and diversion facework strategies to
ward off potential izzat face-­threatening encounters. Overall, differences in izzat were
contextualized in terms of ethnic family socialization processes and the identity change
process between the older generation and the younger Asian Indian American genera-
tion in the United States’ multiethnic society.
In flipping face on its head, Dorjee et al. (2013) explored the dark side of face in
their analysis of an “honor killing” case study with a conjoint social ecological perspec-
tive (SEP) and FNT (see Oetzel, Ting-­Toomey, & Rinderle, 2006; Oetzel et al., 2013;
Ting-­Toomey & Oetzel, 2013). Informed by this integrative perspective, a true-life hor-
rific case story of honor killing—“Miss Banaz Mahmod’s Honor Killing Story in the
U.K.”—was systematically analyzed. Briefly, Ms. Banaz Mahmod was a 20-year-old,
Iraqi-­Kurdish female immigrant, living in Surrey, United Kingdom. Following cultural
tradition, Banaz Mahmod had been forced to marry an older man at the age of 17. She
returned to her parent’s home abruptly due to an abusive and violent relationship. Later,
she met Mr. Rahmat Sulemani, a young Iranian Kurd, and fell in love with him. Her
family members were furious when they found out about the behind-­the-­scenes dating
relationship because Mr. Sulemani was not “immediate family” or a “strict Muslim.”
Ms. Mahmod tried to seek police protection help but her voice was ignored and actually
perpetuated more family conflict. In January, 2006, Ms. Banaz Mahmod was strangled
and murdered at her home and her body was stuffed into a suitcase. Several months
later the suitcase was found buried more than 100 miles away, under a house in a Bir-
mingham suburb. Banaz’s father and uncle along with three other accomplices were
eventually arrested for her brutal murder that involved “honor” killing (Dorjee et al.,
2013). Miss Banaz Mahmod’s story illustrates intercultural issues such as entrenched
ethnocentric lens and insensitivity, and taboo intercultural relationship development. It
also reveals intergroup membership issues such as traditional family role expectations,
gender role inequality, ingroup community reactions, social justice and injustice issues,
and historical intergroup hostility factors.
FNT worked well with SEP in understanding the honor killing story given its
theoretical focus on the dark side of face concerns, facework strategies, and group
332 Boundary Regulation

membership identity honor and vulnerability issues. Honor is a face concern issue that
involves the emotions of pride and shame, and honor killing is a drastic and desper-
ate face restoration strategy. Thus, to restore family pride and communal honor, the
father Mr. Mahmod felt he had no choice but to order paid assassins to murder his own
daughter in a brutal and violent manner. He hoped to restore some semblance of family
face reputation and ingroup communal honor. In essence, the misnomer “honor killing”
constitutes a heinous narrow-­range cultural struggle and moral struggle that challenges
universal human conscience, social justice, and human rights.
Thus, it is imperative that intercultural and intergroup researchers be responsive
and show responsible attention in the theorizing and researching process involved
in integrating the study of moral face or ethics with the development of FNT (Ting-­
Toomey, 2011; Ting-­Toomey & Oetzel, 2013). In short, honor killing represents the
abyss of the cultural dark side of facework (Dorjee et al., 2013; see also Zhang & Ting-­
Toomey, 2014, for an integrative SEP and FNT case study analysis of “Anna Mae He’s
Chinese Adoption Story, 1999–2009”).
Multiple theoretical variation and methodological approaches have been used to
test and extend FNT. Researchers are fully welcomed and embraced to test, extend,
modify, and stretch the FNT propositions through the tripartite research paradigms
of functional–­interpretive–­critical approaches. Depending on the research questions
asked, testing the theory itself can draw from any of the paradigms and a mixed-­method
framework—­as long as the rationale and logical reasoning process of using a particular
method are in alignment with the spirit of FNT core assumptions, propositions, and
conditions.

Researching Conflict Face Negotiation Theory: Future Directions

The study of face is an exhilarating metaphor that spans many academic disciplinary
boundaries and covers a wide range of communication phenomena of interest. The
advancement of FNT can only be made by instilling a strong sense of situational com-
plexity and identity complexity in its further evolutionary phases. The progress of FNT
is highly dependent on rigorous and creative cross-­cultural comparative testing, testing
of intercultural and intergroup facework encounters, and developmental-­longitudinal
testing methodologies.
FNT is considered to be a theory–­research–­practice conceptual framework that
can be used in multiple applied settings such as intercultural communication training,
conflict training, mediation training, to name a few examples (e.g., see Ting-­Toomey,
2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2009a, 2009b), and more research studies need to be designed
to probe the pretraining, process-­training, and posttraining effects of increased face
knowledge, enhanced ethnorelative view, and improved facework skills’ practice.
Finally, the themes of identity negotiation, facework emotions, revisiting of conflict
styles, intergroup convergence/divergence facework issues, and the role of mindfulness
in cultivating intercultural harmony may help to present a fuller picture of FNT as we
move closer to the mid-­twenty-­first century (see, e.g., Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2014).
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 333

Identity Negotiation and Facework

Given the within-­identity diversity found in contemporary societies, more attention
can also be paid to sociocultural identity membership issues in the conflict negotiation
process. For example, Kim-Jo, Benet-­Martinez, and Ozer (2010) found that Korean and
European American monocultural respondents used a more obliging conflict style and a
competitive conflict style, respectively. However, the most intriguing finding regarding
conflict style was associated with the Korean American bicultural group. The Korean
American respondents, like European Americans, used a significantly more competi-
tive conflict style than Korean nationals and simultaneously used more avoidance con-
flict style than Korean nationals in conflict resolution.
The researchers theorized that some cultural individuals (in this case, the Korean
American respondents) may actually adhere more strongly to their ethnic cultural val-
ues than to their heritage home country (Kim-Jo et al., 2010). This explanation alone
does not, however, account for the competitive style of the Korean American partici-
pants. Instead, Briley, Morris, and Simonson’s (2005) research findings on bicultural
individuals in Hong Kong and the chameleon nature of biculturalists and their adap-
tive impression management skills may help explain bicultural code-­switching conflict
strategies—­extending from use of avoidance style to use of competitive communication
style and their flexible facework strategies (see also Toomey, Dorjee, & Ting-­Toomey,
2013). Thus, more FNT-­related conflict research on the competent facework strategies
biculturalists use in a multiethnic society may also yield a more complex picture of how
strategic and creative facework strategies are being deployed in diverse communication
competence arenas (see also Ting-­Toomey, 2005b and the recent works on intercultural
communication competence and communication competence by Dai & Chen, 2014,
and Hannawa & Spitzberg, 2015).

Facework Emotions
Recent research studies have focused on investigating the relationship between face
concerns and the emotions of anger, compassion, and guilt. In an actual conflict nego-
tiation situation, however, mixed and blended emotions of anger, sadness, guilt, shame,
contempt, fear, and hope may underlie different self-face and other-face concern con-
flict moves. Theoretically, careful attention can be paid to the expanded role of emo-
tion in unpacking the relationship between the self-­construal and emotional appraisal
process in a conflict situation. Research-­wise, the mediating links of primary (e.g.,
perceived conflict goal salience/relevance) and secondary (e.g., future expectancy for
things to get better or worse) emotional appraisal processes between face concerns and
conflict styles can be further tested across a wide range of cultures.
The recently identified conflict emotional sets (i.e., vulnerable, fearful, hostile,
flat, self-­conscious, and positive emotional sets; Guerrerro, 2013) can also add in-depth
complexity to the study of conflict emotions and facework strategies in different indi-
viduals, situations, and cultures. Clearer conceptual and operational definitions on
334 Boundary Regulation

“conflict emotions experienced” versus “conflict emotions expressed” in an intercul-

tural or intergroup face-­vulnerable conflict situation need to be further analyzed.

Revisiting and Unpacking Conflict Styles

Research results have consistently revealed that individualists and independent self-­
construals are related to dominating/competing conflict style and that collectivists and
interdepedent self-­construals are related to avoidance and obliging, to integrative and
compromising conflict styles. More cultural indigenous perspectives on the meaning
of “competition,” “integrating,” “compromising,” and “harmonizing” will likely yield a
fuller picture of each distinctive conflict style.
Findings on passive–­aggressive conflict style and third-party help (i.e., the results
were inconsistent in terms of their relationship to self-face concern or other-face con-
cern) yielded inconsistent results and thus required more well-­designed cross-­cultural
or intercultural/intergroup research studies especially using a multimethod lens.
Understudied concepts that are closely related to conflict styles, for example, “eating
bitter” or “enduring” conflict style, “knowing thy enemy” conflict style, and “harmony
repair” style (to name a few of the Chinese conflict-­related concepts) can help to expand
the existing conflict-­style vocabulary in the mainstream literature. An integrative emic
plus etic perspective can offer a fuller picture of the derived stories, meanings, vulner-
able emotions, situations, face-­saving/face-­recuperating conflict styles and strategies
related to the conflict FNT. More collaborative research studies, both domestic and
global, can also help to expand the repertoires of conflict styles from different cultural
zones, ethnic–­racial membership groups, and gender identity perspectives.

Intergroup Convergence/Divergence Issues

While 30 years of FNT testing have focused primarily on cross-­cultural comparative
facework style analysis, more research studies are needed to look at face convergence
and divergence processes in intercultural or intergroup-­level conflict negotiation pro-
cesses (Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2014). Social construction of ingroup versus outgroup
seems complex in different cultures (e.g., the two ingroup conceptions and the two
outgroup conceptions in Japanese relational culture; see Midooka, 1990) and requires
identity and face negotiation competence. Videotaped interaction analysis methods,
experimental studies, intergroup discourse analysis studies, and real-life macro–micro
intergroup conflict case studies may prove more fruitful in advancing conflict FNT in
the next decade.
In addition, the role of language usage in code switching between “saving face” and
“giving face” in front of perceived ingroup or outgroup situations may yield some inter-
esting insights in terms of the role of language enactment, impression formation, and
face concern decoding and encoding facets. The subtle facework code switching and
the nuanced shifting of nonverbal signals also call for more collaborative intercultural
and nonverbal research studies. Indeed, the perceptions and meaning constructions of
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 335

face, as well as the use of diverse verbal and nonverbal facework masking and recovery
strategies, may also provide more illuminating insights into intergroup facework con-
vergence versus divergence dynamics.

Mindfulness and Intercultural Harmony

Intercultural facework competence is really about the mindful management of emo-
tional frustrations and conflict interaction struggles owing primarily to cultural or
ethnic group membership differences. It means having the necessary culture-­based
knowledge, open-­minded attitude, and operational skills mindfully attuned to the
internal thinking patterns and habits of one’s own mind, and making the commitment
to see things from a different lens. It means paying exquisite attention to identity-­based
communication issues and conjointly creating a harmonizing path and outcome that
can be sustained on the macro and micro levels of conflict resolution practice.
In a recent theorizing effort, a threefold-­faceted prism of mindfulness was intro-
duced (Ting-­Toomey, 2015a, 2017b, 2017c; see also Chapter 5). The threefold mind-
fulness prism comprises being present in the immediate time and space orientation;
affective attunement orientation; and metacognition awareness. Intercultural conflict
competence/incompetence perception is often formed, based on the criteria of perceived
communication appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability and is filtered through
the threefold facets of mindfulness. Mindful transformation is the incremental awaken-
ing process in understanding how our own cultural worldviews and value system shape
our conflict responses and gut-level reactions, simultaneously realizing that alternative
worldviews and value systems frame our cultural partners’ conflict lens and meanings.
Dynamic conflict communication skills such as cultural decentering, mindful listening,
reframing, adaptive verbal and nonverbal code switching, and mutual-­face respect dia-
logue skills are some of the face-­sensitive skills (see Ting-­Toomey, 2004, 2007b, 2015c)
that have been used in multiple theory-­practice, face competence training workshops.
Future research needs to pay more attention to how mindful transformation can
be fostered and induced from an ethnocentric state to an ethnorelative state, or from a
mindless–­incompetent orientation stage to a mindful–­competent attuning stage (Ting-­
Toomey, 2014; Ting-­Toomey & Dorjee, 2015). We need more research studies to capture
the subtle mind-shift process, emotional arousal process, body-­mindfulness awakening
process, and behavioral adaptation process in moving individuals from a dysfunctional
state to a synchronized, peace-­building interdependent system.
While a systematic accumulation of cross-­cultural conflict style studies exists,
researchers need to address more fully the criteria dimensions of competent conflict
management: appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptation. For example, to under-
stand whether appropriate conflict behaviors have been perceived, one must obtain
competence evaluations from the standpoint of both conflict negotiators and interested
observers. It is also critical to obtain both self-­perception and other-­perception data
because we may think that we are acting appropriately in a conflict situation, but others
may not concur with our self-­assessment.
336 Boundary Regulation

Finally, postconflict interviews or journal tracking can elicit the logic or narrative
accounts that individuals use to justify their facework behaviors during and after an
intercultural conflict episode. Although the knowledge component has been empha-
sized as the most important area for intercultural conflict competence training, we
need more empirical research to test this assertion. We also need to know how we
can optimally sequence the knowledge, mindfulness, and conflict skills components to
train effectively and dynamically. We also need more well-­designed pretest and post-
test research studies to understand the rate and quality of change in the knowledge,
mindfulness, and skills domains as a direct result of the intercultural conflict training
program.
The “culture-­based situational conflict model” presented in this chapter is a tenta-
tive compass or map to guide and encourage international collaborative research in the
conjoint areas of intercultural and intergroup conflict communication. The intricate
relationship among these various communication competence processes and criteria—­
appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability—­especially in connection with under-
standing problematic intercultural interaction situations, awaits further exploration and
testing from both an insider “emic” lens (see, e.g., Oetzel, Arcos, Mabizela, Weinman,
& Zhang, 2006) and an outsider “etic” lens.
It is hoped that by collecting meaningful data in a wide range of situational
domains and in a diverse range of cultural communities, more research knowledge
can transform the flat, two-­dimensional plane conflict model to a multidimensional,
culture-­sensitive conflict framework. Both international insider and outsider research
collaborative efforts are urgently needed to understand the rich fabric of the differ-
ent designs, patterns, and colorful threads that constitute the complex and adaptive
intercultural conflict competence system. Both indigenous narrative perspective and
cross-­cultural comparative perspectives are needed to truly understand the multiple
voices, stories, and dynamics of what constitutes a competent versus incompetent con-
flict negotiation practice (Cai & Fink, 2017; Chen, 2017).
To conclude, the multiple pathways of testing conflict FNT have led us in an emo-
tionally exhilarating and intellectually rewarding journey. While I (STT) cannot men-
tion all the specific names here, I want to thank many of my former and present stu-
dents, colleagues, and international scholars and friends for collaborating with me and
also inviting me to collaborate with them on many of the FNT-­related research proj-
ects. In my FNT work, I am blessed with their support, and I count myself most lucky
to have been inspired by their collective wisdom, dedicated professionalism, and grace.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

C reative conflict communicators use culture-­sensitive, adaptive communication

skills to manage the process appropriately, integrate divergent interaction goals
effectively, and promote constructive team productivity and satisfaction within the sys-
tem. In sum, this chapter has covered five key topics: a discussion of the criteria and
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 337

components of intercultural conflict competence; a review of the culture-­based situ-

ational conflict model; and a synoptic probe of the integrated threat theory and con-
flict FNT. Furthermore, the chapter also covers key assumptions, conditions, and core
constructs of FNT. In addition, it discusses past and current research findings related
to conflict FNT, and ends with specific suggestions. The chapter ends with specific
suggestions for research directions in utilizing conflict FNT as an explanatory conflict
framework.
Considering the individualism–­collectivism conflict boundary-­crossing as a start-
ing point, we can make some specific recommendations based on differences in indi-
vidualistic and collectivistic styles of conflict management. These suggestions are not
listed in any order of importance. To deal with conflict constructively in a collectivistic
culture, individualists need to do the following:

1 Beciallymindful of the mutual face-­saving premises in a collectivistic culture, espe-

the use of specific facework skills in managing the delicate balance of
humiliation and pride, respect and disrespect, and shame and honor issues.

2 Practice patience and mindful observation: Take five mindful seconds before
verbally articulating your feelings. Be mindful of past events that bear rel-
evance to the present conflict situation, and also limit the number of verbal why
questions—­because collectivists typically focus on the nonverbal how process.

3 Practice mindful listening skills: Attend to the sound, movement, and emo-
tional experience of the other person. This indicates that one person is attend-
ing to the other person’s identity and relational expectation issues; remember that
the word listen can become silent by rearranging the letters.

Some specific recommendations also can be made for collectivists in handling conflict
with individualists. When encountering a conflict situation in an individualistic cul-
ture, collectivists need to do the following:

1 Engage in an assertive style of conflict behavior that emphasizes the right

of both parties to speak up in the conflict situation and respects the right to
defend one’s position; learn to open a conflict dialogue with a clear thesis statement
and then systematically advance key points.

2 Assume individual accountability for the conflict decision-­making process: use

“I” statements when expressing opinions, sharing feelings, and voicing thought
processes; assume a sender-­responsible approach to constructively manage the
conflict; learn to ask more why questions and probe for clear explanations and
details.

3 Engage in active listening skills: engage in active verbal paraphrasing and

perception-­
checking skills to ensure that the other person thoroughly
338 Boundary Regulation

understands each point; learn to occasionally disclose emotions, attitudes, and

experiences within the conflict process itself; do not rely solely on nonverbal sig-
nals or count on other people to gauge personal reactions.

To manage intercultural/intergroup conflict flexibly, we must be prepared to consider

alternative cultural perspectives. If another party is an interdependent-­self collectivist,
we may want to attend to his or her “process-­oriented” assumptions during our con-
flict negotiation. If others are independent-­self individualists, we may want to be sensi-
tive to their “outcome-­oriented” assumptions during the conflict negotiation. Flexible
intercultural conflict management means using culture-­sensitive communication skills
to manage the process and outcome of conflict adaptively and productively (see also
Broome, 2017; Haslett, 2017).
Intercultural conflict competence takes into account the keys of perceived emo-
tional and identity threats that affect the well-being of the two intercultural conflict
parties or systems. Through intentional mindfulness, conflict parties can practice both
general intercultural competence and specific intercultural conflict competence skills.
Intercultural parties can learn to depolarize their emotional tensions and conflict posi-
tions, as well as learn to reframe the intercultural conflict from a monocultural conflict
perspective assessing it from multiple discovery perspectives. Finally, intercultural
conflict intelligence demands that conflict parties use a transformational outlook in bal-
ancing focused attention with flexible behavioral repertoires in communicating appro-
priately, effectively, and adaptively in managing sudden conflict crises and moment-­
to-­moment changes. In short, intercultural conflict competence is about the activation
of a focused attunement process, behavioral flexibility, and the skillful application of
the untapped human imagination between diverse identity groups, communities, and
cultures.

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. In rereading the opening story, did you perceive any face-­
threatening interac-
tional episode(s) and face-­threatening verbal and nonverbal messages in the case
story? What underlying intercultural value and expectancy clashes drive the face-­
threatening encounter? Can you recommend two constructive other-face, mutual-­
face, and/or communal face-­saving strategies to “save face” or “repair face” for
both Mr. Watanabe-­san and Mr. Wilde in the case story either during the unfolding
conflict-­escalating process or in a follow-­up meeting session?

2. Recall a past conflict face-­threatening situation with your coworker or intimate part-
ner. How can understanding self-face, other-face, mutual-­face, community face, and
ingroup/outgroup face help you to understand this particular conflict more deeply?

3. Think about the seven conflict management styles: dominating, avoidance, com-
promising, obliging/accommodating, integrative/collaborative style, emotional
 Intercultural and Intergroup Conflict Issues 339

expression, and third-party styles across different conflict situations (such as

supervisor–­subordinate conflict, intimate relationship conflict, and family conflict).
Under what conditions should you consider using which particular style and why?

4. Based on the culture-­based situational conflict model discussed in this chapter, how
would you design an intercultural training workshop session on the topic of intercul-
tural conflict management transformation for positive change?

5. You are deputed as a United Nations negotiator to try to solve intractable conflicts
such as the Middle Eastern, the China–Tibet, and religious conflicts. In what ways
can ITT and FNT help you better understand such conflicts and help the conflicting
parties to find some constructive solutions?

6. Drawing from the knowledge blocks of Chapters 9 and 10, what do you view as the
similarities and differences between intercultural conflict versus intergroup conflict?
What are the key takeaway practical lessons for you from both chapters in becoming
a competent intercultural and intergroup conflict negotiator in your everyday life?
 C H A P TE R 11

Attuning to Intercultural–Intimate
Relationship Development Processes

„„Introduction
„„Developing Intercultural–­Intimate Relationships:
Sociocultural Membership Identity Factors
††Cultural–­Ethnic Membership Values
††Anxiety/Uncertainty Interaction Management
††Love Attitudes and Expectations
††Personal Commitment and Structural Commitment
„„Attuning to Intercultural–­Intimate Relationship Attraction:
Interpersonal Facilitating Factors
††Perceived Physical Attractiveness
††Perceived Attitudinal Similarity
††Cross- ­Cultural Self-­Disclosure Comparisons
††Online Disclosure of Affection
„„Intercultural–­Intimate Conflict: Stumbling Blocks
††Intercultural–­Interracial Romantic Relationship Development Stages
††The Encounter: Prejudice and Racism
††Countering Racism and Prejudice: Coping Strategies
††Relational Transgressions and Cross-­Cultural Responses
††Raising Secure Bicultural Children
††Developing an Identity Plan and Relationship Satisfaction
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

K en and K im ’s M arital C risis: A rrival of the I n -L aws

Case  S tory
Ken and Kim have been married for 6 years. For most of those 6 years, they have been
a happily married couple. Ken is a 33-year-old German American and works at a high-
tech firm in Silicon Valley. Kim is a 30-year-old Chinese immigrant who is a pharmacist

340
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 341

and works in a nearby hospital. The couple has a 3-year-old son, Kevin. For the past
three years, Kim, with Ken’s support, worked hard and succeeded in bringing her par-
ents from China to the United States. While Ken and Kim are at work, the grandparents
happily babysit their grandson Kevin as they live across the street. Not knowing English,
they only speak Chinese to Kevin. To their delight, Kevin has been picking up Chinese
quickly.
Recently, Ken and Kim have had many tense moments and communication difficul-
ties relating to the in-law issue. To begin with, Ken feels he is never alone with Kim in
the house anymore because his in-laws are always there. Kim and her parents chatter
constantly in Chinese and also laugh in that strange Chinese tone. Ken feels very left
out and an outsider in his own house. He loves his family and wants things to get back
to normal—­the way it was. He feels excluded from everyday conversation at home and
decides to have an upfront, honest talk with Kim about his frustrations.
He asks Kim to please tell her parents to reduce their visits from every day to only
on the weekends and also call them ahead of time rather than just popping in to visit. He
asks Kim to register Kevin in a nearby English-­speaking preschool so that he can play
with other English-­speaking kids. While Kim nods “Uh-huh” to all his comments, nothing
seems to change. Moreover, her parents often cook up strange-­smelling Chinese food in
the kitchen, and Ken’s frustration has been on the rise.
From Kim’s viewpoint, she cannot understand how Ken can be so selfish. Her par-
ents are new immigrants with no friends and they do not drive. She is glad that Kevin
has a chance to learn Chinese from her parents and also feels that her Chinese roots
are taking hold again. She hopes that by ignoring Ken’s “ridiculous” requests, he will
eventually forget about them and come to his senses. Although at one point she yells
back at Ken for raising his voice and making another of his “off-the-wall” comments,
often she ends up only staring at Ken in silence. She does not want to upset her parents,
who are playing with Kevin in the next room. Inwardly, Kim grows increasingly resentful
and stressed. Likewise, Kevin feels progressively misunderstood and frustrated. Both
love each other deeply, but they feel their marriage is spiraling out of control. Kim and
Ken desperately need some concrete help and advice to handle their marital crisis.

—Stella, college instructor

Introduction

How would you explain Ken’s frustration and Kim’s stress? To what extent can you
relate to Ken? How so? To what extent can you relate to Kim? How so? Can you draw
upon any real-life intimate relationship examples (involving yourself or your family
members) that have had caused you tremendous relationship frustrations and stress?
Are any of them related to cultural, ethnic, gender, religious, age, or sexual-­orientation
issues? Hopefully, by mastering the concepts in this chapter, you can diagnose both
342 Boundary Regulation

Ken and Kim’s marital crisis with a culture-­sensitive lens and also offer them some con-
crete solutions to resolve their marital problem. Intercultural–­intimate relationships
have been on the rise in the United States.
According to Pew Institute Center’s (2010) American Community Survey Report
on interracial marriage in the United States, the findings indicated that a record of
15.1% of all new marriages in the United States were between spouses of difference
races (including marriages between a non-­Hispanic with a Hispanic) and that the rates
of interracial marriages nearly tripled between 1980 and 2010. Among all newlyweds,
intermarried pairings were predominantly between White–­Hispanic (43.3%), White–
Asian (14.4%), White–Black (11.9%), and other combinations (i.e., between different
ethnic groups, multiracial individuals, and Native Americans). Regional pairings indi-
cated that most interracial marriages took place in the West (22%), followed by the
South (14%), the Northeast (13%), and the Midwest (11%).
In another interesting news report, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court
delivered a landmark ruling: a 5–4 decision granting same-sex couples the constitu-
tional right to marry. The decision rests in part on the Court’s interpretation of the
Fourteenth Amendment stating that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates
the amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. Justice Anthony Ken-
nedy, writing for the majority, stated cogently that “no union is more profound than
marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and
family,” and concluded that “gay and lesbian couples ask for equal dignity in the eyes of
the law. The constitution grants them that right” (Pew Research Center, June 26, 2015,
p. 1). Concurrently, there has been a dramatic shift of support for same-sex marriage
in the broader U.S. national landscape—­from 37% in 2009 to 57% in 2015. However,
more than half of the LGBT members surveyed (58%: about six in ten) continue to
struggle with their stigmatized identity and reported that they have been the target of
slurs and jokes in different social settings. The first nation to legalize gay marriage was
The Netherlands, and the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s legal ruling placed the United
States as the 21st country to support and protect same-sex marriage.
According to an additional news report, between 2010 and 2015, 39% of new mar-
riages in the United States reported having a spouse from an unaffiliated “none” group
or different religious traditions. Most of these interfaith marriages are between Chris-
tians and the religiously unaffiliated, and then Christians from different denomina-
tions. Interfaith intimate relationships are even more common today among cohabitat-
ing couples. Nearly half (49%) of unmarried couples reported living with someone of a
different faith or nonaffiliated religious category (Pew Institute Center, June 12, 2015).
Despite the accelerating trends toward the formation of intercultural friend-
ships, dating relationships, and interracial/interethnic marriages, the development of
intercultural–­intimate relationships continues to face daunting challenges owing to
intercultural value and communication dissonances between intimate partners and
external reactions from family and friends. The challenges or stumbling blocks in devel-
oping intercultural close relationships are often due to negative expectancy violations,
identity rejections and disapprovals, and individuals’ lack of skillful means to manage
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 343

their intimate relationships and deal with sociocultural membership and relational cul-
ture issues capably.
Throughout this chapter, we consider the development of intercultural–­intimate
relationships between individuals who differ on one or more sociocultural member-
ship identities. As we will show, most formation and maintenance issues surrounding
intercultural–­intimate relationships involve negotiating multiple-­group membership
identity differences (e.g., different ethnicity, religion, age, language, cultural rituals,
traditions, parental-­gendered expectancy roles). Simultaneously, we also pay close
attention to research studies that focus on the cultivation of different levels of cross-­
cultural intimacy, commitment, and love expression at different stages of the relation-
ship development process (Sternberg, 1987).
The chapter examines the cultural factors, interpersonal facilitating factors,
and stumbling block factors associated with entering into and maintaining voluntary
intercultural–­intimate relationships, especially in the context of intercultural friend-
ships and romantic relationships. The discussion first addresses the cross-­cultural iden-
tity membership challenges that intimate partners often face when they come from
diverse cultural value systems. Next, it delineates the facilitating factors that prompt
relational partners to be attracted to each other. Third, the chapter addresses particular
obstacles some couples face when they want the relationship to move to a deeper com-
mitment stage. Also explored are issues of raising securely bicultural children. Finally,
the chapter ends with an overall summary and mindful guidelines for developing a
healthy and functional intercultural–­intimate relationship.
Understanding the cultural challenges, interpersonal facilitating factors, obstacles,
and rewards of an intercultural–­intimate relationship can make us all more astute in
dealing with our own diverse intimate relationship networks. Additionally, the knowl-
edge blocks in the chapter should also help us to be more supportive of our families’
and friends’ relational needs and goals and improve the quality of our interpersonal
relationships.

Developing Intercultural–Intimate Relationships:

Sociocultural Membership Identity Factors

Before we discuss why individuals are attracted to one another across cultural or ethnic
lines, we need to look deeper into the cultural “iceberg” and explore the semihidden
values that come into play in any relationship. Let’s first revisit some familiar terms,
such as individualism and collectivism, and draw out their implications for culture-­
based intimate relationship expectations.

Cultural–Ethnic Membership Values

The role of the individualism–­collectivism value dimension, and its impact on inter-
cultural relationship expectations and interaction decoding processes, are often like a
344 Boundary Regulation

hidden tsunami that stirs up tremendous intercultural–­intimate conflict problems. Cul-

tural value patterns form the basic criteria through which we evaluate our own behav-
iors and those of others. They cue our expectations of how people should act during
the development process of an intimate relationship. Cultural value orientations serve
as implicit guidelines for our motivations, expectations, perceptions, interpretations,
meaning formations, and interpersonal communicative actions.
By being mindful of how different value patterns can create unintentional clashes
in our relationship lives, we may be able to deal with these undercurrent dimensions
proactively rather than reactively. If one partner in an intimate relationship comes from
an individualistic cultural system and another partner comes from a group-­orientation
cultural system, this cultural gap may be a major factor underlying an existing relation-
ship conflict.
The individualist society is one in which ties between individuals are loosely linked
and everyone is expected to look after themselves and their immediate family (Triandis,
1995). For individualists, unique personal qualities, individual initiative, and an active
“doing” and “fixing” orientation are important assets in the ups and downs of an interper-
sonal relationship development process. In comparison, collectivism refers to societies
in which ties between individuals in the community are closely intertwined (Triandis,
1995). Group members see their fates as interdependent. While they will look after the
welfare of ingroup or extended family members, they also expect their ingroup members
to look after their interests through long-term reciprocal obligations. For collectivists,
demonstrated loyalty, long-term trust, and prescribed role responsibilities and obliga-
tions are the keys to developing quality ingroup–­interpersonal relationships (Table 11.1).
According to an intercultural research study (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994), indi-
vidualists tend to have more generalized trust of strangers than collectivists, while col-
lectivists display their faith in particularized trust on ingroup members and display
more of a lifetime commitment to them than individualists. For example, according
to the European Values Survey, western European nations appeared to practice more
generalized trust toward strangers than some eastern European collectivistic nations
(Gheorghiu, Vignoles, & Smith, 2009).

TABLE 11.1. Individualistic and Collectivistic Relationship Orientations

Individualistic orientation Collectivistic orientation
I-Identity relationship expectations Ingroup relationship expectations
Couple’s privacy and autonomy needs Ingroup’s connection and concerns
Voluntary personal commitments Family and social commitments
Low-context emotional expressions High-context emotional expressions
Unique relational culture Conventional relational culture
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 345

Gender role expectations and relational role obligations (i.e., the meaning of being
a “good” husband or a “good” wife or partner, or the meaning of being an “ideal” father
or an“ideal” mother) are also tied closely to the fundamental beliefs and worldviews
of a culture. For example, Schwartz and Boehnke (2004) found the father role tends
to be perceived as controlling and instrumental, and the mother role as nurturing and
expressive across multiple cultures. In addition, in the U.S. cultural setting, particular
gender differences exist in adherence to individualistic or communal-­oriented values.
On one hand, U.S. males generally have been found to adhere more to individualis-
tic values than to communal or relational-­oriented values. U.S. females, on the other
hand, generally have been found to subscribe to relational-­oriented values more than
U.S. males do (Tannen, 1990, 1994; Wood, 1997). However, compared to females in
collectivistic societies such as Greece, Italy, Japan, and Mexico, U.S. females still hold
reasonably high levels of individualistic-­oriented values. Thus, value pattern analysis
between countries or cultural communities is reflective of the “relative and compara-
tive to whom and what” point of view and the “during what period” as versus an “abso-
lute” stand-alone cultural pattern concept.
It has also been found that different layers of individualism (e.g., emphasizing per-
sonal need in the United Kingdom or immediate family need in Sweden) and collectiv-
ism (e.g., emphasizing work group need in Singapore or caste need in India) exist in dif-
ferent cultures. For example, for the Vietnamese, it is the extended family; for the Irish,
it is the Roman Catholic Church. Cultural membership values such as individualism
and collectivism shape our interpretations of concepts such as “autonomy” and “con-
nection” in an intimate relationship. In developing a relationship between individuals
from two contrastive cultures, friends or romantic partners often face the challenge of
how to handle autonomy and connection issues without going crazy (see Jian & Ray,
2016).
Autonomy is the need for personal privacy and regulated space in a relationship.
Connection is the need to merge personal and psychological space. On an individ-
ual trait-based level, independent-­minded partners often view autonomy–­connection
struggles as a delicate highwire act, constantly balancing the “me–we” dialectical
forces (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). In contrast, interdependent-­minded partners
often see autonomy and connection as a quadrangular juggling act, a “me–we–they–
they” dance performance in the intimate relationship and among their respective fam-
ily/friendship connective networks. As a result, intimate partners who subscribe to a
strong collectivistic-­communal value orientation believe the romantic relationship will
never be truly free from family obligations, duties, and extended family reactions.
Tremendous individual, gender, ethnic, social class, and regional variations exist
within the broad label of a national culture. Thus, on the personality trait level, terms
such as “independent self-­construal” and “interdependent self-­construal” (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991) are equivalent to cultural group membership systems terms such as
“individualists” and “collectivists.” Being mindful about both cultural membership dif-
ferences and unique personality distinctions within and between cultures is critical in
any intercultural–­intimate relationship bonding process (see Figure 11.1).
346 Boundary Regulation

Identity Memberships Intercultural Attraction Intercultural Intimacy

and Contextual Conditions and Challenges Relationship Outcomes

Cultural–Ethnic
Membership Values Perceived Physical
Attractiveness
Relationship
Anxiety/Uncertainty Perceived Attitudinal
Identity Plan
Interaction Management Similarity
Relationship
Cross-Cultural
Compromise
Love Attitudes Self-Disclosure
and Expressions Intimate Relationship
Online Affection
Satisfaction
Exchange
Interpersonal Relationship
Commitments Managing Racism
and Prejudice

FIGURE 11.1. Sociocultural membership factors and intercultural relationship attraction and chal-
lenges.

Anxiety/Uncertainty Interaction Management

Many interesting things can happen in an intercultural relationship development
journey. AUM theory, developed by Dr. William Gudykunst, explains how strangers
from diverse cultures or group memberships can practice communication effective-
ness through the mindful management of anxiety and uncertainty levels of interac-
tion (Gudykunst, 1988, 1993, 2005b). The root of AUM theory is the integration of
uncertainty reduction theory by Charles Berger (1975) and social identity theory by
Henri Tajfel (1981). AUM theory is one of the major intercultural communication theo-
ries explaining the antecedent, process, and outcome dimensions of intergroup and
interpersonal communication effectiveness. The building-­block concepts of the theory
include strangers, anxiety, uncertainty, thresholds, mindfulness, cross-­cultural variabil-
ity, effective communication, and intercultural adjustment.
According to the basic premise of AUM theory, when individuals encounter
strangers or culturally dissimilar others, they often experience both anxiety and uncer-
tainty. The concept of “stranger” is drawn from the sociological work of Georg Simmel
whereby a stranger can reflect both “near and far” qualities—­nearness connotes physi-
cal closeness, and remoteness refers to dissimilar values, outlooks, or behaviors. From
this stranger–­ingroup figure–­ground context, AUM theory emphasizes the notion that
almost all initial interactions are both intergroup and interpersonal in nature. Further-
more, strangers’ interaction is fraught with anxiety and uncertainty.
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 347

On the one hand, anxiety refers to affective feelings such as experiencing uneasi-
ness, awkwardness, confusion, stress, or apprehension about what might occur in the
encounter. Uncertainty, on the other hand, is a cognitive phenomenon and involves
both predictive uncertainty and explanatory uncertainty. In an initial intercultural
encounter process, Gudykunst (2005b) proposes that individualistic members tend to
use their default low-­context approach to reduce their anxiety and uncertainty by ask-
ing direct questions of strangers, probing for more personalized interests and opinions,
and expecting a direct answer from strangers. In comparison, collectivistic members
tend to use either an observational approach in sizing up a stranger or a “round-about
indirect way” to reduce their own anxiety and uncertainty. For example, collectivists
or interdependent-­self individuals may resort to “a third-party information-­seeking”
approach and ask an intermediary member about the relational status, family, or social
background status concerning the stranger’s myriad identities. Berger’s (1975; Berger
& Calabrese, 1975) three uncertainty reduction strategy types can be connected to
the intercultural uncertainty reduction arena as follows: Individualists would tend to
use more direct “interactive” uncertainty reduction strategies, and in comparison, col-
lectivists would use more “passive” or observational uncertainty reduction strategies or
“active/third-party information seeking” uncertainty reduction strategies.
Often when we encounter intercultural strangers, we experience predictive uncer-
tainty and explanatory uncertainty. While predictive uncertainty refers to our inabil-
ity to predict strangers’ attitudes or behaviors, explanatory uncertainty refers to our
inability to come up with a coherent explanation for strangers’ unfamiliar or “bizarre”
behaviors. According to Gudykunst (2005b), as individuals navigate across cultural
boundaries, they develop minimum and maximum thresholds for tolerating anxiety
and uncertainty. Too much or too little anxiety and uncertainty hampers intercultural
communication effectiveness. For example, when emotional anxiety is too high, cul-
tural strangers tend to communicate on automatic pilot and interpret dissimilar others’
behaviors using their own cultural-­ethnocentric frame of reference. However, when
emotional anxiety is too low, they might act in a very indifferent or continuous eth-
nocentric manner. Similarly, when cognitive uncertainty is too high, cultural strang-
ers cannot accurately interpret each other’s incoming verbal and nonverbal messages.
When cognitive uncertainty is too low, cultural strangers might over-rely on stereo-
types to decode the intercultural–­intergroup interaction episode and make exaggerated
and overgeneralized attributions concerning strangers’ unfamiliar behaviors.
According to the core thrust of AUM theory, intercultural or intergroup commu-
nication is effective when individuals can maximize understandings and minimize
misunderstandings. To achieve this meaning coordination process, individuals have
to learn to be mindful. To be mindful, as suggested earlier, means being open to new
information and multiple cultural perspectives, creating more differentiated catego-
ries to understand cultural strangers’ viewpoints, and being sensitive to the complex
meaning negotiation process between different identity groups (Langer, 1989). Mind-
fulness serves as the key moderating process between the two underlying causes (i.e.,
348 Boundary Regulation

anxiety management and uncertainty management) and communication effectiveness

(Gudykunst, 2005b).
Extending Gudykunst’s AUM theory, Neuliep (2012) and Neuliep and Ryan (1998)
found that individuals with low communication apprehension in initial interaction with
strangers practice both verbal assertiveness and verbal responsiveness. On the one
hand, verbal assertiveness is defined as an individual’s ability to make requests, actively
disagree, express personal feelings, and initiate, maintain, and terminate conversations.
On the other hand, verbal responsiveness is conceptualized as the ability of a person to
be a good listener, to engage in comforting communication, and to recognize the needs
and wants of relevant others. Overall, studies under this research program revealed
that U.S. respondents scored higher on the assertiveness dimension than Finnish and
Japanese respondents. The results also indicated that within a diverse set of cultures
(China, Japan, South Korea, Finland, and the United States), males tend to score higher
on the assertiveness scale dimension, and females to score higher on the responsiveness
scale dimension. In this set of comparative research studies, as verbal assertiveness and
responsiveness increase, initial interaction uncertainty decreases, and interpersonal
communication satisfaction increases. Thus, the more we strive to manage our anxiety
and uncertainty in a culturally appropriate and gender-­sensitive adaptive manner, the
more we bolster our affective security and cognitive confidence in meeting cultural
strangers eye to eye and face to face, and now on social media.

Love Attitudes and Expectations

How do we define love? The word love can have so many different connotations and, at
times, can be very confusing. It can be used seriously or casually, depending on what
culture you’re from. Researchers simply cannot offer a clear definition of love. However,
perspectives on love have been developed to distinguish it from “liking.” Sternberg
(1988a), for example, compared different types of love and liking as a triangle consisting
of three key components reflecting the Western perspective on love: intimacy, passion,
and commitment.
To Sternberg (1988a, 1988b), liking someone reflects a high level of intimacy but
relatively low levels of passion and commitment. Loving someone, from the concept
of “romantic/passionate love,” connotes high levels of intimacy and passion especially
reflecting the initial dating stages as well as sexual attraction and desire. In the sphere
of “consummate love,” high levels of the tripartite concepts of intimacy, passion, and
commitment are vested. When intimacy is combined with commitment, deep “friend-
ship love” or “family/sibling love” also exists (Fehr & Russell, 1991).
Just as researchers and ordinary folks vary as to how they conceptualize love,
expectations concerning love across cultures also vary. In individualistic cultures,
people typically want to “fall in love” (which sometimes involves intense dating proce-
dures) and then either get married or move on to another dating partner. Romantic love,
however, often poses major relational paradoxes. Although intimate partners desire to
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 349

“lose” themselves in a romantic love-fused relationship, many of them also struggle

with their desires for independence and personal freedom. Intercultural love experts
Dr. Karen Dion and Dr. Kenneth Dion (1996) concluded that the high divorce rate that
characterizes “U.S. society is due in good part to the culture’s exaggerated sense of indi-
vidualism” (p. 286). They observe that in the United States, subscribers to “expressive
individualism” face the following dilemmas in romantic relationships:
First, one can “lose” one’s self and the feeling of personal autonomy in a love rela-
tionship, feeling used and exploited as a result. Second, satisfying the autonomous needs
of two “separate” individuals in a love relationship obviously becomes a difficult balanc-
ing act. Third, the spirit of American individualism makes it difficult for either partner
in a relationship to justify sacrificing or giving to the other more than one is receiving.
Finally, and inevitably, Americans confront a fundamental conflict trying to reconcile
personal freedom and individuality, on the one hand, with obligations and role require-
ments of marital partner and parent, on the other (Dion & Dion, 1996, p. 286).
In addition, passionate love (high levels of intimacy and sexual attraction) is valued
most when family ties are weak (e.g., as in the larger U.S. culture, Australia, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom); passionate love is diluted where family ties are strong (e.g., in
Greece, Singapore, Spain, and Italy). Romantic passionate love is a critical component
in the “falling in love” stage of many individualists due to emphasis placed on the vol-
untary passionate love stage regardless of the partners’ cultural and family backgrounds
or social standings (Gao, 1991; Kline, Horton, & Zhang, 2008). This is also one reason
why individualists believe that getting married without love is a disastrous decision.
Research indicates, however, that many collectivists value companionate love
(strong friendship intimacy and commitment) more than passionate love in romantic
relationships (Gao, 1991). For example, some traditional collectivists (e.g., in India,
Iran, and northern Nigeria, in which arranged marriages are still the norm) prefer to
get married and then take their time to “fall in love.” Essentially, love and intimacy are
incrementally cultivated, with a long-term commitment emphasis. In collectivistic cul-
tures, ingroup harmony and cohesiveness take precedence over individual needs and
desires. From this particular communal-­relational value system, the value of intimacy
or incremental love is expressed through dedicated/patient caregiving, doing things
for one another, reciprocal loyalty and trust, forbearance and forgiveness, and hold-
ing a long-term view of the relationship over romantic ideals (Kline et al., 2008). For
some collectivistic relational partners, being in love takes long-term commitment and
relational patience. Love follows after marriage. Alternatively, as they learn to “grin
and bear” it, they learn to love each other, and accepting the flaws and virtues of their
lifetime partners.
Expert researchers on love also examined cultural differences in communicating
love by comparing young adults from the United States and the East Asian countries
of China, Japan, and South Korea (Kline et al., 2008). U.S. American and East Asian
international students answered questions about their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
related to love and friendship, and also expectations concerning marriage. The results
350 Boundary Regulation

showed that while East Asian respondents were more likely to believe that marriage is
about trust, caring, and respect and that it takes hard work, U.S. American respondents
were more likely to believe that love in marriage is essential and unconditional.
East Asian students also expressed love and affection in close friendships predomi-
nantly through “social gathering and informal chatting” activities such as having dinner
together and drinking together, whereas U.S. American students tended to express love
and affection in close friendships during activities (e.g., sports and exercise, going to
movies or concerts, and shopping), along with dining and drinking together. In express-
ing love and affection in marriage, both groups had the same notions about the most
important vehicles for expressing love: talking, having dinner together, doing things
together, and physical intimacy. Both groups also subscribed to the importance of hav-
ing similar beliefs, fidelity, and commitment in marital bonding relationships, more so
than in close friendship relationships (Bresnahan & Zhu, 2017; Gareis, 2017; Kline et
al., 2008).
Despite some individualistic and collectivistic cultural differences concerning
intimacy attraction ideology, it is also important to note that in nearly all 37 cultural
samples studied (Buss et al., 1990), both females and males endorsed mutual attraction–­
love, dependability, emotional stability, kindness–­understanding, and intelligence as
the top-­ranked mate-­selection criteria. The greatest cultural variation was found in the
attitude toward premarital chastity. Respondents in China, India, Nigeria, Iran, and
Zambia (i.e., reflective of collectivistic values) differed from respondents in the conti-
nental United States and western Europe (i.e., reflective of individualistic values) in
placing a premium value on premarital chastity.

Personal Commitment and Structural Commitment

In terms of relational commitment issues, individualists tend to expect voluntary per-
sonal commitment from their partners in approaching their intimate relationships.
However, for collectivists, structural commitment in an intimate relationship may be
more important than (or at least on an equal footing with) personal commitment in a
long-term romantic relationship. Here personal commitment, on the one hand, means
an individual’s desire or intent to continue the relationship based on his or her subjec-
tive emotional feelings and experiences; structural commitment, on the other hand,
means the individual takes into consideration various external social and family reac-
tions in deciding either to continue or to terminate a relationship (Johnson, 1991).
As a result of the struggle with autonomy and connection pulls, as well as personal–­
structural commitment issues, one other outcome among the individualistic cultural
mind-set is the phenomenon known as the “hook-up” culture. Hooking up carries a
wide range of meanings but is mostly linked to consensual sexual activities that make
no pretense of starting a committed relationship, between young, mostly college-­age
students (Bogle, 2008). While many U.S. college students recognize hooking up as the
pathway to a potential romantic relationship, a hook-up encounter does not guarantee
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 351

any deep commitment beyond the in-the-­moment interpersonal encounter. Traditional

collectivistic romantic partners may be quite shocked to learn about the “hook-up”
culture when they go abroad as international students or as they work overseas in an
individualistic cultural environment. An intimate relationship is already a complicated
affair between two attracted partners within the same culture or religion; imagine the
complexity of intercultural or intergroup (e.g., interfaith) romantic attraction, especially
in conjunction with diverse attitudes toward deep-level beliefs and values, everyday
ritual practices, love expression or subtleties, the rearing of bicultural children issues,
and dealings with family and peer pressures.

Attuning to Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Attraction:

Interpersonal Facilitating Factors

Attraction is an unspoken energy that magnetizes or draws people together. The force
of attraction may be sudden, or it may develop slowly across time. Clear cultural-­based
influences affect the initial attraction between two individuals: perceived physical
attractiveness, perceived similarity, self-­disclosure, and intercultural–­interracial inti-
mate relationship development.

Perceived Physical Attractiveness

Physical attraction develops when one is attracted to a person’s appearance, such as the
body, eyes, hair, or clothes. Ryan (2004) found that the force of attraction in Western
cultures has to do with our facial features: men should have prominent cheek bones, a
big smile, and strong jaw line, and women need a small nose and chin, high eyebrows,
and narrow cheeks. In addition, from the Western cultural perspective, extroverts are
more likely to be perceived as attractive and are more likely to develop multiple roman-
tic relationships.
Research evidence (Swami, Frederick, & 59 co-­authors, 2010) in 26 nations also
indicates that while physical attractiveness is critical to initial attraction, so are cultural
differences and rural/urban differences regarding those perceived as physically attrac-
tive or regarding what are attractive character traits. For example, larger bodies and
shapes are preferred in rural samples than in urban samples across multiple nations.
The researchers, using the evolutionary theory, explained that where food is scarce,
as in rural areas, a plump woman/individual is seen as a high-­status, affluent symbol.
However, where food is in full supply, a plump mate is no longer desirable. It is inter-
esting, too, that in all cultural samples, women scored higher on preferred female body
shape as more slender and leaner than men. In another cross-­cultural attraction study
(Wheeler & Kim, 1997), in the United States persons with high energy and enthusiasm
were considered attractive; for Koreans, however, attractive persons were those high
in integrity and in concern for others (Wheeler & Kim, 1997). In the initial stage of
352 Boundary Regulation

a relationship, individuals often want to create a favorable impression so that others

can either be attracted to them or at least find them likable. Thus, an individual may
interact in a way that seems to exude attractive qualities (from his or her own perspec-
tive) so as to create a favorable impression. Unfortunately, this person may still not be
perceived as very attractive by an individual from another culture.
Impression formation and interpersonal attraction are two intertwined concepts.
Physical attraction is closely associated with overall perceived attractiveness. Overall
perceived attractiveness, in turn, is related to desirable personality attributes, such as
appearing sensitive, kind, sociable, pleasant, likable, and interesting. Attractive people
are also evaluated as more competent and intelligent (Ross & Ferris, 1981). In compar-
ing U.S. and Japanese perceptions of facial attractiveness and the impression forma-
tion process, U.S. college students consistently rate smiling faces (both American and
Japanese faces) as more attractive, intelligent, and sociable than neutral faces, whereas
Japanese students rate smiling faces as more sociable but not necessarily more attrac-
tive or intelligent (Matsumoto & Kudoh, 1993).
In terms of perceived credibility, facial composure and body posture apparently
influence our judgments of whether individuals appear to be credible (i.e., high social
influence power) or not credible (i.e., low social influence power). In some Asian cul-
tures (e.g., South Korea and Japan), for example, influential people tend to use restrained
facial expressions and practice postural rigidity. In U.S. culture, however, animated
facial expressions and postural relaxation are associated with credibility and positive
impression formation (Burgoon et al., 2010). Overall, it can be concluded that perceived
attractiveness or credibility is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, the meaning of
such concepts reflects social agreements that are created and sustained through cul-
tural nonverbal practices.

Perceived Attitudinal Similarity

Perceived similarity refers to how much people think others are similar or dissimilar
to themselves. It implies the perception of shared views in beliefs, values, attitudes,
communication, interests, and/or hobbies. For example, Morry (2005) found that same-
sex friends perceived themselves to be happier individuals the more they reported
being similar to their friends. The similarity–­attraction perspective (Byrne, 1971) has
received intense attention in intergroup–­interpersonal attraction research for the last
six decades. The argument behind this perspective (with a distinct individualistic-­
based focus) is that individuals are motivated to maintain or increase their positive
self-­evaluation by choosing to associate with others who reinforce dimensions relevant
to the self (i.e., birds of a feather flock together).
The similarity–­attraction hypothesis supports this assumption: a positive relation-
ship exists between perceived similarity and interpersonal attraction (Berscheid &
Reis, 1998). Three possible explanations may account for this hypothesis: (1) we expe-
rience cognitive consistency if we hold the same attitude and outlook in our relation-
ship; (2) cognitive consistency reinforces our ego and provides identity rewards and
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 353

affirmation; and (3) with similar others, we tend to invest less time and energy in man-
aging relational vulnerable feelings, which gives a boost to interpersonal attraction.
In the context of intergroup–­interpersonal attraction, perceived similarity takes
on a variety of aspects, such as perceived cultural-­racial similarity. For low-­prejudiced
individuals, race is a nonissue, but perceived physical attractiveness is the decisive fac-
tor in intergroup attraction (Byrne, 1971). In contrast, for high-­prejudiced individuals,
racial dissimilarity is viewed as creating insurmountable barriers to intergroup attrac-
tion. Additionally, the more the relational partners in initial interethnic encounters
hold similar viewpoints concerning communication orientations (e.g., ways to support
each other’s self-­concepts, ways to comfort each other), the more they are attracted to
each other (Lee & Gudykunst, 2001).
In addition, people may be attracted to dissimilar strangers through repeated
interactions with them under favorable contact conditions and with a positive mind-set.
Proximity, together with perceived similarity, definitely influences initial intercultural
attraction. Proximity creates more interaction opportunities. With repeated interaction
opportunities, individuals may uncover important attitudinal and communication simi-
larities (e.g., relationship philosophy, family outlook, similar communication styles, and
common interests) and thus increase their confidence in relating to each other.
Overall, research findings appear to indicate that the more perceived attitudinal
similarity in core relational ideology issues (e.g., relationship future planning, dreams,
and relational goals) and communication orientation issues (e.g., the trading of recipro-
cal supportive messages), the more likely intimate partners experience the gravitational
pull toward each other in their attraction chemistry. Concurrently, the more we are
attracted to an intercultural partner, the more we are biased toward perceiving atti-
tudinal similarity between self and the partner because she or he now reinforces our
long-held relational or communication beliefs.
Perceived similarity provides the additional impetus for individuals to increase
their relational commitment and bonding levels. While perceived attitudinal similarity
enhances attraction, complementary attraction (especially on the resource and behav-
ioral exchange levels within reasonable range) operates in intercultural–­intimate rela-
tionship to provide novelty, freshness, enjoyment, and excitement. It appears that both
“similarity attracts” and “opposite attracts” coexist in the ever-­evolving intercultural–­
intergroup relationship development process. While “opposite attracts” appears to be
an important factor in the development of the initial attraction, perceived “attitudinal
similarities” may move the relationship to deeper commitment, trust, and mutual self-­
disclosure in the relational system.

Cross‑Cultural Self‑Disclosure Comparisons

Self-­disclosure involves the intentional process of revealing exclusive information about
ourselves to others that other individuals do not know. The study of self-­disclosure is
related to social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973). This theory states that
interpersonal information progresses from superficial, nonintimate self-­disclosure to
354 Boundary Regulation

more deep-­layered, intimate self-­disclosure. This developmental process also involves

the breadth (i.e., the number of topics we are comfortable with and are willing to dis-
close to reveal our dynamic self) and depth (i.e., intimate layers that reveal our emotion-
ally vulnerable self) of self-­disclosure. Deep-­layered self-­disclosure, as the pinnacle of
intimacy, is defined as an individual’s willingness to reveal exclusive private informa-
tion, especially vulnerable identity information to a significant other.
Verbal self-­disclosure often follows a trust–risk dilemma. To trust someone, you
have to be willing to take some risks when sharing unique information about your-
self. Through risk taking, you may also establish an initial trusting cycle in interper-
sonal relationships. However, you may also have to worry about your friend betraying
the exclusive information you have just shared. In any relationship, verbal revelation
and concealment act as critical gatekeepers in moving a relationship toward greater
or lesser intimacy. Both being willing to reveal something about yourself and taking
the risk to be transparent and being willing to pay attention to the other person’s self-­
disclosure process are necessary to build a trusting intercultural friendship or romantic
relationship. Self-­disclosure is related to both public and private selves.
The term “public self,” in the self-­disclosure arena, refers to those facets of the
person that are readily available and are easily shared with others; the term “private
self” refers to those facets that are potentially communicable but are not usually shared
with generalized others. We can disclose information concerning the different parts of
the public self (e.g., tastes and interests, work and studies, attitudes and opinions) and
the private self (e.g., family secret issues, personality traits, body image, or self-image
issues). Barnlund (1989) found that the Japanese tend to have a relatively small layer of
public self and a relatively large layer of private self in their self-­disclosure tendency. In
comparison, his research revealed that U.S. Americans have a larger layer of public self
and a smaller layer of private self in the self-­disclosure arena. The Japanese have been
found to be more guarded as to disclosing their inner attitudes and private feelings
in initial relationship development stages, and they self-­disclose with a slower, poly-
chronic time rhythm. In contrast, U.S. Americans are more responsive in disclosing and
reciprocating information of a personal, private nature and tend to move faster from the
acquaintance relationship to the intimate friendship level, and with monochronic time
rhythms.
In examining the self-­disclosure patterns of East Asian international students
from four different countries (China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan), Chen (2006)
found that East Asian students self-­disclosed slightly more in intracultural friendships
than intercultural friendships. In addition, they perceived the disclosure of attitudes
and opinions, tastes and interests, studies or work, and personality as “superficial
­topics,” while they considered the sharing of information on money and financial
­matters, and body and appearance as “intimate topics.” In a follow-­up study, Chen
and Nakazawa (2010) investigated the self-­disclosure patterns of U.S. American stu-
dents in intercultural and interracial friendship types. In the study, students reported
on either their intercultural friendships (between a U.S. citizen and a non-U.S. citi-
zen) or on their interracial friendships. The research findings indicate that the level
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 355

of relational intimacy plays a strong role in self-­disclosure patterns: as relational inti-

macy level increases, friends have greater intent to disclose, they disclose in greater
amount and depth, and they also engage in more honest/accurate self-­disclosure.
These findings were the same for both intercultural and interracial friendship situa-
tions; respondents reported similar levels of reciprocal self-­disclosure (see also Bres-
nahan & Zhu, 2017).
In comparing self-­disclosure patterns in Japanese and U.S. American students,
Kito (2005) showed that both groups were drawn to their newfound friends because
of perceived similarity. Japanese respondents cited togetherness, trust, and warmth as
their top friendship priorities, linking to the self-­disclosure process, while U.S. Ameri-
cans cited understanding, respect, and sincerity as top friendship indicators and an
increased self-­disclosure rate. Although Asian collectivists emphasized an interper-
sonal “relationship atmosphere” of harmony and warmth in friendship development,
U.S. American individualists emphasized the intrinsic friendship qualities of “being
oneself” and “self-­transparency” or honesty.
Overall, individualists have been found to engage in more active self-­disclosure
than collectivists across topics and different “targets,” or receivers (e.g., parents vs.
friends). Japanese and U.S. groups agreed on their disclosure target preferences in the
following order: same-sex friend, opposite-­sex friend, mother, father, stranger (Barn-
lund, 1989). U.S. college students consistently scored higher in their overall amount of
self-­disclosure than Japanese and Chinese college students. Female college students
also reported a significantly higher amount of self-­disclosure than male college stu-
dents, regardless of culture (Ting-­Toomey, 1991).
Self-­disclosure and intimacy are interdependent: Appropriate self-­disclosure can
increase intimacy, and increased intimacy prompts more self-­disclosure. Self-­disclosure
develops interpersonal trust, emotional support, and mutual identity validation. How-
ever, self-­disclosure can also open up the vulnerable self to hurt, disappointment, and
information betrayal.

Online Disclosure of Affection

Social network sites are providing an alternative way to disclose feelings or attraction
to another. The most popular social networking site, Facebook, has 500 million active
users worldwide. According to a recent social media trend report (Statistica—­The Sta-
tistics Portal, 2018), as of the fourth quarter of 2017, the most popular social networking
site, Facebook, had 2.2 billion worldwide monthly active users. On any given day, 1.40
billion individuals log onto Facebook daily and are considered daily active users. In
the United States, an average “Facebooker” had 338 friends (with the median at 200
friends). With so much time spent on Facebook, the way people develop and main-
tain friendships, and the manner in which they communicate with each other, have
changed the typical rules of interpersonal relationship engagement. According to Choi,
Kim, Sung, and Sohn (2011), while U.S. college students held larger but looser online
social networks, Korean college students maintained denser but smaller online social
356 Boundary Regulation

networks. Whereas U.S. students tend to emphasize “bridging” interaction strategies to

accumulate large and more extended social networks, Korean students stress “bonding”
interaction strategies to solidify deeper social connections on Facebook.
Furthermore, online dating has become a widespread, explosive global phenom-
enon. Mobile dating or “mobile romance” appears to be equally popular. Using the
same online dating services, subscribers can register, text their location, and find pro-
files of people in the same zip code range. The cell phone/text culture appeals mainly
to younger users (Coleman & Bahnan, 2009). More than half a billion users around the
world subscribe to online services (Kale & Spence, 2009). Aside from the traditional
dating sites, there are also specialized dating and social sites for like-­minded people,
whether the shared interest be religion (Christian and Jewish), vegan diets, “Goths,” or
spiritual quests.
Some researchers have contrasted online and offline courtship development. How
does online dating work? According to Whitty (2009), there are five phases of court-
ship. In phase one, the attention phase, an individual selects an attractive photograph
to post, chooses a screen name to represent himself or herself, and crafts a skillful pro-
file. If these three methods connect with another individual and attract attention, phase
two occurs. In this recognition phase, virtual flirting occurs, which is sending a wink,
a kiss, or some icon to represent an interest to the other party. Phase three, the inter-
action phase, is the shortest phase and may take place via email, instant messaging,
or texting. In the absence of traditional cues of flirting, emoticons are used to express
interest. These first three phases reflect the strategic self-­presentation individuals use
to communicate who they are in cyberspace. In the virtual world, individuals can be
ambiguous, creative, and playful without the fear of face-to-face outright rejection.
Interestingly, through the Internet’s global reach and the safety it provides, online dat-
ing has moved to countries that historically have sanctioned only arranged dating. The
fourth phase, the face-to-face meeting phase, refers to the “screening out process” in
which partners check each other out for physical chemistry or sexual attraction. Poten-
tial partners also want to verify whether the actual person matches the online profile.
The meeting is usually scheduled in a safe public space and within a limited time. The
fifth and final phase, the resolution phase, is the decision-­making phase when potential
partners decide whether to see each other offline again and/or to continue using the
online dating site to check out other potential dating partners.
This lucrative business of searching for love online is booming in China. In a coun-
try with relationship worries and pressure to be married by the age of 30, millions of
Chinese are using online dating services as the answer. Jiang (2011) reports that online
dating sites in China attracted approximately three million subscribers in 2010, a num-
ber that is predicted to increase even more in the next five years for busy Chinese pro-
fessionals. Indeed, online dating and matchmaking have evolved, now transformed into
a multibillion dollar concept and practice. Once marked with negative connotations,
online dating services provide the easiest way to meet others without obligation to form
serious ties or commitment.
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 357

Intercultural–Intimate Conflict: Stumbling Blocks

Intercultural and interracial dating or marriage provides fertile ground for culture
clashes and obstacles. (Note: The word intercultural is used in conjunction with interra-
cial for ease.) There are many sources of intercultural–­intimate conflict. Intercultural–­
intimate conflict is defined as any antagonistic friction or disagreement between two
romantic partners due, in part, to cultural or ethnic or racial group membership differ-
ences. Some of the prominent conflict sources are cultural–­ethnic value clashes (see the
first section of this chapter), prejudice and racism issues, and the rearing of bicultural
and biracial children. This section examines intercultural–­interracial intimate relation-
ship stages, prejudice, and racism reactions in the everyday environment of the roman-
tic couple. It also covers the different coping strategies couples use to counter racist
attitudes and ends with a discussion of identity issues in raising a bicultural child.

Intercultural–Interracial Romantic Relationship Development Stages

With the increase in cultural and ethnic diversification in the United States, the likeli-
hood of being attracted to members of other cultures and races has also increased. Age,
generation, ethnic identity, and racial–­intergroup attitude appear to be four impor-
tant predictors of interethnic dating and marriage. For example, Firmin and Firebaugh
(2008) found that one’s age and generation are two key predictors for intimate relation-
ship formation: younger people and succeeding generations are more open to inter-
racial dating than older and preceding generations. The later the generation in the
United States, the more likely its members are to date outgroup members. Additionally,
the less prejudice they perceive in intergroup relations, the more likely they are to be
open to dating outgroup members. For example, third-­generation Asian Americans are
five times more likely to marry outside their ethnic group than first-­generation Asian
Americans (Kitano, Fujino, & Sato, 1998).
Intercultural romantic relationships have both challenges and benefits. In discuss-
ing interracial intimate relationship development, Foeman and Nance (1999) concluded
that interracial couples move through the following stages of “racial” awareness and
awakening as they enter intimate relationships: racial awareness, coping orientation,
relational identity emergence, and relationship maintenance and renegotiation. The
first stage, racial awareness, refers to the gradual awakening stage when the partners
in the interracial relationship become conscious of each other’s opinions and views on
intimate racial relationship matters. The second stage, coping orientation, refers to the
negotiated struggles and conflicts the couple faces in gaining approval from their fami-
lies and friends and also often in defining a “racist or nonracist encounter episode” from
their different interpretive lenses. During this challenging stage, they need to cultivate
adaptive and resilient communication strategies in dealing with these different exter-
nal and internal relationship stressors. In the third stage, relational identity emergence,
both partners gain a new sense of relational identity, intimacy, and security, and boldly
358 Boundary Regulation

announce their committed intimate relationship to their families and ingroups. At this
stage, the couple attempts to solidify their sense of “relational culture” and “relational
commitment” to the outside world. The fourth stage, relationship maintenance and
renegotiation (see also Imahori & Cupach, 2005) refers to the continuous hard work
the couple has to face in dealing with new challenges such as moving to new neighbor-
hoods, meeting and merging new social circles, and raising securely biracial children,
These stages are also cyclical, and couples zig-zag between stages. The movement from
one stage to the next also depends on the mindful relationship competence skills that
the couple utilizes in navigating intergroup–­interracial membership issues and the
interpersonal empathy and sensitivity they convey to each other.
Despite the many hurdles that arise in an intimate intercultural or interracial
relationship, many romantic couples often mention the following relationship rewards
in their intercultural–­interracial relationships (Karis & Killian, 2009; Romano, 2003;
Ting-­Toomey, 2009a):

1. Experiencing personal enrichment and growth due to the day-to-day opportu-

nity to continuously clarify their own beliefs, values, and prejudices.
2. Developing multiple cultural frames of reference owing to the opportunity for
“doing” and “being,” “controlling” and “yielding.”
3. Experiencing greater diversity and emotional vitality in their lifestyles by par-
ticipating in different customs, ceremonies, languages, celebrations, foods, and
cultural network circles.
4. Developing a stronger and deeper relationship with their partner because they
have weathered intercultural prejudice and racist opposition and have arrived
at a forgiving, healing place.
5. Raising open-­minded, resourceful children who see the world through a mul-
ticultural lens and have the ability to be “at home” wherever they find them-
selves.

These stages of challenges and benefits provide an overall picture of the ebb
and flow of intercultural–­interracial romantic relationship development. Interestingly,
for example, while examining interethnic dating attraction among Asian Americans,
Chung and Ting-­Toomey (1999) found that the strength of individuals’ ethnic identi-
ties was related closely to intergroup attraction and dating. Individuals with assimi-
lated, bicultural, or marginal identities have a greater tendency to date outside of
their own groups than those who view their ethnic identities and traditions as impor-
tant aspects of their self-­concept. There were also times during which individuals
were attracted to culturally similar (and also culturally dissimilar) others because
they perceived their partners to be atypical and distinctive, rather than typical, of
their constructed stereotypic cultural images. This means that people do activate
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 359

their stereotyping process in initial intercultural attraction stages—­be they positive

or negative stereotypes. In addition, there may also be a “Romeo and Juliet” effect
at work in an intercultural–­intimate relationship: the more the respective families
oppose this intimate relationship, the more the couple wants to rebel against their
parents and “do their own thing”; therefore, they find each other even more attrac-
tive. In a rare longitudinal study examining interracial dating patterns from over
2000 college students (from diverse racial–­ethnic backgrounds), Levin, Taylor, and
Caudle (2007) found that students who exhibited lower levels of ingroup favoritism
bias and intergroup anxiety were more likely to date members of other racial and eth-
nic groups during college. In addition, students who more frequently dated outside
their group during college showed less ingroup favoritism bias and intergroup anxiety
at the end of their college experience.
In another informative research study, Martin, Bradford, Drzewiecka, and Chit-
gopekar (2003) surveyed European American young adults regarding their openness
to, and experience with, interracial dating. The results indicated that respondents
who were raised in more diverse neighborhoods and who had diverse acquaintances
were significantly more likely to date outside their race. Among the reasons offered
for encouraging interracial dating were perceived compatibility, physical and sexual
attraction, and cultural/racial curiosity. And the reasons offered for discouraging inter-
racial dating included lack of desire, lack of proximity, and personal, familial, or soci-
etal pressure.
To counteract familial or societal biases and pressures, relational partners need
to make a strong commitment to communicate in a culture-­sensitive manner and to
be responsive and empathetic to their racial minority partner’s lived experience and
viewpoint. Thus, both partners need to attune to their internal dynamics that solidify
their intimate relationship and build a safety net for each other in encountering preju-
diced attitudes and discriminatory practices directed at them from the outside world.
The intimate couple needs to convey their deep identity understanding, support, and
empathy for each other on both the sociocultural membership and relational cultural
level (see also Afifi & Coveleski, 2015).

The Encounter: Prejudice and Racism

With regard to encountering prejudice and racism, the experiences of interracial or
intercultural couples may be different. Some of these couples may appear to outsiders
to be an ingroup or intracultural relationship due to their physical similarities (e.g.,
a Mexican-­Guatemalan intimate couple may have similar physical features, yet they
represent different cultures). These couples can choose either to reveal or to conceal
their differences to outsiders. But for interracial and some other intercultural couples,
the visible differences are inescapable to all (e.g., an African American married to a
Korean American, or a Mexican American dating an Asian Indian American). These
couples must find different ways to cope with family and social group reactions as well
360 Boundary Regulation

as with each other’s reactions toward the role their ethnic group plays in their rela-
tionship. Although the emotional reactions of outgroup members range from complete
acceptance to utter ostracism, the couple’s reactions in considering ethnicity as a factor
in their relationship can also range from deep understanding to total dismissal. Conflict
often arises when intercultural couples have to deal with the dilemma of whether or
not to talk about matters of race or racism in their surrounding environment and within
their own relationship context.
Prejudice is about a biased mind-set, inflexible prejudgments, and antagonis-
tic feelings about outgroup members. However, racism is about a personal/institu-
tional belief in the cultural superiority of one race and the perceived inferiority of
other races (Jones, 1997). Racism also refers to the practice of power dominance of
a “superior” racial group over other “inferior” races. Couples often encounter initial
conflict when marriage plans are discussed with their respective parents. Reactions
can range from responses of support, acceptance, rejection, or fear to outright hostil-
ity. For example, let’s look at the response of Gina’s family in the following interview
excerpt (Gina is a European American woman planning to marry an African Ameri-
can man):

“Well, when I told my parents, they both looked kind of shocked, and then my father sort
of blew up. He was yelling and screaming and told me that I had just thrown my life away
and was I happy about that. But the whole time, I didn’t hear my mother say anything
against us. Later, after my father went to bed, she came up to me and told me that while
she couldn’t go against my father’s wishes, she just wanted to make sure that I was happy.”
(in McNamara, Tempenis, & Walton, 1999, p. 76)

Or consider the family response to James, an African American, when he announced

his plans to marry a European American woman:

“My father was absolutely against my marrying a White woman. He said I was a traitor
to my race and that I was not giving Black women a chance at a wonderful life. He would
not talk to Donna, would not see her under any circumstances, and we did not talk to each
other for over five years.” (in McNamara et al., 1999, p. 84)

For many ethnically homogeneous families, fear is the basic reason behind oppo-
sition to an intercultural marriage. Their reasons can include societal or community
disapproval, fear for the general physical and emotional well-being of the couple, fear
of ostracism, and self-­esteem issues concerning their biracial grandchildren (Franken-
berg, 1993). As one European American woman commented:

“I am sitting in a small restaurant with my daughter, my husband, my grandson, and my

son-in-law. I look at my two-year-old grandson. I have a warm feeling and think to myself,
‘This is my first grandchild.’ Then my pleasure dissolves into anxiety as I realize that every-
one in the restaurant is looking at us. My grandson is brown. My son-in-law is black. And
my daughter is no longer mine.” (in Crohn, 1995, p. 90)
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 361

In terms of societal reactions, one of the most common problems experienced

by intercultural couples is the blatant, open stares from strangers. In addition to the
stares, prejudiced treatment by some restaurant servers and real estate agents, as well
as racism within their own workplace, may deeply disturb the couple’s relationship. For
example, read Russell’s (an African American husband) comments:

“We go into a restaurant, together, with our children. We will order the meal and when
we are done, the waitress hands us separate checks. Like she is saying ‘here is no way you
two could be together.’ And here we are sitting with our children, who are obviously fair-­
skinned: whom does she think they belong to?” (in McNamara et al., 1999, p. 96)

Finally, simply because the partners are in an intimate relationship, there is no

guarantee that they themselves are free of racism or matters of race in their own evolv-
ing relationship. In times of anger and conflict, couples may use racial epithets or show
racial attitudes to vent their frustrations, and these expressions can seriously hurt each
other. Although some of the words may have been exchanged in a joking/teasing or sar-
castic way during an intimate conflict, those words or phrases can be taken as hurtful,
racist comments.
Sometimes a nonminority partner’s indifference to or ignorance of a racial issue
may actually perpetuate a racist worldview. Gloria (an African American woman mar-
ried to a European American man) said in an interview:

“I told him someone yelled, ‘nigger.’ I was on the corner down there; I was with the baby,
just driving by. And his first reaction is, ‘Well, what did you do to provoke that?’ . . . And
I thought, ‘That’s the difference between being Black and White. Why would I have to do
anything to provoke it?’ ” (in Rosenblatt, Karis, & Powell, 1995, p. 240)

This nonminority partner’s insulated stance toward issues of racism reflects his
lifelong privilege of being a White male in a predominantly White society (see McIn-
tosh, 2002). The concept of White privilege refers to the invisible entitlement that con-
fers dominance or power resources on Whites. Thus, White males can walk down the
street at night without the need to be aware of potential racist remarks directed at
them without cause, or they can drive their cars routinely without being particularly
concerned about racial profiling by the police on the highways.
Fortunately, not all European Americans have such a chilling, indifferent reaction
to the issues of racism faced by their intimate partners. As Adam (a European American
male married to an African American female) commented:

“It takes being open to your own racism. It’s all well and good to be sensitive to others in
how they react to you, but you ought to be a little bit sensitive when you can and recognize
your own mistakes, try to learn why what you’ve just said or done offended your partner
. . . for example, there’s an experience where Wanda would say, ‘Yeah, I understand that,’
and I say, ‘I don’t understand it. What was happening? Help me out here.’ ” (in Rosenblatt
et al., 1995, p. 243)
362 Boundary Regulation

When two intimate partners bring to their relationship strong identities as mem-
bers of two different minority groups, they may be hypersensitive to identity conflict
issues. The following heated debate (Crohn, 1995, p. 171) between Alan (with a strong
African American identity) and Sara (with a strong Jewish identity) illustrates this point:

A lan: How can you know what it means to be discriminated against? You grew up in a
comfortable, safe neighborhood. You got to choose whether or not you revealed to
others that you were Jewish. My ancestors were brought here as slaves.
Sara: I can’t believe you’re saying this stuff. You know that I lost great-aunts and
great-­uncles in the Holocaust. You don’t have any monopoly on suffering. What
right does the past give you to say how we lead our lives?

Alan and Sara’s conflict over their cultural, racial, and religious identities obviously
tapped into intense, core emotions in their own identity construction. They will need
time to get to know each other’s identity and to find meaningful ways to connect to each
other’s cultures as well as their own.

Countering Racism and Prejudice: Coping Strategies

In dealing with prejudice and racism outside their relationship, some couples may talk
about racism issues as a lifetime project, whereas others dismiss them as inconsequen-
tial. Some reinforce the idea that to deal with prejudice issues, they have to learn to be
honest about prejudices that they carry within themselves. Other couples try to make
matters of race only a small part of their relationship and focus their attention more on
the love they have for each other and on handling all the mundane details of a shared
life: grocery shopping, raising children, doing the laundry, washing the dishes, plan-
ning vacations (Rosenblatt et al., 1995). In addition to race issues, emotional issues (e.g.,
work stress, money, sex, housework, and a new baby) are the most common sources of
marital squabbles (Gottman & Silver, 1999). These are the frequent “emotional tasks”
that couples have to deal with in their everyday lives and that often reveal their clash-
ing cultural and personal perspectives on how to approach such issues. Gottman and
Silver also advise the use of the “5-to-1 ratio” intimacy expression formula—­that is,
you need to invest five emotionally supportive positive messages in your intimate rela-
tionship to counteract one negative message you uttered during the intense relational
conflict frustration stage. Furthermore, research indicates that the more you engage in
positive relationship memory reflections, the more you will think positively about the
current state of your intimate relationship.
More specifically, most interracial couples have developed specific coping strat-
egies to deal with recurring prejudice and racial conflict situations. These coping
strategies include ignoring/dismissing (especially for minor offenses, such as staring
or nasty comments) and normalizing (thinking of themselves and appealing to others
to treat them as “normal” couples with marital ups and downs). They also use either
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 363

withdrawing strategy (avoiding places and groups of people who are hostile to inter-
racial couples) or direct confrontation strategy (forthright and outspoken approach to
the people who insult or embarrass them) to ward off the verbal or nonverbal insults.
They may also employ educational strategy, for example, quoting the latest statistics on
multiracial dating or marriage and also engaging in outreach efforts to help others to
accept interracial couples. Lastly, they also use either prayer (relying on their religious
faith to solve the prejudice/racism problems) or humor (injecting levity into distressing
situations and balancing out their own positive mood) to ease or ward off the pains of
racism (McNamara et al., 1999). Partners usually use ignoring/dismissal coping strate-
gies to deal with minor threats but use more direct strategies—­such as confronting and
educating—­when countering major racist comments or slurs.
More interestingly, because the discussion of any racial or religious identity issue
is so complex and emotionally charged, most couples avoid the topic altogether in their
own relating process. However, refraining from dealing with identity issues (especially
from the beholder’s viewpoint) is like “buying peace for your relationship on a credit
card. You may enjoy the temporary freedom from anxiety you ‘purchased’ by avoiding
the difficult topics, but when the bill finally comes due, the ‘interest’ that’s accumulated
in the form of resentment and regret may be devastating” (Crohn, 1995, pp. 183–184).
Partners in an intercultural–­intimate relationship often wonder whether their conflicts
are a result of genuine differences of opinion, personality clashes, cultural value differ-
ences, or the prejudiced attitude of one of the partners. To achieve a genuine under-
standing of these intertwined issues, couples have to learn to listen, to probe for mes-
sage accuracy, and to listen some more. As a final example, let’s listen to the following
comments by an African American male who is married to a White female:

“If I had to pick the perfect wife that I could have, she is very close to it. . . . She knows me
better than anyone else . . . [and] she helps me a lot too. I like to talk to her and trust her
and the fact that we both trust each other was there from the start. I know that she is really
sensitive to issues of race and that is because we have experienced so much together. But
I also know how difficult that has been for her. So I always try to keep her feelings in the
front of my mind. I can’t do anything about my race, but I can do something about how it
affects her, at least sometimes I can. She does the same for me, which means that we are
always thinking of each other. That’s one of the reasons why I think we have lasted for so
long—we are a lot stronger because we are really sensitive to the problem.” (in McNamara
et al., 1999, p. 150)

A fundamental acceptance of the cultural-­racial and religious aspects of a partner’s

identity and a mutual willingness to explore cultural codes, as well as a mutual open-
ness in discussing racism issues, can facilitate greater relational satisfaction. Whether
we are in an intimate intracultural or intercultural relationship, we will do well to
regard each interpersonal relationship as if it is an intercultural one, for each of us has
a subjective cultural iceberg within us due to a distinctive family socialization process,
peer group influence, social media engagement, complex identity layers, and unique
intimate relationship development lived experiences.
364 Boundary Regulation

Relational Transgressions and Cross‑Cultural Responses

Individuals involved in intimate romantic relationships of any kind may experience
unfortunate relational transgressions (e.g., affairs, flirting with others). Zhang et al.
(2012) explored how U.S. American college students and Chinese college students
might differ when they respond to their dating partners’ Internet relational transgres-
sions. Overall, they found that U.S. respondents tend to prefer leaving the relationship
(“exit” response) and/or to communicate anger (“anger voice response”) more so than
Chinese respondents in reacting to an episode of online emotional infidelity. Compara-
tively, Chinese respondents tend to prefer loyalty, passive neglect, and third-party help
responses. It seems that for the Chinese respondents, loyalty is a passive–­active strat-
egy: a patient, self-­disciplined reaction helps to tone down upfront confrontation, and
it would not aggravate the conflict situation further. Furthermore, while seeking help
from family and close friends might seem to be a passive approach in the U.S. Ameri-
can mind-set, it is actually an active strategy for Chinese participants because it shows
that the individual is caring and committed in salvaging the intimate relationship. Both
culture group members, however, also preferred the use of a high degree of integrative,
“win–win” problem solving as a response to their partner’s online infidelity.
Furthermore, the researchers (Zhang et al., 2012) also found that participants with
different levels of self-­construal differed when they responded to their dating partners’
relational transgressions. High independent self-­construal participants tend to prefer
exit and angry vocal responses, whereas high interdependent self-­construal partici-
pants prefer the use of integrative voice and third-party help-­seeking responses. Ting-­
Toomey, Oetzel, and Yee-Jung (2001) also found that biconstrual individuals (those who
are high on both independent and interdependent traits) tend to have the most diverse
conflict repertoires to deal with a conflict situation in comparison to independent,
interdependent, and ambivalent (low on both independent and interdependent traits)
personality types. However, the degree of intimacy between the conflict partners, the
nature of the conflict, and the conflict context greatly influence individuals’ expectan-
cies concerning appropriate and effective conflict behaviors and outcomes in different
intercultural/interracial conflict situations.
Moving beyond interracial–­interethnic communication styles and response to
transgressions, Bratter and King (2008) used data from the 2002 National Survey of
Family Growth to examine divorce rates for interracial couples in comparison to same-­
racial couples. The study revealed that, overall, interracial couples have higher rates of
divorce, particularly for those marrying during the late 1980s. Compared to same-race
White–White couples, they found that Black male–White female marriages and Asian
male–White female marriages were more prone to divorce. Interestingly, those involv-
ing White male–non-White female marriages and Hispanic–­non-­Hispanic marriages
tended toward lower risks of divorce.
Researchers continue to focus on understanding these more fragile interracial
marriages. While they cannot conclude that race is the cause per se of divorce, it does
seem to be associated with higher risk of divorce or separation (Zhang & Van Hook,
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 365

2009). One notable finding is that there is a consistent elevated divorce rate for White
females in interracial marriages. This distinctive couple type may experience added
stress owing to negative reactions from strangers and diminished support from family
and friends. In addition, White mothers may be perceived as “unqualified to raise and
nurture non-White offspring because of their lack of experience in navigating Ameri-
can culture as a minority” (Bratter & King, 2008, p. 170). Yancey (2007) notes that
White females reported encountering more racial incidents with their Black husbands
(e.g., inferior restaurant service, racial profiling, and racism against their children) and
greater hostility from families and friends as compared to other interracial pairings.
Such unwelcoming reactions and the distancing environment from both racial ingroups
may add strain and social isolation to this type of interracial marriage.

Raising Secure Bicultural Children

The common refrain from many intercultural marital couples is, “We were doing fine
until the kids came along. . . . ” Most intercultural parents easily slip back into their own
childhood memories and use their own family models to discipline, guide, and raise
their children. In the context of bicultural family socialization, some of these parents
may hold conflicting values and attitudes in teaching their children “good” from “bad”
behaviors, or “proper” from “improper” ways of communicating with their grandpar-
ents, parents, siblings, or extended family members. The two themes in this section are
raising bicultural–­biracial children and helping children to develop a secure identity.
In any intimate relationship, the topic of raising children is a major stressor. Add-
ing intercultural and religious factors to this mix, both parents and children have mul-
tiple issues to deal with and to pre-plan. In contemplating an intercultural or interfaith
union, the following reflective questions may help to guide you: Does one parent iden-
tify with her or his cultural or ethnic group (or religious faith) with a greater inten-
sity than the other? What degree of involvement do members of the immediate and
extended families play in the child’s life? What is the cultural and religious composition
of the environment, neighborhoods, and schools? Do parents reach a mutually satisfac-
tory outcome regarding an identity path for the family and in raising the child?
Guided by identity management theory (Imahori & Cupach, 2005), Martinez,
Ting-­Toomey, and Dorjee (2016) interviewed 16 married individuals concerning their
interfaith marital highs and lows. The thematic analysis findings included the identifi-
cation of key milestone decisions (i.e., wedding plans and children socialization coor-
dination) interfaith partners face in their intimate relationships. Although interfaith
partners did not perceive their religious differences to pose a significant threat to their
marriage, they indicated two fundamental stages of life when they needed to sort out
their religious differences head on: getting married and planning the wedding, and
raising children.
According to the interview data, almost all couples have to face the challeng-
ing issue of the religious upbringing of their children. Reaching a consensus on what
sort of religious education their children would receive proved to be a very daunting
366 Boundary Regulation

communication task. Without a doubt, relational partners identified raising children

as the stage in their marriage in which their religious differences most factored in. In
some cases, the couples experienced added pressure from their family and social net-
works as to how to raise their children properly.
In spite of family and social pressures, once participants discussed how they would
raise their children, they came to one of two conclusions. They would either raise the
children in one faith, or they would expose them to both faiths without necessarily hav-
ing them practice either. For most of the interviewees with children, the discussion on
how to raise them religiously contained a more significant amount of deliberation and
intentional communication effort. Couples mulled over their differences and revisited
their options until they ultimately decided to expose children to one of the two religious
or to both religions and when the children were older, allow them to choose their own
religious way (Martinez et al., 2016).

Developing an Identity Plan and Relationship Satisfaction

Bicultural and interfaith children and trans-­adopted children often face more identity
issues and complexity during various stages of their life cycle development. Decisions
about which group to identify with, which label they prefer, and the context that triggers
an identity are part of the bicultural identity struggles among children and adolescents.
In addition, many bicultural children may claim four identify forms for themselves: (1)
majority-­group identifiers—these children identify with the parent from the dominant
culture or religion, while they may or may not publicly acknowledge the identity of
their other parent (in this case, from a minority-­group background); (2) minority-­group
identifiers—these children identify with the parent who is a minority, while they may
either acknowledge that their other parent is from a different background or deny (or
minimize) their dual heritage background; (3) synthesizers—children who acknowl-
edge the influence of both aspects of their parents’ cultural backgrounds and synchro-
nize and synthesize the diverse aspects of their parents’ values into a coherent identity;
and (4) disaffiliates (i.e., “none of the above” identifiers)—children who distance them-
selves or claim not to be influenced by their parents’ cultural backgrounds; they often
create their own identity labels and rebel against any existing label that is imposed on
them as part of a particular racial or cultural group (Crohn, 1995).
Children or teenagers at different developmental stages may experience the emo-
tional highs and lows related to their sense of self. They may opt for different identity
forms—­depending on their peer group’s attitudes, their parents’ socialization efforts,
their own self-­identity explorations, and the larger society’s support or rejection of such
an identity search process. Developing a secure identity is a lifelong commitment that
requires resilience and skill development. In essence, it means maintaining flexibility.
This is not an easy task. Some practical guidelines are provided next to facilitate a
stronger dialogue between parents and children regarding cultural and religious iden-
tity issues.
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 367

First, take time and make a commitment to work out a family identity process as
early in your relationship as possible; understand the important aspects of your own
and your partner’s cultural–­ethnic and religious identity. Second, make time to listen to
your children’s identity stories and experiences; their ambivalence is often part of a nor-
mal, developmental process. Learn not to judge or be hurt by their truthful revelations.
Third, try to provide your children with plenty of cultural enrichment opportunities
that celebrate the diversity of both of your cultures; offer them positive experiences to
appreciate and synthesize the differences (Crohn, 1995; Ting-­Toomey, 2009c).
Fourth, be truthful in dealing with prejudice and racism issues; nurture a secure
sense of personal self-­esteem and self-worth in your children regardless of how they
wish to identify themselves. Parents should model constructive, assertive behaviors
in confronting prejudice and racism issues. Finally, recognize that your children will
grow up and choose their own path; keep the dialogue open and let your young chil-
dren or teenagers know that you will always be there for them. A secure home environ-
ment, listening to their stories with patience and interest, giving them room or space
to grow, and finding meaningful ways to relate to who they are, and are becoming, are
some very basic means that parents can use to signal their heartfelt caring and mindful
presence in their children’s lives.
We should recognize that in any intercultural–­intimate conflict, it is difficult to
pursue all “my needs” or all “your needs” and come up with a neat conflict resolution
package. In most intimate conflicts, couples who engage in constructive conflict tend to
cultivate multiple paths in arriving at a mutually satisfying communication process and
destination. They also need to learn the art of compromising and letting go and to think
of their rich relationship blessings in lives more so than the pitfalls. Satisfied intercul-
tural couples learn to listen to their partners’ viewpoint with patience, and they are
open to reconsidering their own position. They are committed to understanding their
partners’ cultural beliefs, values, intimacy lenses, racism stories, and relational expec-
tations. They are also willing to actively share and self-­disclose their vulnerabilities,
dreams, and hopes. Concurrently, they are able to inject humor and to laugh with each
other in times of stress. Finally, they are also able to be mindfully there for their small
children and adolescents—­in their quest for cultural and personal identity meanings.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

T his chapter focused on both the facilitating factors and the challenges in developing
intercultural–­intimate relationships. We first explored culture-­based individualism–­
collectivism value issues and their influence on general intercultural–­intimate relation-
ship development. We discussed anxiety/uncertainty management theory in depth and
its implications for initial strangers’ uncertainty reduction interaction. We also explored
love attitudes and expressions and relationship commitment issues across cultures. We
then moved on to review the facilitating factors in prompting intercultural–­intimate
368 Boundary Regulation

attraction: perceived physical attractiveness, perceived attitudinal similarity, cross-­

cultural self-­disclosure comparisons, and online disclosure of affection. In the third
section, we probed the stumbling blocks faced by intercultural–­interracial couples. We
discussed the different developmental stages of the intercultural–intimate relationship
development process. We then explored the stressors that an intercultural–­interracial
couple faces in dealing with racism issues and relational transgression issues as well
as the accompanying communication strategies to deal with these stumbling blocks.
We rounded off the section by focusing on some practical strategies and tips on how
to raise healthy and vibrant bicultural–­biracial children in the family system. These
and other stumbling blocks are best handled by culture-­sensitive dialogue, genuine
relational commitment, and extra attention to cultural, ethnic, and relational culture
identity development issues.
The following mindful guidelines are drawn from the preceding discussion of vari-
ous roadblocks that an intercultural–­intimate couple faces:

1 Becerning
mindful that individualists and collectivists hold different expectations con-
love attitudes and expressions, and relationship commitment issues.

2 Learn to deal with the individualistic and collectivistic value gaps adaptively
and be sensitive to cross-­cultural personal commitment versus structural/fam-
ily network commitment issues.

3 Becushion
committed to developing a deep friendship with your intimate partner as a
to deal with both internal and external stressors down the road.

4 Bemakeunconditionally accepting of your partner’s core personality. You must

your partner feel that you try hard to understand the cultural and reli-
gious (or nonreligious) identities and sociocultural membership contexts that she
or he is coming from.

5 Bener flexible in learning the communication preferences of your intimate part-

and learn to code-­switch from direct- to indirect-­nuanced styles or from
verbal to nonverbal emotionally responsive behaviors. Learn to listen deeply and
attend to your partner’s yearning needs with your caring-­compassionate heart.
 Intercultural–Intimate Relationship Development Processes 369

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. In this chapter, we discussed the value of individualism–­collectivism and how it can
shape your outlook on love expressions and relationship commitment. The open-
ing story reflects several key values and communication challenges of intercultural–­
intimate relationships. Drawing from the “sociocultural membership identity factors”
section, can you apply the knowledge insights and offer some concrete intercultural
advice to both Ken and Kim? Can you also offer them some insights into how to raise
their son Kevin to be a happy and secure bicultural kid?

2. Think about the last time you experienced high levels of anxiety/uncertainty in
approaching an attractive intercultural stranger. Why did you experience such anxi-
ety and uncertainty? What strategies did you use to manage your anxiety/uncer-
tainty? Did your strategies produce a favorable or unfavorable outcome?

3. In this chapter, we cited abundant studies on “similarity attracts” and less on “oppo-
site attracts.” Can you think of examples in your own life or in your social network
that the norm of “opposite attracts” worked out much more beautifully than “similar-
ity attracts”? What are the couple’s secrets in making the relationship work out so
nicely?

4. We discussed the breadth and depth of self-­disclosure in this chapter. Do you feel
your family background and upbringing shape your self-­disclosure tendency—­high
or low—in your own intimate relationship? How so? How does self-­disclosure and its
trust–risk dilemma play out in your cultural community? Does your cultural commu-
nity endorse more self-­disclosure or other-­disclosure process (i.e., sharing informa-
tion about close-knit others in the network)? How so?

5. Based on the ideas in this chapter, which three pieces of advice would you share
with a close friend concerning how to deal with the challenges or conflicts in his or
her intercultural–­intimate relationship development process? Why these three?
 C H A P TE R 12

Becoming Ethical Intercultural

Practitioners and Improving
Communication Practices

„„Introduction
„„Contemporary Issues Revolving Around Ethical Choice Making
††Global Standard Procedures and Local Justice Issues
††Corporate Responsibility and Local Customary Practice
††Cultural Value Clash and Communication Emphasis
„„Understanding Existing Intercultural Ethical Positions
††The Ethical Absolutism Position versus the Ethical Relativism Position
††The Meta-­Ethics Contextualism Framework: Macro- and Micro-Level Analysis
††The Meta-­Ethics Contextualism Direction: Procedures and Reflexive Questions
„„Cultivating Ethical Intercultural Research and Training Practices
††Intercultural Communication Research: Specific Ethical Issues
††Intercultural Communication Training: Specific Ethical Issues
„„Promoting Global Social Justice and Peace-­Building Processes: A Lifelong
Journey
††Secular Ethics: Intergroup Social Justice and Global Peace Building
††Improving Ethical Transcultural Communication Practices
„„Chapter Summary and Mindful Guidelines
„„Critical Thinking and Connective Application Questions

M ichigan D octors C harged : R eligious P ractice

or  C hild A buse? A C ase S tory

(CNN) In the first federal case involving female genital mutilation filed in the United
States, two Michigan doctors and the wife of one of the doctors have been charged with
performing the banned procedure on two 7-year-old girls. Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, 53, and

370
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 371

his wife, Farida Attar, 50, were arrested Friday at their medical office in Livonia, Michi-
gan, west of Detroit. They were charged with three federal criminal counts, including
conspiracy, female genital mutilation, and aiding and abetting. Detroit emergency room
physician Jumana Nagarwala, 44, was arrested on April 12 and is currently in jail await-
ing trial after a federal judge deemed her a flight risk and a threat to the community.
The three defendants belong to a “religious and cultural community” that investiga-
tors allege practice female genital mutilation on young girls—a painful surgical proce-
dure to remove part of the clitoris or clitoral hood to suppress female sexuality. During
a court hearing on April 17, 2017, Nagarwala’s defense attorney, Shannon Smith, told a
judge that the procedure did not involve cutting and was religious in nature. . . . Smith
argued that the procedure is practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra, an Islamic sect based in
India, and that the clinic was used to keep procedures sterile. . . .
The Detroit Free Press reported from the hearing that Smith said her client removed
membrane from the girls’ genital area using a “scraper” as part of a religious practice.
The girls’ parents would then bury the membrane in the ground in accordance with their
religious custom. . . . Both girls said their parents told them not to talk about the proce-
dure. When investigators questioned the parents, one couple described the procedure
as a “cleansing” of extra skin.

—From Cuevas (2017).

Introduction

We open this chapter with a case story of female genital mutilation in the United States
reported by CNN in April 2017. What are your reactions to this real-life case story?
Are you horrified, and did you wince as you read it? Have you already decided that the
procedure is unethical? Or do you want to learn more about the factual details and the
comparative cultural backdrops of this case? Importantly, how best can we understand
and address issues such as this in intercultural and cross-­cultural contexts? It is con-
tended that multilayered cultural and social contexts often frame an ethical dilemma.
In order to understand a problematic cultural practice and before we render a sound
judgment, multiple historical and macro–micro perspectives must be taken into serious
consideration.
In any intercultural ethical decision-­making situation such as the one presented
here, we often have to make difficult choices between upholding our own cultural
beliefs and values and considering the values of the other culture. We also have to think
about intention, behavior/process, outcome, and larger individual, community, global,
and humanistic consequences.
Ethics has to do with what is good and bad in human conduct, and it embodies a
perspective that leads to prescriptive norms that guide a system’s behaviors or actions.
In short, ethics comprises a set of standards that uphold the community’s expectations
372 Boundary Regulation

concerning “right” and “wrong” conduct. To be an ethical intercultural practitioner,

mastering the standards of “right” and “wrong” conduct is an essential feature that
undergirds cognitive, affective, and behavioral competence.
The concept of ethics becomes more problematic and complex when a particular
issue involves a struggle between global (or predominantly Western) standards and
local justice, corporate responsibility and local practice, as well as clashes of values and
communication preference issues. Making wise and compassionate ethical choices in
situ is a multilayered, developmental, and complex process.
This chapter is organized via five sections: (1) general contemporary ethical issues
confronting intercultural communication practitioners; (2) multiple intercultural ethi-
cal positions such as ethical absolutism, ethical relativism, and the meta-­ethics con-
textualism framework; (3) particular ethical issues pertaining to intercultural com-
munication research and training; (4) the stepping stones to promoting global justice,
peace, and harmony and further ideas on improving ethical transcultural communica-
tion practices; and (5) summary highlights and final guidelines for becoming ethical
intercultural communicators, together with critical thinking and connective applica-
tion questions.

Contemporary Issues Revolving Around Ethical

Choice Making

Intercultural communication ethics can include topics such as global operational stan-
dards and local justice issues, multinational corporate power and responsibility in local
cultures, and cultural values and communication clashes. Ethics regulates what ought
to be and helps set standards for everyday human conduct (Paige & Martin, 1996).

Global Standard Procedures and Local Justice Issues

First, let us check out a summary story excerpted from Oetzel’s (2009) intercultural text
concerning a real-life case that took place in Sudan in November 2007:

The Teddy Bear Story

Gillian Gibbons is a British woman who was working in a Sudanese school as a teacher of
young children. As part of the mandated government curriculum to learn about animals,
Gibbons asked one of her students to bring a teddy bear to class. She asked the predomi-
nantly Muslim students to identify some names for the bear and then to vote on their
favorite names. The voting was a way to introduce the students to democracy. The students,
all around 7 years old, identified Abdullah, Hassan, and Muhammad as possible names.
Ultimately, the vast majority chose Muhammad. The students took turns taking the teddy
bear home and writing a diary, which was labeled “My name is Muhammad.”
Gibbons was arrested in November 2007 and charged with inciting religious
hatred—­a crime that is punishable by 40 lashes and 6 month imprisonment. The Prophet
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 373

of Muhammad is the most sacred symbol in Islam and to name an animal Muhammad is
insulting to many Muslims. (p. 2)

Ultimately, Ms. Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in prison and then deported
back to Britain. The case provoked outcries from both the British and the Sudanese
Muslim perspective. From the British viewpoint, the incident was an innocent inter-
cultural misunderstanding and not a major criminal offense. For their part, the Suda-
nese Muslims saw Ms. Gibbons’s action as a grave insult directed at their faith and
their sacred spiritual leader, Muhammad. On the day after sentencing, many thousand
protestors marched to the streets and demanded Ms. Gibbons be executed or be given
“death by firing squad.”
As this news story demonstrates, for every ethical case study one can find mul-
tiple perspectives and layered contexts framing an ethical dilemma case. Let’s look at
another example: Adler and Gundersen (2008) offered another tragic critical incident to
illustrate the clash of global standard procedures and local justice:

The Petty Theft Story

A major North American company operating in Asia discovered one of the local employees
stealing company property of minimal value. . . . Following the company’s standard world-
wide procedure, the North American managing director reported the case to the local
police. Similar to many other North American companies, this company believed that it
was best to let officials from the local culture deal with the theft and similar violations in
whatever way they found most appropriate, rather than imposing the system of justice from
their home culture. The local police arrived at the company, arrested the employee, took
him to the police station, and interrogated him according to local procedures.
The employee confessed. The police then took the employee outside and shot him
dead. (p. 215)

Needless to say, the North American managing director was totally devastated
and, for the rest of his life, felt remorse and guilt for reporting the theft case to the local
police and causing the end of a precious life.
As students of intercultural communication ethics, how can we make wise choices
that reconcile differences between global standard procedures and local justice issues?
How can we leverage the laws, rules, and norms of the home-based environment
with that of the local cultural setting? According to Adler and Gundersen (2008), in
approaching the “theft” case just described, we can start thinking of a cultural vari-
ability framework and apply it systematically as depicted in the following five-phase
ethical decision-­making model: problem recognition, information search, construction
of alternatives, choice, and implementation.
In the problem recognition phase, we should learn to frame the “petty theft”
case from both the North American and the local cultural/legal (e.g., “serious crime”)
viewpoint. Different values need to be systematically explored and compared and con-
trasted for one to recognize the cultural convergent and divergent points of mutual
374 Boundary Regulation

meaning coordination and clash. In the information search phase, the emphasis is on
gathering multiple facts from different sectors of Western and local cultures concerning
diverse ideas, possibilities, and potential consequences. If the North American man-
aging director in the preceding case study had searched more closely for additional
data, he might have learned that death was the punishment for anyone who violated
local laws—­whether the crime was petty or serious. In the construction of alternatives
phase, the emphasis is on how the North American company could craft culturally
inclusive creative alternatives that would reconcile its corporate values (e.g., “individu-
als can learn and change for the better”) and integrity policy with those of the local
culture (e.g., the “once a thief always a thief” notion).
In the choice phase, who assumes primary responsibility for making the process
and final outcome decision? An individual or a team? Should the approach used be
top-down or bottom-­up? Are diverse voices from different sectors of the workplace
being heard and answered as an outcome decision is being made? In applying the cul-
tural variability framework, perhaps a tripartite intercultural decision-­making commit-
tee (made up of representatives from the North American, Asian, and other cultural
regions) to review the “petty theft” case might have learned that a “death” consequence
awaited the local employee if he was reported to the local police. Thus, the commit-
tee members may want to return to the construction of alternatives phase to consider
more creative solutions (e.g., devise a first-time warning system, fire the employee but
not report the theft, demand personal accountability through full self-­disclosure, and/
or deduct money from the employee’s paycheck as a first-time offense). They might
also want to delay making a final decision to report the theft case in order to obtain
a more thorough understanding of local legal and cultural ramifications. In the last
phase, implementation, the emphasis is on whether the new global corporate policy
(e.g., implementing a first-time warning system for “petty theft”) should come down
from the top-down global headquarters or involve the full participation of subsidiar-
ies from different cultural regions. Depending on the circumstances of each ethical
dilemma case, a layered understanding of macro and micro factors is needed to fine-
tune our thinking and interpretation of intercultural ethics.

Corporate Responsibility and Local Customary Practice

Another set of contemporary ethical issues concerns the economically privileged posi-
tion of a corporate culture for operating in developing countries. Issues such as child
labor, women’s rights, human rights violations, working conditions, and corporate
responsibility versus local discriminatory policies are other urgent ethical issues wait-
ing to be addressed. For example, during the apartheid period in South Africa, many
political groups claimed that international businesses had a “moral duty to boycott the
apartheid regime—­that is, either not to enter or pull out—while others, and in par-
ticular, the staying companies claimed that they were obligated to use their influence
to better the life situation for the country’s discriminated-­against majority” (Brink-
mann, 2006, p. 432). Perhaps global corporate pressure and positive influence through
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 375

constructive educational programs can help raise social justice and other-­awareness
issues. More importantly, it is through the dedicated commitment and collective action
of members within the local culture scene, fervently advocating breakthrough change,
that discriminatory practice in a national culture can be confronted directly.
More specifically—­for example, with regard to issues of local hiring practices—­
Donaldson (1989) developed an ethical algorithm formula whereby he identified two
conflict types: (1) conflict due to moral reasoning related to the country’s economic
development, and (2) conflict not due to moral reasoning related to the country’s eco-
nomic development. In the first case, for example, a Latin American country has lower
minimum wages than the United States because of its lower level of economic devel-
opment. Donaldson (1989) believes that the “low wage” practice is permissible if and
only if the members of the home country would, under similar economic develop-
ment conditions, regard the practice as permissible and consistent treatment across
the board. In a separate, second “hiring” case in a Latin country, hiring is done on the
basis of clan or family network loyalty rather than individual merit. Donaldson (1989)
proposed the deliberation on the “hiring family member” case via the following two
questions: (1) Is the practice a clear violation of a fundamental international human
right? (2) Is it possible to conduct businesses successfully in the local culture without
undertaking this practice? The practice is permissible, if and only if the answer to both
questions is “no.”
Let us assume that a global company wants to open a manufacturing plant in
Country X. In Country X, it is strict government policy that women be paid 50% of a
man’s salary for the same job. Now, applying Donaldson’s (1989) situational ethics for-
mula, we find that the answer to the first question is “yes.” However, the answer to the
second question is “no.” Thus, the practice fails the overall situational ethics formula
test (Brake, Walker, & Walker, 1995). In addition, Brake et al. (1995) recommend that
in making a sound ethical intercultural decision, the following questions be considered:

1. Are you ethically confident and comfortable in defending your action in both
the private and public sectors? Would you want your significant others, spouse,
children, and parents to know about your problematic behavior? Would you
want your colleagues and bosses to know about your shaky practice? Would you
be comfortable if your questionable action were reported on the front page of a
major newspaper or became CNN’s headline news?
2. Would you want the same action to be happening to you or directed at a close
member of your family?
3. What if everyone acted that way? What will be some of the cumulative harms?
What will be some of the cumulative benefits? Would the resulting conse-
quences be beneficial to the larger community or society on both tangible
and principled ethics levels? Would the benefits sustain themselves without
your corporate presence? Would you be comfortable teaching your children
to act the same way? If you were designing a socially just and inclusive global
376 Boundary Regulation

organization, would you want your employees to act that way? Are there better
creative alternatives that rest on firmer ethical principles?

Cultural Value Clash and Communication Emphasis

The third contemporary issue concerns the cultural value clash of universalism and par-
ticularism (Parsons, 1951; Triandis, 1995). For example, Trompenaars and Hampden-­
Turner (1998) asked 30,000 managers in 30 nations to respond to the following dilemma:
You’re riding in a car driven by a close friend, and your friend hits a pedestrian. The maxi-
mum allowed speed was 20 mph, and your friend was driving at 35 mph. Other than you,
there are no witnesses. Your friend’s lawyer says that if you testify under oath that your
friend was driving at 20 mph, your friend may avoid serious consequences. On one hand,
more than 90% of the managers in Switzerland, United States, Canada, Ireland, Sweden,
Australia, the UK, and The Netherlands claimed that society’s rules were designed for
everyone and that their friend therefore had no right to expect them to testify falsely. On
the other hand, only under 55% of the managers from Venezuela, Nepal, South Korea,
Russia, China, and India made the same claim; the rest of the 35% managers needed to
ponder the case further. While the answers of the Swiss and U.S. managers reflected an
“impartial/objective” or “universalistic” value standpoint, the answers of the Venezuelan
and Nepalese managers showed a “particularistic/relational” value pattern.
Overall, the North American and northern European respondents in this study
tended to be more impartial and individualistic in their decision making. In compari-
son, the Latin American and Asian managers tended toward particularistic and collec-
tivistic value orientations. The moral reasoning for the individualistic universalists was
as follows: “as the seriousness of the accident increases, the obligation of helping their
friend decreases . . . the law was broken and the serious condition of the pedestrian
underlines the importance of upholding the law” (Trompenaars & Hampden-­Turner,
1998, p. 34). In contrast, the collectivistic particularists reasoned that “my friend needs
my help more than ever now that he is in serious trouble with the law.” As you can see,
a rather straightforward critical incident such as this can generate multiple interpreta-
tions, dilemmas, and choices. Thus, a dilemma implies two equally compelling and
competing premises that, at any given moment in time, an intercultural communicator
has to select one of two equally appealing or unappealing choices (Gannon, 2008; Wil-
liams, 2002). In reality, most intercultural ethical dilemmas have many layers of com-
plexity, gradations, and nuances and are subject to different cultural interpretations
from multiple spectrum dimensions.

Understanding Existing Intercultural Ethical Positions

The two most commonly held and discussed ethical positions in the intercultural arena
are ethical absolutism and ethical relativism (Pedersen, 1997; Ting-­Toomey, 1999,
2011). An alternative to both positions is ethical universalism, which is derived from
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 377

commonalities across cultures. However, the meta-­ethics contextualism framework

transcends all of these ethical positions. Which of these ethical positions and meta-­
ethics position would you apply to the opening story about female genital mutilation,
and why? The next two subsections define the various ethical positions and consider the
merits and limitations of each position.

The Ethical Absolutism Position versus the Ethical Relativism Position

The Ethical Absolutism Position
Ethical absolutism emphasizes the principles of right and wrong in accordance with a
set of fixed standards regardless of cultural differences. According to the ethical abso-
lutism position, the importance of cultural context is minimized. Ethical absolutists
believe that in evaluating good and bad behavior, the same fixed standards should be
applied to all cultures. Unfortunately, the dominant or mainstream culture typically
defines and dominates the criteria by which ethical behavior is evaluated. Cultural or
ethnic distinctive differences between membership groups are often minimized.
For example, a dominant culture may view Western medical practice as the most
“civilized” way of treating a patient and thus impose this view on all groups. If a Hmong
woman, for example, gives birth to a new baby and asks the nurse or doctor to give her
the placenta, a Western doctor may find the request bizarre and may well refuse such
an “uncivilized” request. However, within the Hmong culture, the act of burying the
placenta has extremely important cultural significance and is related directly to their
belief in the migration of souls and matters of life after death.
The positive aspect of ethical absolutism is that one set of fixed standards is applied
to evaluate a range of practices, thus preserving cross-­situational consistency. The nega-
tive aspect is that ethical absolutism is a “culturally imposed” perspective that often
reflects the criteria set forth by members in the dominant cultures or groups (e.g.,
First World nations vs. Third World nations). The ethical ­absolutism approach often
results in marginalizing or muting the voices of nondominant groups in both domestic
and international arenas. It imposes and accentuates a colonial ethnocentric world-
view. According to Munshi, Broadfoot, and Smith (2011), it is critical to create an “in-­
between space” for the authentic dialogue of all indigenous groups to take place so that
the space can facilitate and give voice to the values and practices of all peoples and so
that multivocal standpoints are included, respected, and legitimized. Thus, if you oper-
ate from the ethical absolutism approach, what would be your reaction and decision in
regard to the opening story? Does religious faith matter or does it not?

The Ethical Relativism Position

In contrast, ethical relativism emphasizes the importance of understanding the cultural
context in which the problematic conduct is being judged. According to the ethical
relativism position, the critical role of cultural context is maximized. It is important to
378 Boundary Regulation

elicit the interpretations and to understand problematic cases from the cultural insid-
ers’ viewpoint.
Ethical relativists try to understand each cultural group on its own terms. They
advocate the importance of respecting the values of another culture and using those
value systems as standards for ethical judgments. They emphasize that ethical and
unethical practices should be understood from a cultural insider’s lens. This approach
takes the role of culture seriously in its ethical decision-­making process and takes into
account the importance of ethnorelativism rather than ethnocentrism. Evaluative stan-
dards of ethical behavior are related closely to the conventional customs in each cul-
tural context. Thus, if you operated using the ethical relativism approach, what would
be your reaction and decision in regards to the opening story? Can you disregard uni-
versal standards and laws?
When taken to its extreme, however, this view encourages too much cultural flex-
ibility and leniency and ignores ethical principles that are developed beyond each
cultural context and on a global humanistic-­interpretive level. Furthermore, ignorant
laypersons (or cultural resource powerholders) often use the “excuse or guise” of ethi-
cal relativism and continue to tolerate or perpetuate intolerable cultural practices (e.g.,
female genital mutilation in Somalia and Sudan; honor killing in Turkey, Pakistan,
and India; see also Dorjee et al., 2013). Dominant groups in a society are often those
that preserve cruel or intolerable cultural practices for their own gratification. They
also perpetuate those practices that reinforce the status quo, which maintains its one-­
upmanship and keeps nondominant groups in subservient, powerless roles (see Figure
12.1).

Three Ethical Positions

Ethical Absolutism Ethical Relativism Ethical Universalism
Pros Enforces consistent and fixed Takes the role of cultural Takes global humanistic
standards for all practices for context and local norms standards or worldwide
all cultural groups. seriously and applies culturally standards seriously.
responsive standards.
Cons Reflects culturally imposed In some cases, encourages Most advocating this position
standard often by the too much cultural leniency and rely heavily on Eurocentric
dominant cultural group, and flexibility and may perpetuate moral philosophies or reflect
nondominant cultural groups intolerable cultural practices a “First World” countries’
are marginalized. One-sized by being too culturally lens. Still need to incorporate
ethnocentric ethical position. accepting and overly tolerant. inclusive voices from all
diverse identity groups.
However, while striving toward
the global yardstick, we are not
quite there yet.

FIGURE 12.1. Three ethical positions: Pros and cons.

 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 379

The Derived Ethical Universalism Position

A third approach, derived ethical u ­ niversalism, emphasizes the importance of deriv-
ing universal ethical guidelines by placing ethical judgments within the proper cross-­
cultural context. Evaluations about “good” or “bad” behaviors require knowledge about
the underlying similarities across cultures and about the unique features of a culture. A
derived ethical universalism approach highlights an integrative culture-­universal and
culture-­specific interpretive framework. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done.
Thus, if you use the derived ethical universalism approach, what would be your reac-
tion and decision stand relative to the opening story? How would you integrate a uni-
versal standard and a culture-­specific lens in this case?
Although it is ideal to strive for a derived universalistic stance, it demands collab-
orative dialogue, attitudinal openness, and hard work from members of all social class,
gender, ethnic, and cultural groups. It demands that all voices be heard and affirmed.
It also calls for equal power distributions among all groups representing a diverse
range of cultures. Unfortunately, most of the current “ethical universalism” approaches
are “pseudo-­ethical universalism” or can be viewed as an “imposed ethics” lens that
relies heavily on Eurocentric moral philosophies to the exclusion of many co-­culture or
minority group ethical philosophies or voices. Beyond the Western codes of ethics such
as virtue, natural law, and utilitarian ethics, and the occasional inclusion of feminist
ethics, ethical codes from other cultural regions such as Confucian, Taoist, Buddhist,
Hindu, Jewish, Islamic, Hispanic/Latino/a, and pan-­A frican ethics are seldom seen
in mainstream ethics readings. An inclusive and all-­encompassing ethical universal-
ism is a goal that is ideal goal to strive for—­especially when efforts have been made
to include representative members from all disenfranchised groups in order to share
their visions, dreams, and hopes. A more reasonable, analytical perspective guiding our
ethical struggles in contemporary society may be that of the meta-­ethics contextualism
framework.

The Meta‑Ethics Contextualism Framework:

Macro- and Micro‑Level Analysis
The meta-­ethics contextualism framework (Ting-­Toomey, 1999, 2011) emphasizes the
importance of understanding problematic practices from a 360 degree, multilayered,
multi-­auditory, multi-­visionary, multivocal, and multicontextual angle. It is socioeco-
logically informed sense-­making ethics. A meta-­ethical contextual decision is a case-
by-case discovery process, delving deeper into our own value system to find inconsis-
tencies, resonating points, and creative problem-­solving commitments. It also prompts
us to gather multiple-­level information to understand the complex, multilayered rea-
sons that give rise to problematic practices from diverse lenses and voices.
The term “meta-­ethics” refers to thinking about our own thought process concern-
ing the knotty, struggling questions surrounding an ethical dilemma case and being
transparent with ourselves. Emphasizing a meta-­ethics contextualism decision-­making
380 Boundary Regulation

approach means the methodical application of ethics from multiple kaleidoscopic view-
points and with grounded data and culture-­sensitive understanding. It also takes into
account differentiated person-­by-­person considerations, situation-­by-­situation probes,
intention-­and-­consequence comparative foci, and inclusion of macro (e.g., cultural
worldviews and intergroup histories), exo (e.g., formal institutions such as the existing
policies, climates, court rulings), meso (e.g., media, community, or workplace stand-
points), micro (e.g., intercultural–­interpersonal message exchanges), chrono-, and spa-
tial standpoint interpretive lenses.
On the positive side, this approach emphasizes in-depth fact-­finding and layer-by-
layer interpretations. It also seriously considers the importance of culture, context, per-
sons, intentions, means, consequences, and global humanism (see also Jia & Jia, 2017).
The problem it presents is that it is a time-­consuming approach that involves immense
human power, hard work, fact-­finding, and collaborative back-and-forth negotiation
from diverse cultural groups. Yet, in the long run, the time invested in understanding a
problematic practice from multiple contextual angles may ultimately help to save time
and prevent further human suffering, pain, and agony. Thus, if you attempt to under-
stand the opening story from the meta-­ethics contextualism framework, what will be
your reaction and decision in regard to the story? How would you apply a multilayered,
multiperspective, and contextual lens to this case story?
With a clear understanding of the embedded contexts (on multiple sociohistorical,
sociocultural, sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and situational levels) that frame the prob-
lematic cultural situation in question, intercultural learners can make mindful choices
concerning their own degree of commitment and action plan in approaching ethical
situations with follow-­up procedures and a set of transformative, reflexive inquiry ques-
tions.

The Meta‑Ethics Contextualism Direction:

Procedures and Reflexive Questions
The meta-­ethics contextualism framework is actually a broader philosophical outlook
on how an ethical dilemma should be conceptualized and approached. To prepare our-
selves to develop an everyday meta-­ethics mind-set, we may use the procedural recom-
mendations made by ethical experts (e.g., Moorthy et al., 1998) in analyzing problem-
atic international business cases.
Initially, we should properly collect data and fact-check the details about the case
from multiple interpretive angles. We also need to look at the case considering the
totality of the situation as well as the cultural context, an effort that requires suspend-
ing our ethnocentric judgment and looking at the case from the other cultural frame of
reference. To understand the intentions and motives of those involved in the case, we
should consider their intentions independent of their actions; their actions independent
of their intentions; and a combination of their intentions and actions as a whole. Follow-
ing this step, we should analyze the weighted positive and negative consequences of
their actions and then make our final decision and recommendations.
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 381

Good action requires good intentions; however, you usually do not know the true
intentions of others. You can only observe their actions and make inferences. However,
you should systematically train yourself to be transparent with regard to your own
intentions or motives showing why you behave the way you behave in a particular situ-
ation. Thus, you can assume full responsibility for your own decision-­making choices
and meta-­analytical mind-set. You can also train yourself to try to act ethically in both
intentions and actions, and enhance and magnify your self-­reflexivity critical inquiry
process.
In everyday life and on a personal level, we often make choices that have multiple
consequences for our own lives and those of others. In the intercultural meta-­ethics
decision-­making arena, we need to mindfully ask ourselves the following 10 questions
when we encounter culture-­based tug-and-pull ethical dilemma situations:

1. Who or which group perpetuates this practice within this culture and for what
reasons?
2. Who or which group resists this practice and for what reasons? Who is benefit-
ing? Who is suffering—­either voluntarily or involuntarily?
3. Does the practice cause unjustifiable suffering to an individual or a selected
group of individuals at the pleasure of another group?
4. What is my role, and what is my “voice” in this ethical dilemma?
5. Should I condemn/reject this practice publicly and withdraw from the cultural
scene?
6. Should I go along and find a solution that reconciles cultural differences?
7. Can I visualize alternative solutions or creative outcomes that can serve to
honor cultural traditions and at the same time get rid of the intolerable cul-
tural practice?
8. At what level can I implement this particular creative solution? Who are my
allies? Who are my adversaries?
9. Should I act as a change agent in the local cultural scene through grassroots
movement efforts?
10. What systematic changes in the culture are needed for the creative solution to
sustain itself and filter through the system?

Many problematic cultural practices perpetuate themselves because of long-­

standing cultural habits or ignorance of alternative ways of doing things. Education
and a desire for change from the people within a local culture are usually how a ques-
tionable practice is ended. Viewed from a meta-­ethics contextualism framework, it
is clear that making a sound ethical judgment demands both breadth and depth of
culture-­sensitive knowledge, context-­specific knowledge, a person-­specific experiential
schema, and genuine humanistic concern. A meta-­ethics contextualism philosophy can
382 Boundary Regulation

lead us to develop an inclusive mind-set and pave the way to a genuine, universal eth-
ics. Struggling with ambiguous feelings, dissonance, decision processes, and outcomes
while searching for the kernel of truth in an ethically foggy case is part of a maturing
discovery stance.

Cultivating Ethical Intercultural Research

and Training Practices

The theorizing behind intercultural ethics in the last 20 years or so can be clustered
into two themes: the representative voice of the intercultural communication research
field and the ethics of intercultural communication training. While some theorizing
efforts have been made about ethical issues in the intercultural communication field,
there is, unfortunately, a paucity of actual research on intercultural communication
ethics.

Intercultural Communication Research: Specific Ethical Issues

Martin and Butler (2001) theorize about diverse intercultural ethical issues from the
perspective of three research camps: functionalist, interpretive, and critical views (see
also Chapter 2). While the functionalist camp emphasizes the role of the researcher as
an objective empiricist (the etic perspective), researching culture and communication
via “quantifiable” dimensions and categories, the interpretive camp emphasizes the
role of the researcher as an intersubjective participant (the emic perspective), research-
ing the lived cultural experiences of the observed participants in context. While the
functionalists mostly emphasize the strict guidelines of “human subject protection,”
interpretive ethnographers highlight the importance of practicing “cultural respect”
and “cultural humility” in learning from the insiders’ views of their stories and meta-
phors, and their personal experiences of their own cultural worlds and communication
codes (Gonzalez, 2000). The functionalists must be mindful of the influence of ethical
absolutism in constructing and applying the strict guidelines to their research subject
and investigation, and by the same token, the interpretivists must be mindful of the
influence of the extremity of ethical relativism in practicing cultural respect and deal-
ing with social injustice issues across cultures.
From the critical research standpoint, which underscores the importance of the
power struggle involved in the study of culture, Orbe and Spellers (2005) and Alcoff
(1991) ask the following question: Who can speak for whom in intercultural or inter-
ethnic communication research? The question has important implications for the fol-
lowing questions: Can a researcher really understand the lived experience of a dis-
similar, unfamiliar cultural group without prolonged immersion in that group? Can
a researcher conduct intercultural communication research or fieldwork without first
mastering the language or dialect codes of a particular cultural community? Can a
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 383

researcher legitimately write about another cultural group’s lived experience without
a deep internalization of that cultural group’s histories, traditions, beliefs, and values?
Furthermore, can a researcher write with intercultural empathy and sensitivity
when the mere fact of academic writing is a privileged act? Can a researcher truly
understand a dissimilar cultural community and its deep-­rooted communication pat-
terns when the power differential (or social class issue) between the academic researcher
and the disenfranchised groups is vast and deep? These are only some of the ethical
questions that an intercultural researcher might initially want to ponder—­whether he
or she is interested in conducting quantitative, qualitative, or critical cultural studies.
Martin and Butler (2001) end their analysis of ethical issues in intercultural com-
munication research by presenting the following guidelines: ethical intercultural
researchers are self-­reflexive about their deeply held underlying beliefs, values, and
motivations; they are self-­reflective about their positionality; and they attempt to gen-
erate valid participatory interpretations from diverse members of the cultural com-
munity. Indeed, ethical intercultural researchers, teachers, and trainers are “work-in-­
progress” individuals guided by their deeply held values. Yet, they are humble enough
to know that they can continue to learn, to improve, and to falter and try again with a
principled stance. For what we (S. T. T. and T. D.) consider core value priorities in our
own lives, see Appendices B and C at the end of the book.

Intercultural Communication Training: Specific Ethical Issues

Intercultural communication training is generally defined as an interactive facilita-
tion process in which learners are given the opportunity to acquire culturally relevant
knowledge, increase self-­ awareness and other-­ awareness, manage emotional chal-
lenges, and practice competent intercultural communication skillsets (Ting-­Toomey,
2004, 2007b). Through effective intercultural training, trainers can transform mind-
sets, affective habits, and behaviors of the trainees in order for them to communicate
competently and adaptively across cultures. For a thorough overview of the history
of the intercultural communication training (ICT) field, readers can consult Pusch’s
(2004) and also Baldwin’s (2017) chapters on the historical trends of the ICT field.
The ethical issues involved in intercultural communication training are: (1) the
competencies of the intercultural trainer, (2) culture contact and training goals, (3) the
transformative change process, and (4) intercultural training content and pedagogy
issues (Hafen, 2005; Paige & Martin, 1996; Ting-­Toomey, 2004, 2007b). Paige and Mar-
tin (1996), for example, offer three concrete guidelines in becoming an ethical inter-
cultural trainer: acquisition of culturally sensitive knowledge, development of relevant
and adaptive pedagogical skills, and active commitment to professional development.
The ethical issues involving culture contact can include issues such as globaliza-
tion, technological infiltration, English language dominance, and religious proselytiz-
ing. Thus, ethical intercultural trainers need to understand clearly the ultimate goals of
their culture contact or culture adjustment training sessions. They need to develop a set
384 Boundary Regulation

of professional codes to guide their decision to accept the training contract at the first
hand or to reject the contract outright. They also should heed the fact that experienced
intercultural or diversity trainers “do not promote training as the ready solution when
the organizational diversity problem or need appears to be institutional, rather than
individual. . . . Institutional cultural changes emerge from changes in organizational
policies and practices—­the everyday assumptions and interactions that seem ‘natural’
but that can create a climate of exclusion and/or pressured assimilation” (Hafen, 2005,
p. 13). Thus, Hafen (2005) makes a strong case for understanding the macro factors that
undergird the immediate context of diversity or intercultural communication training.
On the immediate context level, ethical intercultural trainers also need to develop
an acute sense of the potential transformational power of an intercultural training
workshop (Bennett, 2009). They need to have a clear vision of what changes they want
to instill or facilitate in an intercultural training program. They need to learn to facili-
tate “envisioning skills” in the participants in such a way that they empower organiza-
tional members by “involving them in the envisioning process, encourage them to be
transcenders, and fostering their capacity for visionist multicultural leadership” (Cortes
& Wilkinson, 2009, p. 29). Whether intercultural trainers are designing an intercul-
tural workshop to change behaviors, cognitive frames, or affective habits, they are also
“critically challenging” the mind-sets or creating “disjunctions” in the trainees’ intrap-
ersonal cognitive and affective system.
Ethical intercultural trainers need to balance safety and risk factors in the learning
process, be mindful of the particular sequencing of the cultural learning modules (e.g.,
from low risk to high risk learning challenges), and be aware of the relevance of the
content–­activity combination in the context of a culturally diverse audience. They also
need to prepare for follow-­up support sessions or provide other professional support
networks if requested. Ethical intercultural trainers need to know how to sequence the
theory–­content–­activity session in a culturally and professionally intelligent manner
so that enough trust and security are in place to counterbalance emotionally charged
topics such as stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination, power, privilege, and inclusion–­
exclusion.

Promoting Global Social Justice

and Peace‑Building Processes: A Lifelong Journey

Promoting intergroup social justice and peace-­ building efforts on a global level
requires tenacious and “big-­picture” leadership visions, intergroup inclusion disposi-
tions, and culture-­sensitive and astute communication skills. It is a lifelong journey of
both individual and collaborative hard work, involving shoulder-­to-­shoulder work with
those who hold both similar and dissimilar beliefs and values. In strong alliance with
culturally dissimilar others, global social justice visions need to be constantly revisited,
shared, transformed, and supported, and pragmatic action plans need to be systemati-
cally carried out, modified, and adapted.
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 385

This section emphasizes the importance of developing a morally inclusive intro-

spective position and holding faith and hope firm in moving toward a socially just and
participatory, harmonizing world. The cultivation of a moral inclusion compass, inter-
group social justice stance, and global peace-­building effort are three intertwined ethi-
cal concepts.

Secular Ethics: Intergroup Social Justice and Global Peace Building

Morality involves the cognitive and emotional conditioning of individuals or groups
within a particular identity community or cultural system. It refers to a conception of
“an inner sense of principled fairness or justice” (i.e., through character, comportment,
honor, dignity, decency, civility, or principled integrity) concerning ethical dilemmas
and personal choices in a variety of sociocultural settings. Morality forms the deep-­
seated values and attitudes that drive ethical choices. While moral inclusion represents
a universal moral stance, moral exclusion represents a selective, limited moral stance.
By moral inclusion, we mean an inclusive moral stance that promotes social justice
and well-being on the basis of humanity, disregarding sociocultural differences. The
secular ethics promoted worldwide by His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a prime example
of moral inclusion. While secular ethics seems to be negatively understood in the West
(i.e., disrespecting religion), the Dalai Lama defines secular ethics as a meta-­ethical
concept that transcends mundane and supramundane (religions) boundaries. Accord-
ing to the Dalai Lama, to promote well-being and social justice in the world, we need
to think about all the 7 billion people (including 1 billion who are nonbelievers or do
not subscribe to any formal religion). An ethics that is tied to any religion or religions
cannot be morally inclusive because not everyone believes in such an ethics. Therefore,
he proposes secular ethics that transcends religious boundaries, for it is based on three
rationales: (1) common sense—­everybody wants happiness, and no one wants suffering;
(2) biological factor; that is, from our very birth a mother’s compassionate caring has
nurtured our lives; this biologically supported compassion is not tied to any one reli-
gion, but without it we would not have survived; and (3) scientific evidence supporting
compassion and promoting sociopsychological health and well-being. His Holiness the
Dalai Lama has authored books on secular ethics such as Ethics for the New Millen-
nium (2001) and Beyond Religions (2011).
The Dalai Lama has actively promoted secular ethics across the globe through
his speaking engagements and meetings (Dorjee, 2013). For over 30 years, he has met
with prominent scientists from different fields, including neuroscientists at major Mind
and Life conferences in India, the United States, and Europe discussing how to make
the world better for all peoples. His secular ethics perspective contains three commit-
ments: (1) promotion of human values such as compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, con-
tentment, and self-­discipline; (2) interreligious harmony and understanding among all
religious traditions in the world; and (3) preservation of the Tibetan Buddhist culture
of peace and nonviolence (see www.dalailama.com). Of these commitments, the first
two have been his lifelong objectives and the last one will continue until the Tibet issue
386 Boundary Regulation

is finally resolved peacefully. His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s understanding of secular
ethics is based on how it is defined in the Indian Constitution and India’s centuries-­old
mutual respect for all religions. India constitutionally claims itself to be a secular nation
that respects and treats all its citizens as equal regardless of any sociocultural differ-
ences, including believers and nonbelievers. The Dalai Lama often refers to India’s
centuries-­old tradition of religious harmony and respect for all religious philosophies,
including Charvakas (Nihilists who deny life in the hereafter). For example, while most
Indian philosophers heavily critique Charvakas’s nihilism, they respect the Charvaka
philosophers as Rishis (Nobles).
His Holiness the Dalai Lama also strongly believes that secular ethics education
can make our world better, but it is missing in the modern educational curriculum. He
feels that much of our world problems are of our own creation and that they may be
related to modern education, which is more or less focused on materialism. He wants
the younger generation to be educated in developing both caring hearts and bright
minds, to better our world, and to address social problems from a system’s perspec-
tive and an inclusive approach. Around the world, he has tirelessly spoken about the
need for secular ethics in education, and now the Emory–Tibet Partnership, Emory
University, has drafted a proposed curriculum for K–12 and college education called
Secular Ethics in Education: Educating the Heart and Mind (October 21, 2015). This
proposed curriculum has drawn much from His Holiness’s Ethics of New Millennium
and Beyond Religions as well as his talks on secular ethics across the globe. Beyond
Religions has eight chapters that include a framework of 10 competencies: (1) appreci-
ating kindness, (2) ethical mindfulness, (3) emotional awareness, (4) self-­acceptance/
courage, (5) forgiveness of others, (6) contentment and other inner values, (7) impartial-
ity, (8) gratitude and endearment, (9) empathic concern, and (10) discernment. It also
provides pedagogical guides and applications to teach secular ethics from one’s early
years through college.
The Dalai Lama envisions bettering the world through secular ethics education.
Secular ethics is rooted in biological compassion, common sense, and emerging sci-
entific empirical evidence, and it is morally inclusive regarding all of humanity as the
same physically, emotionally, and mentally. (His Holiness often emphasizes these pri-
mary common characteristics of humanity over secondary ones such as race, culture,
and religion.) Antithetical to secular ethics is moral exclusion.
Moral exclusion occurs when individuals or groups are perceived as “outside the
boundary in which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply. Those who
are excluded are perceived as nonentities, expendable, or undeserving; consequently,
harming them appears acceptable, appropriate, or just” (Opotow, 1990a, p. 1). Moral
exclusion can be severe or mild. Severe instances include violations of human rights,
children and women’s rights, education, political repression, religious persecution, slav-
ery, genocide, and brutality of all kinds. Milder instances of moral exclusion occur when
we either intentionally or unintentionally create psychological or tangible interaction
barriers that cause harm, shame, embarrassment, and perceived unequal treatment
due to someone’s sociocultural membership markers or personal identity facets.
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 387

While moral exclusion applies the scope of justice to a handful of concerned,

self-­interested communities (e.g., our own gender or racial communities), moral inclu-
sion expands the scope of justice (or fairness) to include all individuals across diverse
communities. The underlying characteristics that constitute moral inclusion (Opotow,
1990b) include: (1) the belief that considerations of fairness apply to all identity groups;
(2) willingness to redistribute economic and social resources to underprivileged iden-
tity groups; (3) willingness to make sacrifices to foster another’s well-being; (4) the view
that conflicts are opportunities for learning and that individuals are willing to integrate
diverse perspectives—­so that solutions will include mutually agreed-­upon procedures
to divide resources fairly; and (5) the genuine belief of the “we” group in incorporating
individuals from all walks of life—on a truly global level.
Moral inclusion–­exclusion is tied directly to our approach to intergroup social jus-
tice issues. The phenomenon of social justice exists on cultural, political, economic,
institutional, media, social-­interpersonal, and social-­intrapersonal levels. On the cul-
tural to the media level, who sets the standards and who controls the resources serve as
the beginning point to understand the phenomenon of social justice or injustice issues.
From the social-­interpersonal to social-­intrapersonal level, how we treat one another
in our everyday lives—with respect versus indifference or with an ethnorelative ver-
sus ethnocentric mind-set—also reflects our intrapersonal social justice viewpoint. As
Sorrells (2016) aptly summarizes: “Social justice is . . . both a goal and process. The
overarching goal of social justice . . . is equal access to, participation in, and distribu-
tion of opportunities and resources among all members and groups to meet their needs”
(p. 230). Social justice as a process is “as important as the goal. Processes where social
actors engage with democratic, participatory, and inclusive practices and values that
uphold our individual and collective capacities and agency to create change” (Sorrells,
2016, p. 231). Change usually comes about when people are informed and educated
with multiple viewpoints in analyzing a problematic or socially unjust situation.
As Malala Yousafzai (Yousafzai with Lamb, 2013), who at 17 years of age was the
youngest ever Nobel Peace Prize laureate, states in her earlier book: “ One child, one
teacher, one book, one pen can change the world” and “[w]hen the whole world is
silent, even one voice becomes powerful.” His Holiness the Dalai Lama also concludes
discerningly: “If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a
mosquito.”
According to Broome (2013, 2017), in building a “culture of peace via dialogue,”
we need to pay mindful attention to the following: (1) Promoting constructive and sus-
tained intergroup contact, (2) reducing deep-­seated intergroup hostility via emotional
resonance and forgiveness, (3) nurturing respect for the Other via deep listening, (4)
developing a narrative of hope and peace through an acute awareness of our humanis-
tic interconnectedness, and (5) establishing a basis for intergroup cooperation through
incremental time, patience, good-faith, hard work, respect, and trust. Human respect
is a prerequisite for any form of competent intercultural–­interethnic or intergroup
communication. Without basic human respect, a community can easily fall apart. As
Kale (1991) aptly observes, “The concept of peace applies not only to relations between
388 Boundary Regulation

cultures and countries but also to the right of all people to live at peace with themselves
and their surroundings. As such, it is unethical to communicate with people in a way
that does violence to their concept of themselves or to the dignity and worth of their
human spirit” (p. 424). The underlying philosophy behind this book echoes the moral
inclusive and peace-­building spirit: global harmony starts with the self. The more we
are in alignment with our deepest moral values and with our positive humanistic self,
the more we can connect with the intrinsic “worthiness qualities” in other cultural and
ethnic tribes. The more we are connected in our compassion with and for dissimilar
others, the more compassionate and peaceful we can become in our own cultural niche.

Improving Ethical Transcultural Communication Practices

Our operational abilities to manage a problematic intercultural or intergroup commu-
nication situation effectively rely on use of astute nonverbal and verbal communication
practices and principled and ethical application. Many communication practices such
as mindful observation, mindful listening and reframing, cultural empathy, and cultur-
ally sensitive dialogue skills across cultural–­ethnic and other salient group member-
ship lines (see the “Mindful Guidelines” in previous chapters) can enhance intercul-
tural and intergroup interaction competencies. Following is a brief summary of various
competent communication skillsets (gleaned from the 11 preceding chapters’ “Mindful
Guidelines”).
When we enter a new culture, we should learn to practice the mindful observa-
tion method. The mindful O-D-I-S method refers to mindful observation, description,
interpretations, and suspending ethnocentric evaluations. Applying O-D-I-S analysis
involves learning to observe attentively—­the verbal and nonverbal signals that are
being exchanged in the communication process (see also Nam & Condon, 2010). We
should then try to describe mentally and in behaviorally specific terms (e.g., “He is
using many pauses in his request statement” or “She is greeting me without a smile on
her face”) what is going on in the intercultural interaction. Description involves a clear
report of actual observation and the effort to refrain from adding any evaluative mean-
ing to the observed behavior.
Next, we should generate multiple interpretations to make sense of the behavior
we are observing and describing. Interpretation is what we think about what we see
and hear. Importantly, multiple interpretations (e.g., “From my cultural view, greeting
someone with a pleasant smile seems natural and proper,” or “Walking around with a
smile is not part of her cultural routine”) are possible interpretations of an observed
and described behavior. While respecting the differences, we can suspend our eth-
nocentric evaluation. Evaluations are positive or negative judgments (e.g., “I like the
fact that she is keeping part of her cultural norms,” or “I don’t like it because I’ve been
raised in a culture that values a pleasant smile in greeting someone.”) concerning the
interpretation(s) we attribute to the behavior. We should also learn to observe a wide
swath of people in widely varying situations in the new cultural setting to prevent pre-
mature overgeneralizations about others’ cultural behavior.
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 389

We also need to practice some genuine mindful listening skills. Mindful listening
is a face-­validation and power-­sharing skill. For example, in an intercultural or inter-
group conflict interaction episode, the disputants have to try hard to listen with focused
attentiveness to the cultural and personal assumptions that are being expressed in the
conflict interaction. They have to learn to listen responsively or ting (the Chinese word
for listening means “attending mindfully with our ears, eyes, and a focused heart”) to
the sounds, tone, gestures, movements, nonverbal nuances, pauses, and silence in a
given conflict situation. By listening mindfully, intercultural disputants can learn to
create new categories—­that is, apply culture-­sensitive concepts to make sense of con-
flict variation behaviors. Mindful listening involves paraphrasing and using perception-­
checking skills. Paraphrasing skills involve summarizing the content meaning of the
other’s message in your own words and nonverbally echoing your interpretation of the
emotional meaning of the other’s message. In dealing with high-­context members, your
paraphrasing statements should consist of deferential, qualifying phrases, such as “I
may be wrong, but what I’m hearing is that . . . ” or “Please correct me if I misinterpret
what you’ve said. It sounded to me that. . . . ” In interacting with low-­context members,
your paraphrasing statements can be more direct and to the point than when interact-
ing with high-­context members.
Additionally, perception-­checking is designed to help ensure that we are interpret-
ing the speaker’s nonverbal and verbal behaviors accurately during a heated or stressful
communication episode. Culturally sensitive perception-­checking statements involve
both direct and indirect perceptual observation statements and perceptual verification
questions. For example, a perceptual-­checking statement can be “You look really con-
fused. I mentioned the report should be on my desk on Friday morning. It is now 11 am
and the report is still not on my desk. Is my timeline not clear enough? Maybe I should
clarify my expectation and say Friday morning at 9 am? Or is there something else
that may not be clear? [pause].” Perception checking is part of mindful observation and
mindful listening skills and should be used cautiously in accordance with the particular
topic, relationship, timing, and situational context. Mindful listening involves taking
into account how things look not only from your own communication perspective but
also from the other partner’s communication lens. Mindful listening can lead to some
important reframing skills.
Mindful reframing is a highly creative, mutual-­face-­honoring skill. It means creat-
ing alternative contexts to frame your understanding of the problematic communication
behavior. Just as in changing a frame to appreciate an old painting, creating a new con-
text to understand the conflict behavior may redefine your interpretation of the behav-
ior or conflict event. Reframing is the mindful process of using language to change the
way each person defines or thinks about experiences and views the conflict situation.
The reframing skill uses neutrally toned (to positively toned) language; it can help
to soften defensiveness, reduce tension, and increase understanding. Some specific
suggestions for mindful reframing are to (1) restate conflict positions into common-­
interest terms, (2) change complaint statements into requests, (3) move from blaming
statements to mutual-­focused, problem-­solving statements, (4) help those in conflict
390 Boundary Regulation

communication to recognize the benefits of a win–win synergistic approach, and (5)

help conflict parties see the “big picture.” In practicing these mindful reframing skills,
competent communicators can develop the capacity for cultural empathy practice.
Cultural empathy has two layers: cultural empathetic understanding and cul-
tural empathetic responsiveness (Broome & Jakobsson Hatay, 2006; Ridley & Udipi,
2002). Cultural empathy is participants’ learned ability to understand accurately the
self-­experiences of others from diverse cultures and, concurrently, the ability to con-
vey their understanding responsively and effectively to reach the “cultural ears” of the
culturally different others in the problematic communication situation. Its techniques
include the following: (1) check yourself for possible cultural biases and hidden preju-
dices in the conflict episode, (2) suspend your rigidly held intergroup stereotypes, (3)
do not pretend to understand—­ask for clarification, (4) use reflective time and appro-
priate silence to gauge your own understanding of the other’s communication perspec-
tive, and (5) capture the core communicative emotion, metaphor, meaning, and identity
theme of the intercultural sender, and echo the theme back to the sender in your own
interpretive words—with carefully phrased responsive words, nonverbal gestures, and
appropriate pauses (Ridley & Udipi, 2002; Ting-­Toomey, 2010c).
Identity-­sensitive dialogue means displaying the commitment to truly want to
understand the complex identities of your intercultural partner and also your willing-
ness to share or self-­disclose some of your own vulnerable identity issues and stories.
Bohm (1990; see also Bohm, 1985) reports that dialogue is a term deriving from the
Greek word “Dialogos. Logos means ‘the word’ or in our case the meaning of the word.
And dia means ‘through.’ . . . The picture or image that this derivation suggests is of
a ‘stream of meaning’ flowing among and through us and between us. This will make
possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which will emerge some new
understanding. . . . It’s something creative. And this shared meaning is the ‘glue’ and
‘cement’ that holds people and societies together” (p. 1).
According to Huang-­Nissen’s (1999) applied dialogue perspective, the conditions
that facilitate an inclusive dialogue interaction among diverse group members include
treating culturally different others as colleagues and peers despite role or status dif-
ferences, creating an uncluttered empty space in our mind to learn and listen, listen-
ing without ethnocentric judgment, setting aside our own assumptions and allowing
diverse meanings to emerge, postponing a preplanned agenda and predetermined
goals, focusing on learning with a sense of curiosity, inquiring with open-ended ques-
tions and learning some more, becoming an observer to our own intrapersonal reac-
tions and feelings, and respecting and valuing identity differences and voices.
Thus, mindful listening and culture-­sensitive dialogue go hand in hand. Addition-
ally, in order to develop quality intercultural–­interpersonal relationships, the art of self-­
disclosure or intentional sharing of something deeper about ourselves on both breadth
(i.e., a variety of topics) and depth (i.e., the degree of intimacy and vulnerability you’re
willing to share on each topic) levels can also promote more trusting relationships (Alt-
man & Taylor, 1973; see Chapter 11). One other way to understand self-­disclosure in
more depth is to check out the Johari Window (Luft, 1969; see Figure 12.2).
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 391

Information Known to Others

Yes No

Yes OPEN HIDDEN

Information
Known to Self

No BLIND UNKNOWN

FIGURE 12.2. The Johari Window: Self-­disclosure and sharing.

Data from Luft (1969).

The label “Johari” takes its name from Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham—the first
names of the window’s creators. The window can be conceived as having four pan-
els: open, hidden, blind, and unknown. On a broad level, the open panel is defined
as information known to self as well as information known to generalized others
or a specific person. The hidden panel is defined as information known to self but
unknown to others. The blind panel is information not known to self but information
that is known to others. Last, the unknown panel is information not known to self or
to others.
Individuals who have big open panels and small hidden panels are more willing
to disclose and share information about themselves, compared with individuals with
small open panels and big hidden panels. As discussed in Chapter 11, the ideology
of self-­disclosure is also a culture-­dependent and a situational-­dependent phenom-
enon. However, as learners of intercultural communication knowledge and skillsets,
we can prompt ourselves to stretch and experiment with different and novel commu-
nication scripts even if initially we may feel uneasy. Listening with attunement and
closely attending to others’ verbal/nonverbal feedback and comments can reduce the
size of the blind panel as described in the Johari Window. The blind area means we
are unaware (or in denial) that we harbor such biased attitudes (e.g., sexist, racist, and
homophobic attitudes) or behaviors (e.g., gay slighting), but our truthful friends actu-
ally observe those in us and prompt us to pay close attention to our implicit biases.
Through obtaining feedback from others, information that we were previously unaware
of now becomes known to us. Lastly, the mysterious panel, the unknown area, at first
glance seems strange. However, we can deduce that the unknown panel exists in all
of us because there is always something surprising or new to discover about ourselves
and others—­through new learning, traveling, life experiences, activating imagination,
putting ourselves in contact with diverse cultural strangers, and/or engaging in medita-
tions about the unconscious self.
392 Boundary Regulation

Self-­
disclosure and trust are interdependent: Appropriate self-­ disclosure can
increase trust, and increased trust prompts more self-­disclosure. Appropriate and rel-
evant self-­disclosure and sharing help develop emotional rapport and support and pro-
mote a mutual identity discovery process. However, self-­disclosure can of course also
open up the vulnerable self to risks, hurts, and even information betrayal. Moreover, in
the intercultural and intergroup identity-­sharing process, we would do well to remem-
ber how to dialogue sensitively about complex group membership issues in conjunc-
tion with personal identity sharing issues. We also need to have the courage to ask for
forgiveness if we overstep the boundary of too much disclosure probing or seem too
forward with our ignorant questions. Authentic self-­disclosure (i.e., with appropriate
timing and context relevant to the relationship, and in a culture-­sensitive tone of voice
and proper nonverbal gestures) and the genuine intention to want to understand will
help us to promote quality and meaningful intercultural and intergroup dialogue.
Through intentional mindfulness of observing, listening, reframing, empathiz-
ing, and culture-­sensitive dialogue, members from diverse identity groups can develop
deeper understanding and accurate perspective taking, and also discover common
ground and common dreams and life goals (see Haslett, 2017). In short, intercultural
and intergroup communication competence is about the activation of a focused attun-
ement process, behavioral flexibility, and skillful application of the untapped human
imagination between diverse identity groups, communities, and cultures. An ethical
transcultural communicator in this context will engage in a lifelong learning process of
culture-­universal and culture-­specific communication knowledge and willingly uphold
the human dignity of others through a respectful mind-set, an open heart, a principled
moral stance, and an inclusive humanistic vision developed by applying mindful com-
munication skills dynamically and elastically.

CHAPTER SUMMARY AND MINDFUL GUIDELINES

W e started the discussion of intercultural ethical issues along three primary topical
clusters: global standard procedure and local justice issues; corporate respon-
sibility and local customary practice; and cultural values clash and communication
preference. We then explained and probed the pros and cons of the three ethical posi-
tions: ethical absolutism, ethical relativism, and derived ethical universalism. We also
outlined a set of procedures and reflexive questions in implementing a meta-­ethics
contextualism framework in analyzing arduous ethical dilemma cases. This framework
emphasizes the importance of systematic data collection from a wide range of sources,
plus the important consideration of taking the total person, situation, and total cultural
system into serious account. The schema also emphasizes the importance of seeking
creative options and implementing globally inclusive solutions to address those ethi-
cally wrangling situations. We then moved on to address the ethical turning points con-
fronting intercultural researchers and practitioners. We also addressed the five skills
needed to improve transcultural communication competencies: mindful observation,
 Becoming Ethical Intercultural Practitioners 393

mindful listening, mindful reframing, cultural empathy, and identity-­sensitive dia-

logue. We concluded with specific suggestions on how to promote global social justice
and peace-­building efforts in this contemporary, interdependent social world.
We end here by offering you a set of final mindful guidelines for becoming ethical
intercultural communicators:

1 Be principled, yet flexible.

2 Be morally inclusive, with a vision for a better social world.
3 Be dedicated, tenacious, and courageous.
4 Walk the talk.
5 Accept ambiguity and flow with its rhythms.
6 Hold a long-term developmental view of change.
7 Face fear and resistance, yet stand up and be counted.
8 Be able to balance compassion, mindfulness, and wisdom.
9 Cultivate a lifetime of learning and use your immense curiosity, voracious
imagination, and creative activism to develop a morally inclusive global plat-
form and humanistic connectivity.

CRITICAL THINKING AND CONNECTIVE APPLICATION QUESTIONS

1. This chapter has discussed some major ethical positions. Thinking of various inter-
cultural ethical dilemma situations in today’s world, similar to the female genital
mutilation case story, the Teddy Bear Story, or the Petty Theft Story, pick a current
controversial news case and analyze it from multiple ethical position standpoints.

2. Meta-­ethics contextualism has been upheld as the process of investigating case by

case from multilevel perspectives. While it takes a long time, it usually leads to a sat-
isfactory and lasting outcome. Would it be possible to develop a universal standard
based on meta-­ethics contextualism; if so, how?
394 Boundary Regulation

3. This chapter raises some questions regarding intercultural communication research

and training issues. Can you brainstorm some concrete solutions to circumvent
some of these thorny, ethical problems in conducting intercultural research or train-
ing?

4. Secular ethics emphasizes a morally inclusive approach, for it transcends intercul-

tural and intergroup boundaries. If you have to develop a class in teaching “secular
ethics” to a group of third-grade students (who are generally around 8–9 years old)
to promote intergroup social justice and global harmony, what topics and instruc-
tional strategies/activities would you emphasize?

5. What intercultural insights can be drawn from applying the discovery process of
meta-­ethics contextualism to the opening case story of female genital mutilation and
similar ethical dilemma situations?
 APPENDIX A

Researching Intercultural
and Intergroup Communication
Three Paradigms and Conflict Studies Examples

Functional/social Interpretive/narrative Critical

scientific (e.g., CAT) (e.g., CMM) (e.g., standpoint)
Culture Shared socialization Shared system of Site of historical struggle;
and group system of value constructed identity site of hierarchical power
membership patterns; a priori group meanings and struggle; site of contested
membership; ingroup/ boundaries; distinctive meaning and inequality
outgroup emphasis speech community
Identity Discrete choice; Distinct system of Social location and
categorical and communal practices; standpoint via the
negotiated; strategic insider/ingroup narratives subordinate–dominant
identity presentation; group membership lens;
avowed; ascribed group rights
Conflict Study of perceptions, Study of dialectical Study of muted and
communication expectancies, speech codes; dominant voices;
attributions, and verbal interpretive and discourse, texts, and
and nonverbal conflict- coordinated meanings; images in mass media
related messages, styles, communal function and pop culture
strategies
Conflict Culture-sensitive Situated appropriate and Recognition of privilege
competence awareness, knowledge, effective communication; issues; power balancing;
attitudes, and skills to coordinated meanings at equality of resource
interact appropriately, multiple levels distributions; power of
effectively, adaptively; “naming”
mindfulness

395
396 Appendix A

Functional/social Interpretive/narrative Critical

scientific (e.g., CAT) (e.g., CMM) (e.g., standpoint)
Intercultural Intercultural and Develop through Recognition of power
and intergroup intergroup contact interpretive stages imbalance issues and the
relationship conditions; develop constructed by speech importance of advocacy
through systematic codes of community and forming alliances
stages members
Research goals Identify patterns of Deep description of Unmask power,
sociocultural influences individual/specific cultural domination, and injustice
on communication; community; focus on in the system to achieve
comparison of multiple insiders’ voice and social justice
cultures and social meaning construction and
identities; etic interpretation; emic
Research Quantitative: survey and Qualitative: ethnography, Qualitative: interviews,
methods experimental design, interviews, case studies; case study, postcolonial
identity mapping and interpretive analysis: ethnography; cultural/
alternative methods, ethnography of speaking, rhetorical analysis:
triangulation, multiple grounded theory critical discourse analysis
methods and textual critique
analysis
Note. Adapted from Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2011).
 APPENDIX B

“Be Surprised and Also Holding On!”

Honors Convocation Keynote Speech, May 22, 2009
Stella Ting‑Toomey
2008 CSUF Outstanding Professor
Department of Human Communication Studies
California State University, Fullerton

It is my honor today to be standing here to celebrate with you this very joyous occasion
and mark your stellar accomplishments and magical journey of arrival in this beautiful
concert hall.
I have no doubt that many of you have overcome many obstacles, challenges, and
hurdles, to get to where you are today with joy and excitement. I salute you—all summa
cum laude graduates, University Honors Program graduates, and all special award
recipients.
I also want to cheer on all your special family members, parents, intimate partners,
and reliable friends—­for I’m sure during your days of uncertainty, their encouraging
words and soothing tones uplifted your spirit and motivated you to move forward.
There are three reflections I would like to share with you today. The first thing is:
Be ready to plunge into unfamiliar territory. Be prepared for surprises, unpredictabil-
ity, and the thrill of discovery as you hike up the unfamiliar mountain in the next stage
of your life. When I came to America as an international Chinese student more than 30
years ago, I landed in the middle of Iowa cornfields. I was totally lost, disoriented, and
confused. However, I did persevere. To make a long story short, the constant culture
shocks did test my own strengths and limits. However, you do learn more about your-
self and your own priorities as you encounter the unknown and the unfamiliar. Take
some risks and experiment with the unfamiliar. Learn to be playful, and, balance your
sense of self-­discipline with imagination.
The second thing is: Be ready to take detours and enjoy the detoured scenery along
the way. Your detoured trip may turn into a full-scale second-­stage journey. Honestly, I
did not intentionally pursue the goal of being an intercultural communication professor.
I had always thought I would become a television-­film director when I was younger. My

397
398 Appendix B

bachelor’s and master’s degrees were in the mass media area. However, my application
to a PhD media degree program was rejected. I took a detour and ended up finding
my true passion in the teaching of and research in intercultural communication. Thus,
a crossroads could be something stressful initially; however, the crossroads may lead
you to a more vibrant landscape and terrain. Embrace your detours and challenges—­
everything will turn out OK.
Finally, the third thing is: Hold on to the precious people who help you to get to
that amazing summit. As you trek to the top of Japan’s Mount Fuji, or China’s Great
Wall, or the Grand Canyon and take in the magnificent panoramic view, I hope you
have someone special to share the breathtaking vista. At the end of the day, it’s down
to your beloved family members, your significant others, and your very loyal friends
who are sitting here with you today who matter the most—they have gone through the
bumpy and bouncy ride with you all the way. They have carried your backpacks and
water for you. Create meaningful memories with them and honor yourself and your
loved ones with dignity, joy, and appreciation.
Congratulations and three cheers to all your hard work, tenacious spirit, and dis-
tinguished academic achievements!
 APPENDIX C

“Never Give Up!”

Commencement Speech, May 21, 2017
Tenzin Dorjee, Associate Professor
Distinguished Faculty Marshal
Department of Human Communication Studies
California State University, Fullerton

President Garcia, Acting Dean Fink, chairs, faculty colleagues, staff, class of 2017, fam-
ilies, and friends:
It is my honor and privilege to be a Faculty Marshal speaker at today’s happy com-
mencement of the College of Communications. I have always enjoyed participating in
commencements to celebrate our students’ achievements, congratulate them, and share
their happiness.
I know I am expected to share some parting wisdom which I personally don’t have.
But I have decided to share with you some wisdom of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the
1989 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. I have had the great honor and privilege to serve as
His Holiness’s English translator both in India and the United States. He will be visit-
ing SoCal next month as the Commencement Speaker for the University of California,
San Diego. The wisdom I have learned from His Holiness is: “Never give up!”
“Never give up” no matter what the circumstances are. Fulfilling dreams requires
lots of tenacious hard work. The fact that you are proudly here with your families and
friends is largely because you never gave up on your degree dream. Despite all the
odds, your family did not give up on your dream; CSUF did not give up on your dream,
and most importantly, you yourself did not give up on your dream. As you gaze at Presi-
dent Garcia and everyone on the platform and under the canopy, it took a lot of ups
and downs for them to be successful in fulfilling their dreams, but they never gave up
pursuing them. Sometimes fulfilling dreams can be solitary journeys where others may
not understand you, but you need to understand yourself and never give up!
Allow me to indulge and share a bit of my own story to advance my theme—
Never Give Up! I mostly grew up in India as a Tibetan refugee before coming to the
United States. As a child and young adult, I walked several miles 6 days a week, often

399
400 Appendix C

barefooted, to my high school in rain or shine. In spite of all the odds, I received a good
Tibetan and modern education. I never gave up on my dream! To cut short my story, I
came to this country on a translation tour and found an opportunity to pursue higher
education. Although I have an undergraduate degree from the Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India, I started it all over again, starting with Santa Monica Community
College and then to CSU Long Beach and UC Santa Barbara where I earned my PhD
in Communication. When I began my education here, I was a middle-­aged person and
you may call it midlife crisis; but I never gave up on my dream. It took me over 10 years
to fulfill my dream to be a professor. What I learned on the way is that even if others
give up on you, you should never give up on fulfilling your dream. I am grateful to some
friends who stood thick and thin with me in the pursuit of my dream.
As you fulfill one dream, new dreams will emerge. One of my new dreams is to
promote religious freedom around the globe. I am one of the nine congressionally
appointed commissioners on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
(USCIRF: www.uscirf.gov), and we volunteer our service to promote global religious
freedom. USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan commission entrusted with the man-
date to monitor and promote religious freedom across the world. Having worked very
hard collegially and collaboratively with my USCIRF colleagues and staff for several
months, we just published our 243-page Annual Report of 2017. I will never give up on
my new dream and committed responsibility as a public servant commissioner.
Now that you have fulfilled one big dream with your bachelor or master’s degree,
you will have new dreams. Choose them wisely and pursue them to the best of your
ability and never give up. I believe we as faculty have done our best to offer you an
excellent education that has prepared you well for the job market and other aspirations.
However, I am not sure whether we have done enough to prepare you to be altruistic,
kind, and compassionate to others. Our U.S. education system is geared largely toward
tangible, degree goals. However, I believe that to make a real difference in the world,
it is not enough to have excellent knowledge and sound education, but you also need a
caring heart—­kindness and compassion. I have been working on cultivating a compas-
sionate heart everyday, drawing from the firm grounding in traditional Tibetan educa-
tion that emphasizes mindful training, other-­caring motivation, and dedicated service
to others.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has pioneered what he calls secular ethics in modern
education, that is, integrating kindness and compassion as nonreligious, secular quali-
ties, to prevent and resolve conflicts in the world in a nonviolent and peaceful man-
ner. The Emory–Tibet Partnership of Emory University has designed a curriculum for
K–12 and College Education based on his vision of secular ethics in modern education
supplemented by the work and research of scientists, educators, and researchers. It is
called Secular Ethics in Education: Educating the Heart and Mind. Several schools
in India and the United States and elsewhere have started to implement the curricu-
lum for experiment. His Holiness wishes formal education to include education of the
heart—love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, and respect. I strongly support this
 Appendix C 401

initiative because educating both the heart and mind is a holistic and inclusive educa-
tional vision and mission to raise future generations to come.
Dear graduates, as you venture into your new jobs, careers, and dreams, I would
like to implore you to seriously consider kindness as a part of your life’s goals and
dreams. “Never give up” on being kind to yourself and to others. As you extend kind-
ness and caring to others, I truly believe you will beget kindness in return and its abun-
dant blessings. Kindness is cool and infectious; it warms our hearts and ignites passion
and action for positive change in self, others, and the larger community. Thank you for
your attentive listening. A Big Warm Congratulation to all of you graduates—­class of
2017, and to your family and loved ones. Be kind. And never give up! Go Titans!!!
References

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (1990). Social Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cam-
identity theory: Constructive and critical
­ bridge, MA: Addison-­Wesley.
advances. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Almaney, A., & Alwan, A. (1982). Communicating
Wheatsheaf. with the Arabs. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Adams, R., & Nelson, A. (2016). Eye behavior and Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social
gaze. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Frank (Eds.), APA handbook on nonverbal com- Altman, I., & Chemers, M. (1980). Culture and envi-
munication (pp. 335–362). Washington, DC: ronment. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
American Psychological Association Altman, I., & Gauvain, M. (1981). A cross-­cultural
Adelman, M. (1988). Cross-­ cultural adjustment. dialectical analysis of homes. In L. Luben, A.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Patterson, & N. Newcombe (Eds.), Spatial rep-
12, 183–204. resentation and behavior across the life span
Adler, N. (1997). International dimensions of orga- (pp. 283–319). New York: Academic Press.
nizational behavior (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration.
South-­Western College. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Adler, N., & Gundersen, A. (2008). International Andersen, P. A., Hecht, M. L., Hoobler, G. D., &
dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.). Smallwood, M. (2002). Nonverbal communica-
Mason, OH: Thomson/Southwest. tion across cultures. In W. B. Gundykunst & B.
Afifi, T., & Coveleski, S. (2015). Relational compe- Moody (Eds.), Handbook of international and
tence. In A. F. Hannawa & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), intercultural communication (pp. 89–106). Thou-
The handbook of communication science: Com- sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
munication competence (Vol. 22, pp. 317–339). Anderson, A. (1997) Media, culture and the environ-
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ment. London: UCL Press.
Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the Anderson, L. (1994). A new look at an old construct:
culture of conversation. New York: Morrow. Cross-­cultural adaptation. International Journal
Alba, R. (1990). Ethnic identity: Transformation of of Intercultural Relations, 18, 293–328.
white America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Yee Ng, K., Templer,
Press. K. J., Tay, C., et al. (2007). Cultural intelligence:
Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Its measurement and effects on cultural judg-
Cultural Critique, 20, 5–32. ment and decision-­making, cultural adaptation

403
404 References

and task performance. Management and Organi- Barnes, S. (2012). Latina representation: Harlot
zation Review, 3(3), 335–371. stereotypes in Desperate Housewives. Consci-
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2007). Research in intercultural entizacion: A Journal of Chican@ and Latin@
communication competence. Journal of Interna- Experience and Thought, 7(1&2), 28–30.
tional Communication, 13, 66–73. Barnlund, D. (1962). Toward a meaning-­ centered
Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Inter- philosophy of communication. Journal of Com-
cultural communication competence: Identifying munication, 2, 197–211.
key components from multicultural perspectives. Barnlund, D. (1975). Public and private self in Japan
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, and the United States. Tokyo: Simul Press.
29, 137–163. Barnlund, D. (1989). Communicative styles of Japa-
Asante, M., & Asante, K. (Eds.). (1990). African cul- nese and Americans: Images and realities. Bel-
ture: The rhythms of unity. Trenton, NJ: African mont, CA: Wadsworth.
World Press. Barton, E. E., & Wolery, M. (2010). Training teachers
Auletta, G., & Jones, T. (1994). Unmasking the myths to promote pretend play in young children with
of racism. In D. Halpern & Associates (Eds.), disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77, 85–106.
Changing the college classroom: New teaching Basso, K. (1970). To give up on words: Silence in
and learning strategies for an increasingly com- Western Apache culture. Southern Journal of
plex world (pp. 165–174). San Francisco: Jossey-­ Anthropology, 26, 213–230.
Bass. Basso, K. (1990). To give up on words: Silence in
Baer, R. A., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., Smith, G. Western Apache culture. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.),
T., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-­report assess- Cultural communication and intercultural con-
ment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. tact (pp. 303–320). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Assessment, 13, 27–45. Baumeister, R. F., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Social
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). psychology of emotions. In R. F. Baumeister &
Assessment of mindfulness by self-­report: The E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology:
Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Assess- The state of the science (pp. 101–138). New York:
ment, 11, 191–206. Oxford University Press.
Baig, N., Ting-­Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2014). Inter- Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (Eds.). (2008).
generational narratives on face: A South Asian Engaging theories in interpersonal communica-
Indian American perspective. Journal of Inter- tion: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA:
national and Intercultural Communication, 7, SAGE.
127–147. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating:
Bakardjieva, M. (2003). Virtual togetherness: An Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford
everyday-­life perspective. Media, Culture and Press.
Society, 25, 291–313. Becker M., Vignoles V. L., Owe, E., Brown, R.,
Baldwin, J. (2017). Murky waters: Histories of inter- Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M., et al. (2012). Cul-
cultural communication research. In L. Chen ture and the distinctiveness motive: Constructing
(Ed.), Handbook of intercultural communication identity in individualistic and collectivistic con-
(pp. 19–43). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton texts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Barge, J. K. (2006). Dialogue, conflict and commu- ogy, 102(4), 833–855.
nity. In J. Oetzel & S. Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The Beelmann, A., & Heinemann, K. S. (2014). Prevent-
SAGE handbook of conflict communication: Inte- ing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes:
grating theory, research, and practice (pp. 517– A meta-­analysis of child and adolescent training
544). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. programs. Journal of Applied Developmental
Barge, J. K., & Andreas, D. (2013). Communities, Psychology, 35, 10–24.
conflict, and the design of dialogic conversations. Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule,
In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The devel-
SAGE handbook of conflict communication (2nd opment of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic
ed., pp. 609–634). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Books.
 References 405

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth,
Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individual- ME: Intercultural Press.
ism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally com-
University of California Press. petent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multicultural-
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological ism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed.,
androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical pp. 62–77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource.
Psychology, 42, 155–162. Bennett, M. J. (2013). Basic concepts of intercul-
Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming tural communication: Paradigms, principles, and
the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: practices (2nd ed.). Boston: Intercultural Press.
Yale University Press. Berendt, E. A., & Tanita, K. (2011). The “Heart” of
Benet-­Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural things: A conceptual metaphoric analysis of heart
identity integration (BII): Components and socio-­ and related body parts in Thai, Japanese and
personality antecedents. Journal of Personality, English. Intercultural Communication Studies,
73, 1015–1049. 20(1), 65–78.
Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Bicul- Berg, M. V., Paige, R. M. (2009). Applying theory
turalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise and research: The evolution of intercultural com-
in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-­ petence in U.S. study abroad. In D. K. Deardorff
Cultural Psychology, 37, 386–407. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural compe-
Benet-­Martinez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. tence (pp. 419–437). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
(2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame Berger, C. R. (1975). Proactive and retroactive
switching in biculturals with oppositional versus attribution processes in interpersonal commu-
compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-­ nications. Human Communication Research, 2,
Cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516. 33–50.
Bennett, J. M. (2003). Turning frogs into intercul- Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explo-
turalists: A student-­ centered developmental ration in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a
approach to teaching intercultural competence. developmental theory of communication. Human
In N. Boyacigiller, R. A. Goodman, & M. E. Communication Research, 1, 99–112.
Phillips (Eds.), Crossing cultures: Insights from Berno, T. (2011). Sustainability on a plate: Linking
master teachers (pp. 157–169). New York: Rout- agriculture and food in the Fiji Islands tourism
ledge. industry. In R. Torres & J. Momsen (Eds.), Tour-
Bennett, J. M. (2009). Cultivating intercultural com- ism and agriculture: New geographies of con-
petence: A process perspective. In D. K. Dear- sumption, production and rural restructuring
dorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural (pp. 87–103). London: Routledge.
competence (pp. 121–140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-­cultural comparabil-
SAGE. ity. International Journal of Psychology, 4(2),
Bennett, J. M. (2014), Cultural marginality: Identity 119–128.
issues in global leadership training. In J. Osland, Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation and psychological
M. Li, & Y. Wang (Eds.), Advances in global lead- adaptation: An overview. In A. Bouvy, F. van de
ership (Vol. 8, pp. 269–292). Bingley, UK: Emer- Vijver, P. Boski, & P. Schmitz (Eds.), Journeys
ald Group. into cross-­cultural psychology: Selected papers
Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. (2004). Developing from the Eleventh International Conference of
intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach the International Association for Cross-­Cultural
to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. Psychology (pp. 129–141). Amsterdam: Swets &
M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook Zeitlinger.
of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 147–165). Berry, J. W. (2004). Fundamental psychological pro-
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. cesses in intercultural relations. In D. Landis,
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A J. M. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook
developmental model of intercultural sensi- of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 166–184).
tivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
406 References

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living success- relationships on campus. New York: New York
fully in two cultures. International Journal of University Press.
Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712. Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding meaning. London: ARK
Berry, J. W. (2008). Globalisation and acculturation. Paperbacks.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Bohm, D. (1990). On dialogue. Ojai, CA: David
32, 328–336. Bohm Seminars.
Berry, J. W. (2009). A critique of critical accultura- Boldt, E. (1978). Structural tightness and cross-­
tion. International Journal of Intercultural Rela- cultural research. Journal of Cross-­Cultural Psy-
tions, 33(5), 361–371. chology, 10, 221–230.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., & Boski, P. (1987). Psychologi- Bolls, P. (2010). Understanding emotion from a super-
cal acculturation of immigrants. In Y. Y. Kim & ordinate dimensional perspective: A productive
W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-­cultural adaptation: way forward for communication processes and
Current approaches (pp. 62–89). Newbury Park, effects studies. Communication Monographs, 77,
CA: SAGE. 146–152.
Berry, J., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, Bond, M. H. (1991). Chinese values and health:
M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural soci- A cultural level examination. Psychology and
eties. Applied Psychology, 38, 185–206. Health: An International Journal, 5, 137–152.
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2014). Multicultural soci- Bond, M. (1992). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights
eties. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), from psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University
The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity: Press.
Basic and applied psychological perspectives Bond, M. (Ed.). (1996). The handbook of Chinese
(pp. 97–117). New York: Oxford University Press. psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. (1998). Attraction and close Bourhis, R. Y., Sioufi, R., & Sachdev, I. (2012). Eth-
relationships. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lin- nolinguistic interaction and multilingual com-
dzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology munication. In H. Giles (Ed.), The handbook of
(4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193–281). Boston: McGraw-­ intergroup communication (pp. 100–115). New
Hill. York: Routledge.
Bharati, A. (1985). The self in Hindu thought and Brake, T., Walker, D., & Walker, T. (1995). Doing
action. In A. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. Hsu (Eds.), business internationally: The guide to cross-­
Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives cultural success. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
(pp. 185–230). New York: Tavistock. Bratter, J., & King, R. (2008). “But will it last?”: Mar-
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking. Cambridge, ital instability among interracial and same-race
UK: Cambridge University Press. couples. Family Relations, 57, 160–171.
Birdwhistell, R. (1955). Background in kinesics. Bresnahan, M. J., Chiu, H. C., & Levine, T. R.
ETC, 13, 10–18. (2004). Self-­construal as a predictor of communal
Birdwhistell, R. (1970). Kinesics in context. Philadel- and exchange orientation in Taiwan and the USA.
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 187–203.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Per- Bresnahan, M., & Zhu, Y. (2017). Interpersonal com-
spective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: munication and relationships across cultures. In
Prentice-­Hall. L. Chen (Ed.), Handbook of intercultural com-
Blumstein, P. (1991). The production of selves in per- munication (pp. 199–217). Berlin: De Gruyter
sonal relationships. In J. Howard & P. Callero Mouton.
(Eds.), The self-­society dynamic: Cognition, emo- Brewer, M. (1988). A dual process model of impres-
tions and action (pp. 305–322). Cambridge, UK: sion formation. In R. Wyer & T. Srull (Eds.),
Cambridge University Press. Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36).
Bochner, S. (1986). Coping with unfamiliar culture: New York: Erlbaum.
Adjustment or culture learning? Australian Jour- Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being same
nal of Psychology, 38, 347–358. and different at the same time. Personality and
Bogle, K. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
 References 407

Brewer, M. (1997). The social psychology of inter- Retrieved from www.starbulletin.com/colum-

group relations: Can research inform practice? nist/column.php?%20id=2282&col_id=19.
Journal of Social Issues, 53, 197–211. Broome, B. (2013). Building cultures of peace: The
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: role of intergroup dialogue. In J. G. Oetzel & S.
Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of con-
Issues, 55, 429–444. flict communication (2nd ed., pp. 737–762). Thou-
Brewer, M. B. (2000). Reducing prejudice through sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
cross-­categorization: Effects of multiple social Broome, B. (2017). Moving from conflict to harmony:
identities. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Claremont Sym- The role of dialogue in bridging differences. In
posium on Applied Social Psychology: Reduc- X. D. Dai & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Conflict manage-
ing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 165–183). ment and intercultural communication: The art
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. of intercultural harmony (pp. 13–28). Abingdon,
Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of social iden- UK: Routledge.
tity: Implications for political psychology. Politi- Broome, B. J., & Jakobsson Hatay, A.-S. (2006).
cal Psychology, 22, 115–125. Building peace in divided societies: The role of
Brewer, M. (2010). Social identity complexity and intergroup dialogue. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­
acceptance of diversity. In R. Crisp (Ed.), The Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict
psychology of social and cultural diversity communication: Integrating theory, research,
(pp. 11–31). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-­Blackwell. and practice (pp. 627–662). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) SAGE.
are collectives in collectivism?: Toward concep- Brown, K., & Ryan, R. (2003). The benefits of being
tual clarification of individualism and collectiv- present: Mindfulness and the psychological role
ism. Psychological Review, 114, 133–151. of well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Brewer, M. B., & Miller. N. (1996). Intergroup rela- Psychology, 84, 822–848.
tions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Brown, L. (2009). Worlds apart: The barrier between
Brewer, M. B., & Yuki, M. (2007). Culture and social East and West. Journal of International and
identity. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Intercultural Communication, 2, 240–259.
Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 307–322). Brown, L., & Brown, J. (2009). Out of chaos, into a
New York: Guilford Press. new identity: The transformative power of the
Briley, D., Morris, M., & Simonson, I. (2005). Cul- international sojourn. Journal of the Society for
tural chameleons: Biconstruals, conformity Existential Analysis, 20, 341–361.
motives, and decision making. Journal of Con- Brown, L., & Holloway, I. (2008). The initial stage of
sumer Psychology, 15, 351–362. the international sojourn: Excitement or culture
Brinkmann, J. (2006). Business ethics and inter- shock? British Journal of Guidance and Counsel-
cultural communication: Exploring the overlap ing, 36, 33–49.
between the two academic fields. In L. Samovar, Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some
R. Porter, & E. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK:
communication: A reader (11th ed., pp. 430–430). Cambridge University Press.
Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of
Brislin, R. (1986). The wording and translation of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Styles in
research instruments. In W. Lonner & J. Berry language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge, MA: Tech-
(Eds.), Field methods in cross-­cultural research nology Press of MIT.
(pp. 137–164). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Brown, R., & Hewstone, H. (2005). An integrative
Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence theory of intergroup contact. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
on behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
Jovanovich. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Aca-
Brislin, R. (2003, January 19). Culture clash: Under- demic Press.
standing other cultures means moving beyond Brown, R., & Zagefka, H. (2011). The dynamics of
ethnocentrism and prejudice. Star Bulletin. acculturation: An intergroup perspective. In M.
408 References

P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in exper- (Ed.). Handbook of intercultural communication
imental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 129–184). (pp. 261–288). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Cai, D. A., Wilson, S. R., & Drake, L. E. (2000).
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Deception: Culture in the context of intercultural nego-
Strategic and nonstrategic communication. In J. tiation: Individualism-­collectivism and paths to
A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic inter- integrative agreements. Human Communication
personal communication (pp. 191–223). Hills- Research, 26, 591–617
dale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cai, H., Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., Wang, C.,
Burgoon, J., Berger, C., & Waldron, V. (2000). Mind- Carvello, M., Xu, Y., et al. (2010). Tactical self-­
fulness and interpersonal communication. Jour- enhancement in China: Is modesty at the ser-
nal of Social Issues, 56, 105–127. vice of self-­enhancement in East Asian culture?
Burgoon, J., Buller, D., & Woodall, W. G. (1996). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2,
Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dia- 59–64.
logue (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-­Hill. Canary, D. J., & Lakey, S. G. (2006). Managing
Burgoon, J., & Ebesu Hubbard, A. (2005). Cross-­ conflict in a competent manner: A mindful look
cultural and intercultural applications of expec- at events that matter. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­
tancy violations theory and intercultural adapta- Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict
tion theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing communication: Integrating theory, research,
about intercultural communication (pp. 211– and practice (pp. 185–210). Thousand Oaks, CA:
233). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. SAGE.
Burgoon, J., Guerrero, L., & Floyd, K. (2010). Non- Canary, D., & Lakey, S. (2013). Strategic conflict.
verbal communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. New York: Routledge.
Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. Los Ange- Canary, D., Lakey, S., & Sillars, A. (2013). Manag-
les: University of California Press. ing conflict in a competent manner. In J. Oetzel
Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: & S. Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
University of California Press. conflict communication (2nd ed., pp. 263–289).
Buss, D., Buss, D., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Ash- Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
erian, A., Biaggio, A., et al. (1990). International Carbaugh, D. (1989). Fifty terms for talk: A cross-­
preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cul- cultural study. In S. Ting-­Toomey & F. Korzenny
tures. Journal of Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 21, (Eds.), Language, communication and culture:
5–47. Current directions (pp. 93–120). Newbury Park,
Buzzanell, P. M. (1999). Tensions and burdens in CA: SAGE.
employment interviewing processes: Perspec- Carbaugh, D. (Ed.). (1990). Cultural communica-
tives of non-­dominant group applicants. Journal tion and intercultural contact. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
of Business Communication, 36, 134–162. baum.
Buzzanell, P. (2017). Constituting intercultural har- Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The commu-
mony by design thinking conflict management in, nication of social identities in American scenes.
for, and about diversity and inclusion work. In X. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dai & G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Conflict management Cargile, A. C., Giles, H., Ryan, E. B., & Bradac, J. J.
and intercultural communication (pp. 66–84). (1994). Language attitudes as a social process: A
New York: Routledge. conceptual model and new directions. Language
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New and Communication, 14, 211–236.
York: Academic Press. Carl, D., Gupta, V., & Javidan, M. (2004). Power dis-
Cahn, D. (1987). Letting go: A practical theory of tance. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan,
relationship disengagement and reengagement. P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership,
Albany: State University of New York Press. culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of
Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2017). What’s past is prologue: 62 societies (pp. 513–563). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Lessons from conflict, communication, and cul- SAGE.
ture research from half a century ago. In L. Chen Carroll, R. (1987). Cultural misunderstandings: The
 References 409

French–­American experience. Chicago: Univer- support among Chinese migrants in Singapore.

sity of Chicago Press. New Media and Society, 13(7), 1067–1084.
Casmir, F. (1997). Ethics in intercultural and inter- Chen, W., & Kay, A. C. S. (2011). Leveraging com-
national communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. puter mediated communication for social support
Center for American Progress. (2017, August 28). in immigrants’ intercultural adaptation. Cross-­
DACA recipients’ economic and educational Cultural Communication, 7(3), 167–176.
gains continue to grow. Retrieved from www. Chen, Y. W. (2006). Intercultural friendships from
am er icanprogress.org/i ssues/immigration/ the perspective of East Asian international stu-
n ews/2 017/0 8/28/4379 56/d a ca - ­r ec i p i ent s-­ dents. Chinese Media Research, 2(3), 43–58.
economic-­educational-­gains-­continue-­grow. Chen, Y. W., & Nakazawa, M. (2010). Influences of
Chaffee, S., Ness, C., & Yang, S. M. (1990). The culture on self-­disclosure as relationally situated
bridging role of television in immigrant political in intercultural and interracial friendships from a
socialization. Human Communication Research, social penetration perspective. Journal of Inter-
17, 266–288. cultural Communication Research, 38(2), 77–98.
Chaika, E. (1989). Language: The social mirror (2nd Cheng, C.-Y., Lee, F., Benet-­ Martinez, B., & &
ed.). New York: Newbury House. Huynh, Q.-L. (2014). Variations in multicultural
Chang, W. C., Chua, W. L., & Toh, Y. (1997). The experience: Influence of bicultural identity. In V.
concept of psychological control in the Asian con- Benet-Martínez & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford
text. In K. Leung, U. Kim, S. Yamaguchi, & Y. handbook of multicultural identity: Basic and
Kashima (Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychol- applied psychological perspectives (pp. 276–
ogy (Vol. 1, pp. 96–117). New York: Wiley. 299). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chang, Y. (2009). A qualitative study of temporary Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values
reentry from significant others’ perspective. and search for culture-­free dimensions of cul-
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, ture. Journal of Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 18,
33, 259–263. 143–164.
Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. F. (2004). Social Choi, S., Kim, Y., Sung, Y., & Sohn, D. (2011). Bridg-
skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for inter- ing or bonding?: A cross-­cultural study of social
national graduate students. Journal of College relationships in social networking sites. Informa-
Student Development, 45, 167–184. tion, Communication and Society, 14(1), 107–129.
Chen, G.-M. (2012). The impact of new media on Chung, L. C., & Ting-­ Toomey, S. (1999). Ethnic
intercultural communication in global context. identity and relational expectations among Asian
China Media Research, 8, 1–10. Americans. Communication Research Reports,
Chen, G.-M. (2014). The two faces of Chinese com- 16, 157–166.
munication. In M. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin Church, A. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psycho-
(Eds.), The global intercultural communication logical Bulletin, 91, 540–572.
reader (pp. 273–282). New York: Routledge. Clarke, C. H., & Lipp, G. D. (1998). Danger and
Chen, G.-M. (2015). Theorizing global community as opportunity: Resolving conflict in U.S.-based
cultural home in the new century. International Japanese subsidiaries. Yarmouth, ME: Intercul-
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 46, 73–81. tural Press.
Chen, G.-M. (2017). Issues in the conceptualization Clement, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003).
of intercultural communication competence In Willingness to communicate in a second lan-
L. Chen (Ed.), Handbook of intercultural com- guage: The effects of contexts, norms, and vital-
munication (pp. 457–480). Berlin: De Gruyter ity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
Mouton. 22, 190–209.
Chen, W. (2010). Internet-­usage patterns of immi- Cocroft, B.-A., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (1994). Facework
grants in the process of intercultural adaptation. in Japan and the United States. International
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Media, Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469–506.
13, 387–399. Cohen, R. (1987). Problems of intercultural com-
Chen, W., & Choi, A. S. K. (2011). Internet and social munication in Egyptian-­ A merican diplomatic
410 References

relations. International Journal of Intercultural cross-­cultural dynamics within organizations

Relations, 11, 29–47. (pp. 17–31). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cohen, R. (1991). Negotiating across cultures: Com- Costanzo, F., Markel, N., & Costanzo, R. (1969).
munication obstacles in international diplomacy. Voice quality profile and perceived emotion.
Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16, 267–270.
Coleman, L. J., & Bahnan, N. (2009). Segmentation Cousins, S. (1989). Culture and self-­perception in
practices of e-­dating. In C. Romm-­Livermore & Japan and the United States. Journal of Personal-
K. Setzekorn (Eds.), Social networking communi- ity and Social Psychology, 56(1), 124–131.
ties and e-­dating services: Concepts and implica- Covarrubias, P. O., & Windchief, S. R. (2009).
tions (pp. 233–265). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Silences in stewardship: Some American Indian
Coleman, S., & Raider, E. (2006). International/ college student examples. Howard Journal of
intercultural conflict resolution training. In J. G. Communications, 20, 333–352.
Oetzel & S. Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE hand- Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations:
book of conflict communication: Integrating the- Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco:
ory, research, and practice (1st ed., pp. 663–690). Berrett-­Koekler.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Crisp, R. (2010a). The psychology of social and cul-
Collie, P., Kindon, S., Liu, J., & Podsiadlowski, A. tural diversity (Social Issues and Interventions).
(2010). Mindful identity negotiation: The accul- Malden, MA: Blackwell.
turation of young Assyrian women in New Zea- Crisp, R. J. (2010b). Prejudice and perceiving mul-
land. International Journal of Intercultural Rela- tiple identities. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P.
tions, 34, 208–220. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
Collier, M. J. (2005). Theorizing cultural identifi- of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination
cations: Critical updates and continuing evolu- (pp. 508–525). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
tion. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about Crohn, J. (1995). Mixed matches: How to create suc-
intercultural communication (pp. 235–256). cessful interracial, interethnic, and interfaith
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. marriages. New York: Ballantine/Fawcett.
Collier, M. J. (2009). Contextual negotiation of cul- Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000).
tural identifications and relationships: Interview The relational interdependent self construal and
discourse with Palestinian, Israeli, and Palestin- relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
ian/Israeli young women in a U.S. peace-­building Psychology, 78, 791–808.
program. Journal of International and Intercul- Cross, W., Jr. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion
tural Communication, 2, 344–368. experience: Toward a psychology of Black libera-
Condon, J. (2015). Value dimensions: Kluckhohn tion. Black World, 20, 13–27.
and Strodtbeck value orientations. In J. Bennett Cross, W., Jr. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in
(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural African-­American identity. Philadelphia: Temple
competence (Vol. 2, pp. 846–851). Los Angeles: University Press.
SAGE. Cross, W., Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigrescence:
Copeland, A. (2015). Intercultural families. In J. Revising the Cross model. In J. Ponterotto, J.
Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of inter- Casas, L. Suzuki, & C. Alexander (Eds.), Hand-
cultural competence (Vol. 2, pp. 499–502). Los book of multicultural counseling (pp. 93–122).
Angeles: SAGE. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cort, D., & King, M. (1979). Some correlates of cul- Croucher, S. (2013). Religion and conflict: An emerg-
ture shock among American tourists in Africa. ing field of inquiry. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict
3, 211–225. communication (2nd ed., pp. 563–583). Los
Cortes, C. E., & Wilkinson, L. C. (2009). Develop- Angeles: SAGE.
ing and implementing a multicultural vision. In Croucher, S. (Ed.). (2017). Global perspectives on
M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership intercultural communication. New York: Rout-
and intercultural competence: Exploring the ledge.
 References 411

Croucher, S. M., & Rahmani, D. (2015). A longitu- management and intercultural communication.
dinal test of the effects of Facebook on cultural New York: Routledge.
adaptation. Journal of International and Intercul- Dandy, J., & Pe-Pua, R. (2010). Attitudes to multi-
tural Communication, 8(4), 330–345. culturalism, immigration and cultural diversity:
Cuevas, M. (2017, April, 22). Michigan doctors Comparison of dominant and non-­ dominant
charged in first female genital mutilation case groups in three Australian states. International
in US. Retrieved June 24, 2017, from www. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 34–46.
cnn.com/2017/04/22/health/detroit-­g enital-­ Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species by
mutilation-­charges/index.html. means of natural selection, or the preservation
Cupach, W. (2015). Communication competence in of favoured races in the struggle for life. London:
the management of conflict In A. F. Hannawa & B. John Murray.
H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The handbook of communica- Darwin, C. R. (1872). The expression of the emotions
tion science: Communication competence (Vol. 22, in man and animals. London: John Murray.
pp. 341–366). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Davis, J. L. (2007). What is so great about kissing?
Cupach, W., & Imahori, T. (1993). Identity manage- Retrieved January 7, 2007, from www.wemd.
ment theory: Communication competence in com/content/article/11/1687-51154.htm.
intercultural episodes and relationships. In R. Davis, M. (1990). Mexican voices/American dream.
Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural com- New York: Holt.
munication competence (Vol. 17, pp. 112–131). Davitz, J., & Davitz, L. (1959). The communication
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. of feelings by content-­ free speech. Journal of
Cupach, W., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Communication, 9, 6–13.
Oaks, CA: SAGE. Deardorff, D. (2004). The identification and assess-
Cushman. D., & Cahn, D. (1985). Communication ment of intercultural competence as a student
in interpersonal relationships. Albany: State Uni- outcome of internationalization at institutions
versity of New York Press. of higher education in the United States. Unpub-
Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. (1996). Intercultural inter- lished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State
actions: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Thousand University, Raleigh, NC.
Oaks, CA: SAGE. Deardorff, D. (2009). Synthesizing conceptualiza-
D’Andrade, R. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In tions of intercultural competence: A summary
R. Shweder & R. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: and emerging themes. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.),
Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 88–119). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (pp. 264–269). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
D’Emilio, F. (2011, March 6). Italy tests immigrants Deaux, K., & Verkuyten, M. (2014). The social psy-
on proficiency in Italian. San Diego Union Tri- chology of multiculturalism: Identity and inter-
bune, p. A10. group relations. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y.-Y.
Dai, X. D. (2009). Intercultural personhood and Hong (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicul-
identity negotiation. China Media Research, 5(2), tural identity: Basic and applied psychological
1–12. perspectives (pp. 118–138). Oxford: Oxford Uni-
Dai, X. D. (2017). The development of intercultur- versity Press.
ality and the management of intercultural con- DePaulo, B. M., Lindsey, J. J., Malone, B. E.,
flict. In X. Dai & G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Conflict Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.
management and intercultural communication (2003). Cues to detection. Psychological Bulletin,
(pp. 85–97). New York: Routledge. 129(1), 74–118.
Dai, X. D., & Chen, G. M. (Eds.). (2014). Intercul- Devine, P. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their
tural communication competence: Conceptual- automatic and controlled components. Journal of
ization and its development in cultural contexts Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.
and interaction. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Devine, P., Hamilton, D., & Ostrom, T. (1994). Social
Cambridge Scholars . cognition: Impact on social psychology. New
Dai, X. D., & Chen, G. M. (Eds.). (2017). Conflict York: Academic Press.
412 References

Diaz, S., Quétier F., Cáceres, D. M., Trainor, S. F., Dovidio, J. F., & Gluszek, A. (2012). Accent, non-
Pérez-­Harguindeguy, N., Bret-Harte, M. S., et verbal behavior, and intergroup bias. In H. Giles
al. (2011). Linking functional diversity and social (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communica-
actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplin- tion (pp. 87–99). New York: Routledge
ary analysis of nature’s benefits to society. Pro- Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V.
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of M. (Eds.). (2010). The SAGE handbook of preju-
the USA, 108(3), 895–902. dice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Thousand
Dion, K. K. (1986). Stereotyping based on physical Oaks, CA: SAGE.
attractiveness: Issues and conceptual perspec- Duggan, A. P., Robinson, J. D., & Thompson, T. L.
tives. In C. Herman, M. Zanna, & E. Higgins (2012). Interability communication. In H. Giles
(Eds.), Ontario symposium on personality and (Ed.), Handbook of intergroup communication
social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 7–21). Hillsdale, (pp. 250–263). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
NJ: Erlbaum. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence:
Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1996). Cultural perspec- Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford,
tives on romantic love. Personal Relationships, 3, CA: Stanford University Press.
5–17. Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive
Donaldson, T. (1989. The ethics of international cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a
business. New York: Oxford University Press. new approach to intercultural training for the
Dorjee, T. (2006). Transmitting cultural identity global manager. Academy of Management Learn-
from generation to generation in Tibetan Dias- ing and Education, 3, 100–115.
pora. In W. Leeds-­Hurwitz (Ed.), From genera- Edwards, J. (1985). Language, society, and identity.
tion to generation: Maintaining cultural identity Oxford: Blackwell.
over time (pp. 227–253). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Edwards, J. (1994). Multilingualism. London: Rout-
Press. ledge.
Dorjee, T. (2013). Intercultural and intergroup con- Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the
flict resolution: Nonviolence and middle way marketplace, marriage, and politics. New York:
approaches. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­Toomey Norton.
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict resolution: Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing
Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd faces and feelings to improve communication and
ed., pp. 687–712). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. emotional life. New York: Times Books.
Dorjee, T. (2017). Intercultural communication: Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1969). The repertoire of
A Buddhist perspective. In S. Croucher (Ed.), nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage,
Global perspective on intercultural communica- and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.
tion (pp. 71–74). New York: Routledge. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1975). Unmasking the
Dorjee, T., Baig, N., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (2013). A face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-­Hall.
social ecological perspective in understand- Ekman, P., Friesen, W., O’Sullivan, M., Chan, A.,
ing “honor killing”: An intercultural moral Diacoyanni-­Tarlatzis, I., Heider, K., et al. (1987).
dilemma. Journal of Intercultural Communica- Universals and cultural differences in the judg-
tion Research, 42, 1–21. ment of facial expressions of emotions. Journal of
Dorjee, T., Giles, H., & Barker, V. (2011). Diasporic Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 712–717.
communication: Cultural deviance and accom- Ekman, P., & Heider, K. G. (1988). The universality
modation among Tibetans in exiles in India. of a contempt expression: A replication. Motiva-
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Devel- tion and Emotion, 12, 303–308.
opment, 32(4), 343–359. Ellis, D. G., & Moaz, I. (2012). Communication and
Dorjee, T., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (2015). Honor killing: reconciling intergroup contact. In H. Giles (Ed.),
Multidimensional and multilevel perspectives. In The handbook of intergroup communication
B. Miller & J. Wright (Eds.), International ency- (pp. 153–166). New York: Routledge.
clopedia of social and behavioral sciences (2nd Emory–Tibet Partnership. (2015, October 21). Secu-
ed., pp. 185–191). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. lar ethics in education: Educating the heart and
 References 413

mind—A proposed curriculum for K–12 and col- conflict: A cross-­cultural agenda. Yarmouth, ME:
lege education. Atlanta, GA: Emory University. Intercultural Press.
Engebretson, D., & Fullman, D. (1972). Cross-­ Fisher-­Yoshida, B. (2005). Reframing conflict: Inter-
cultural differences in territoriality: Interaction cultural conflict as potential transformation.
distances of Native Japanese, Hawaii Japanese, Journal of Intercultural Communication, 8, 1–15.
and American Caucasians. In L. Samovar & R. Fisher-­Yoshida, B. (2013). Transforming intercul-
Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A tural conflict through the context of relationship.
reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The
Engholm, C. (1994). Doing business in Asia’s boom- SAGE handbook of conflict communication (2nd
ing “China triangle.” Englewood Cliffs, NJ: ed., pp. 791–914). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Prentice-­Hall. Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four
Espiritu, Y. (1992). Asian American panethnicity: elementary forms of human relations. New York:
Bridging institutions and identities. Philadel- Free Press.
phia: Temple University Press. Fiske, S. T., & Russell, A. M. (2010). Cognitive pro-
Esses, V. M., Brochu, P. M., & Dickson, K. R. (2012). cesses. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, &
Economic costs, economic benefits, and attitudes V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of preju-
toward immigrants and immigration. Analyses of dice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 115–
Social Issues and Public Policy, 12(1), 133–137. 130). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Arm- Fitch, K. (1994). A cross-­cultural study of directive
strong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: sequences and some implications for compliance-­
The role of perceived group competition, ethnic gaining research. Communication Monographs,
prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social 61, 185–209.
Issues, 57(3), 389–412. Fitch, K. (1998). Speaking relationally: Culture,
Farb, P. (1973). Word play: What happens when peo- communication, and interpersonal communica-
ple talk? New York: Bantam Books. tion. New York: Guilford Press.
Fassaert, T., Hesselink, A. E., & Verhoeff, A. P. Fletcher, C. V., Nakazawa, M., Chen, Y., Oetzel, J.
(2009). Acculturation and use of health care G., Ting-­Toomey, S., Chang, S.-J., et al. (2014).
services by Turkish and Moroccan migrants: A Establishing cross-­cultural measurement equiva-
cross-­section population-­based study. BMC Pub- lence of scales associated with face-­negotiation
lic Health, 9, 1–9. theory: A critical issue in cross-­cultural compari-
Fassett, D. L., & Warren, J. T. (2007). Critical com- sons. Journal of International and Intercultural
munication pedagogy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Communication, 7, 148–169.
SAGE. Floyd, K. (2004). An introduction to the uses of
Feagin, J. R. (2006). Systemic racism: A theory of potential uses of physiological measurement in
oppression. New York: Routledge. the study of family communication. Journal of
Feagin, J. R., & Feagin, C. B. (2011). Racial and eth- Family Communication, 4, 295–318.
nic relations (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Floyd, K. (2016). Affection exchange theory. In C. R.
Pearson. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), The international
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love encyclopedia of interpersonal communication
viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of (pp. 1–8). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 425– Floyd, K., & Haynes, M. T. (2005). Applications of
438. the theory of natural selection to the study of
Ferraro, G. (1990). The cultural dimension of inter- family communication. Journal of Family Com-
national business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- munication, 5, 79–101.
tice Hall. Floyd, K., & Riforgiate, S. (2008). Affectionate com-
Firmin, N., & Firebaugh, S. (2008). Historical analy- munication received from spouses predict stress
sis of college campus interracial dating. College hormone levels in healthy adults. Communica-
Student Journal, 42, 782–788. tion Monographs, 75, 351–368.
Fisher, G. (1998). The mindsets factors in ethnic Foeman, A. K., & Nance, T. (1999). From
414 References

miscegenation to multiculturalism: Perceptions encounters: Elaborations and extensions. In

and stages of interracial relationship develop- R. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication
ment. Journal of Black Studies, 29, 540–557. theory (pp. 115–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fox, S. A., & Giles, H. (1996). Interability communi- Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communica-
cation: Evaluating patronizing encounters. Jour- tion accommodation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst
nal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(3), (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communica-
265–290. tion (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004a). Nonverbal Gannon, M. J. (2008). Paradoxes of culture and glo-
detection of deception in forensic contexts. In W. balization. Los Angeles: SAGE.
T. O’Donohue & E. R. Levensky (Eds.), Hand- Gao, G. (1991). Stability in romantic relationships in
book of forensic psychology: Resource for men- China and the United States. In S. Ting-­Toomey
tal health and legal professionals (pp. 635–653). & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-­cultural interper-
New York: Elsevier Science. sonal communication (pp. 99–115). Newbury
Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004b). Appearing Park, CA: SAGE.
truthful generalizes across different deception Gao, G. (1998). An initial analysis of the effects of
situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- face and concern for “other” in Chinese interper-
chology, 86, 486–495. sonal communication. International Journal of
Frank, M. G., & Shaw, A. Z. (2016). Evolution and non- Intercultural Relations, 22, 467–482.
verbal communication. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Gao, G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1990). Uncertainty,
Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), Handbook of non- anxiety and adaptation. International Journal of
verbal communication (pp. 45–76). Washington, Intercultural Relations, 5, 301–317.
DC: American Psychological Association Press. Gao, G., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (1998). Communicating
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: effectively with the Chinese. Thousand Oaks, CA:
The social construction of whiteness. Minneapo- SAGE.
lis: University of Minnesota Press. Garcia, W. R. (1996). Respeto: A Mexican base for
Freilich, M. (1989). Introduction: Is culture still rel- interpersonal relationships. In W. Gudykunst,
evant? In M. Freilich (Ed.), The relevance of cul- S. Ting-­Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communi-
ture (pp. 1–7). New York: Morgan & Garvey. cation in personal relationships across cultures
Furnham, A. (1986). Situational determinants of (pp. 137–155). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
intergroup communication. In W. Gudykunst Gareis, E. (2000). Intercultural friendship: Five case
(Ed.), Intergroup communication (pp. 96–113). studies of German students in the USA. Journal
London: Arnold. of Intercultural Studies, 21, 67–91.
Furnham, A. (1988). The adjustment of sojourners. Gareis, E. (2017). Intercultural friendship and com-
In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-­ munication. In L. Chen (Ed.). Handbook of inter-
cultural adaptation (pp. 42–61). Newbury Park, cultural communication (pp. 457–480). Berlin:
CA: SAGE. De Gruyter Mouton.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures.
in a foreign culture. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures New York: Basic Books.
in contact (pp. 161–198). Elmsford, NY: Per- Gelfand, M. J. (2012). Culture’s constraints: Interna-
gamon Press. tional differences in the strength of social norms.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
New York: Routledge. 21(6), 420–424.
Galati, D., Scherer, K. R., & Ricci-Bitti, P. (1997). Gelfand, M., Raver, J., Nishii, L., Leslie, L., Lun, J.,
Voluntary facial expression of emotion: Compar- and colleagues. (2011). Differences between tight
ing congenitally blind to normal sighted encod- and loose societies: A 33-nation study. Science,
ers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 1100–1104.
73, 1363–1379. Gheorghiu, M., Vignoles, V., & Smith, P. (2009).
Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A., & Beyond the United States and Japan: Testing
Ota, H. (1995). Accommodating intercultural Yamagishi’s emancipation theory of trust across
 References 415

31 nations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, Global Mobility Effectiveness Survey. (2009). Ernst
365–383. & Young. Retrieved from www.ey.com/Publica-
Giles, H. (Ed.). (2012). The handbook of intergroup tion/vwLUAssets/Global_ Mobility_ Effective-
communication. New York: Routledge. ness_ Survey_2010/$File/Global_mobility.pdf.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Global Trends Relocation Survey. (2010). Retrieved
Towards a theory of language in ethnic group from www.articles.totallyexpat.com/global-­
relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity relocation-­trends-­survey-2010.
and intergroup relations (pp. 307–348). London: Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010a). The way they
Academic Press. speak: A social psychological perspective on the
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). stigma of nonnative accents in communication.
Accommodation theory: Communication, con- Personality and Social Psychological Review,
text, and consequences. In H. Giles, J. Coup- 14(2), 214–237.
land, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accom- Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010b). Speaking with
modation: Developments in applied linguistics a nonnative accent: Perceptions of bias, commu-
(pp. 1–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- nication, and belonging. Journal of Language and
sity Press. Social Psychology, 29, 224–234.
Giles, H., & Gasiorek, J. (2011). Intergenerational Gluszek, A., Newheiser, A.-K., & Dovidio, J. F.
communication practices. In K. W. Schaie & (2011). Social psychological orientations and
S. Willis (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of accent strength. Journal of Language and Social
aging (7th ed., pp. 231–245). New York: Elsevier. Psychology, 30, 28–45.
Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1987). Ethnolinguistic vital- Gochenour, T. (1990). Considering Filipinos. Yar-
ity theory: A social psychological approach to lan- mouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
guage maintenance. International Journal of the Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual
Sociology of Language, 68, 69–99. elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Inter-
Giles, H., & Rakic, T. (2014). Language attitudes: personal and Biological Processes, 18, 213–231.
Social determinants and consequences of lan- Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in every-
guage variation. In T. M. Holtgraves (Ed.), The day life. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.
Oxford handbook of language and social psychol- Gonzales, N. A., Germán, M., Kim, Y. S., George,
ogy (pp. 11–26). New York: Oxford University P., Fabrett, F. C., Millsap, R., & Dumka, L. E.
Press. (2008). Mexican American adolescents’ cultural
Giles, H., Reid, S., & Harwood, J. (Eds.). (2010). The orientation, externalizing behavior, and academic
dynamics of intergroup communication. New engagement: The role of traditional cultural val-
York: Peter Lang. ues. American Journal of Community Psychol-
Giles, H., & Watson, B. (2008). Intercultural and ogy, 41, 151–164.
intergroup communication. In W. Donsbach Gonzalez, M. C. (2000). The four seasons of ethnog-
(Ed.), International encyclopedia of communica- raphy: A creation centered ontology for ethnogra-
tion (Vol. VI, pp. 2337–2348). Oxford, UK: Black- phy. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
well. tions, 24, 623–650.
Gilligan, C. (1988). Remapping the moral domain: Goode, E. (2001). Deviant behavior (6th ed.). Upper
New images of self in relationship. In C. Gilligan, Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-­Hall.
J. Ward, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Mapping the moral Gottman, J., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles
domain (pp. 3–20). Cambridge, MA: Harvard for making marriage work. New York: Crown.
University Press. Graf, J. (1994). Views on Chinese. In Y. Bao (Ed.),
Giroux, H. A. (1994). Disturbing pleasures: Learning Zhong guo ren, ni shou le shen me zhu zhou?
popular culture. New York: Routledge. [Chinese people, what have you been cursed
Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in edu- with?] Taipei, Taiwan: Xing Guang Chu Ban She.
cation: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition—­ Graham, J. (1985). The influence of culture on the
revised and expanded edition. Westport, CT: process of business negotiations. Journal of Inter-
Bergin & Garvey. national Business Studies, 16, 81–96.
416 References

Greis, E. (2017). Intercultural friendship and com- Gudykunst, W. B., Lee, C. M., Nishida, T., & Ogawa,
munication. In L. Chen (Ed.), Handbook of inter- N. (2005). Theorizing about intercultural com-
cultural communication (pp. 457–480). Berlin: munication: An introduction. In W. B. Gudykunst
De Gruyter Mouton. (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communica-
Grewen, K. M., Girdler, S. S., Amico, J., & Light, tion (pp. 4–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
K. C. (2005). Effects of partner support on rest- Gudykunst, W., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-­ Toomey, S.,
ing oxytocin, cortisol, norepinephrine, and blood Nishida, T., Kim, K. S., & Heyman, S. (1996).
pressure before and after warm partner contact. The influence of cultural individualism—­
Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 531–538. collectivism, self construals, and individual val-
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. ues on communication styles across cultures.
Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Human Communication Research, 22, 510–543.
Speech acts (pp. 107–142). New York: Academic Gudykunst, W., & Ting-­Toomey, S., with Chua, E.
Press. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communica-
Grinde, D. (1996). Place and kinship: A Native tion. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
American’s identity before and after words. In B. Gudykunst, W., Wiseman, R., & Hammer, M. (1977).
Thompson & S. Tyagi (Eds.), Names we call home: Determinants of a sojourner’s attitudinal sat-
Autobiography on racial identity (pp. 63–72). isfaction. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication
New York: Routledge. yearbook 1 (pp. 415–425). New Brunswick, NJ:
Gudykunst, W. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y. Transaction.
Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in inter- Guerrero, L. K. (2013). Emotion and communication
cultural communication (pp. 123–156). Newbury in conflict interaction. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­
Park, CA: SAGE. Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict
Gudykunst, W. (1993). Toward a theory of effective communication (2nd ed., pp. 105–131). Thousand
interpersonal and intergroup communication: An Oaks, CA: SAGE.
anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) perspec- Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An exten-
tive. In R. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Inter- sion of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social
cultural communication competence (pp. 33–71). Issues, 19, 33–47.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Gundling, E., & Kaleel, S. (2015). Global transfer-
Gudykunst, W. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty manage- ees. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia
ment (AUM) theory: Current status. In R. Wise- of intercultural competence (Vol. 1, pp. 365–368).
man (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory Los Angeles: SAGE.
(pp. 8–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Gupta, S. R. (2009). Beyond borders: Leading in
Gudykunst, W. (1998). Bridging differences: Effec- today’s multicultural world. In M. A. Moodian
tive intergroup communication (3rd ed.). Thou- (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercul-
sand Oaks, CA: SAGE. tural competence: Exploring the cross-­cultural
Gudykunst, W. (Ed.). (2005). Theorizing about inter- dynamics within organizations (pp. 145–158).
cultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
SAGE. Gursoy, D., Chi, G.-C., & Karadag, E. (2013). Gen-
Gudykunst, W. B. (2005a). An anxiety/uncertainty erational differences in work values and attitudes
management (AUM) theory of effective commu- among frontline and service contact employees.
nication: Making the mesh of the net finer. In W. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-
B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercul- ment, 32, 40–48.
tural communication (pp. 281–322). Thousand Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative
Oaks, CA: SAGE. action: Lifeworld and system (Vol. 2; T. McCar-
Gudykunst, W. B. (2005b). An anxiety/uncertainty thy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
management (AUM) theory of strangers’ inter- Hafen, S. (2005). Cultural diversity training: A
cultural adjustment. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), critical (ironic) cartography of advocacy and
Theorizing about intercultural communication oppositional silences. In G. Cheney & G. A.
(pp. 419–458). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Barnett (Eds.), International and multicultural
 References 417

organizational communication (pp. 3–43). Halualani, R. T. (2008). “Where exactly is the Pacific?”:
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Global migrations, diasporic movements, and
Hajek, C. (2012). Communication and identities intercultural communication. Journal of Interna-
characterized by male sexual orientation. In H. tional and Intercultural Communication, 1, 3–22.
Giles (Ed.), Handbook of intergroup communica- Hamby, C. E. (2003/2004). Biracial communication
tion (pp. 211–222). New York: Routledge. in the African American community: A prelimi-
Hajek, C., Abrams, J., & Murachver, T. (2005). nary study. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 304,
Female, straight, male, gay, and worlds betwixt 62–74.
and between: An intergroup approach to sexual Hammer, M. R. (2009). Solving problems and resolv-
and gender identities. In J. Harwood & H. Giles ing conflict using the intercultural conflict style
(Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple per- model and inventory. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.),
spectives (pp. 43–64). New York: Peter Lang. Contemporary leadership and intercultural com-
Hajek, C., & Giles, H. (2005). Intergroup communi- petence: Exploring the cross-­cultural dynamics
cation schemas: Cognitive representations of talk within organizations (pp. 219–231). Thousand
with gay men. Language and Communication, Oaks, CA: SAGE.
25, 161–181. Hannawa, A. F. (2015). Miscommunication and
Halberstadt, A. (1991). Toward an ecology of expres- error. In A. F. Hannawa & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.),
siveness: Family expressiveness in particular and The handbook of communication science: Com-
a model in general. In R. Feldman & B. Rime munication competence (Vol. 22, pp. 683–709).
(Eds.), Fundamentals of nonverbal communica- Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
tion (pp. 106–160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Hannawa, A. F., & Spitzberg, B. H. (Eds.). (2015).
University Press. The handbook of communication science: Com-
Hall, B. J. (1997). Culture, ethics, and communica- munication competence (Vol. 22). Berlin: De
tion. In F. Casmir (Ed.), Ethics in intercultural Gruyter Mouton.
and international communication (pp. 11–42). Harris, R. (2015). Tourism. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural competence
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: (Vol. 2, pp. 802–803). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Doubleday. Harwood, J., & Giles, H. (Eds.). (2005). Intergroup
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension (2nd ed.). communication: Multiple perspectives. New
Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday. York: Peter Lang.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Dou- Harwood, J., Giles, H., & Palomares, N. A. (2005).
bleday. Intergroup theory and communication processes.
Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life. New York: Dou- In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup com-
bleday. munication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–20).
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. (1987). Hidden differences: New York: Peter Lang.
Doing business with the Japanese. Garden City, Harwood, J., & Joyce, N. (2012). Intergroup contact
NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. and communication. In H. Giles (Ed.), The hand-
Hall, S. (1981). Cultural studies and the centre: Some book of intergroup communication (pp. 167–180).
problematics and problems. In S. Hall, D. Hob- New York: Routledge.
son, A, Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, Harwood, J., & Williams, A. (1998). Expectations
and language (pp. 15–47). London: Hutchinson. for communication with positive and negative
Hall, S. (1986). The problem of ideology: Marxism subtypes of older adults. International Journal
without guarantees. In D. Morley & K. H. Chen of Aging and Human Development, 47(1), 11–33.
(Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural Haslett, B. (2017). Transforming conflict through
studies (pp. 25–46). London: Routledge. communication and common ground. In X. D.
Halualani, R. T. (1995). The intersecting hegemonic Dai & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Conflict management
discourses of an Asian mail-order bride catalog: and intercultural communication: The art of
Pilipina “Oriental Butterfly” dolls for sale. Wom- intercultural harmony (pp. 98–122). Abingdon,
en’s Studies in Communication, 18, 45–64. UK: Routledge.
418 References

Heaton, H., & Nygaard, L. C. (2011). Charm or harm: racial identity development model. In J. Helms
Effect of passage content on listener attitudes (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory,
towards American English accents. Journal of research, and practice (pp. 67–80). Westport, CT:
Language and Social Psychology, 30(2), 202–211. Praeger.
Heckert, A., & Heckert, D. M. (2002). A new typol- Henningsen. D. D., Valde, K. S., & Davies, E. (2005).
ogy of deviance: Integrating normative and reac- Exploring the effect of verbal and nonverbal cues
tivist definitions of deviance. Deviant Behavior, on perceptions of deception. Communication
23, 449–479. Quarterly, 53, 359–375.
Hecht, M., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. (1993). Afri- Hewstone, M. (1989). Changing stereotypes with
can American communication: Ethnic identity disconfirming information. In D. Bar-Tal, C.
and cultural interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Graumann, A. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.),
SAGE. Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing concep-
Hecht, M., Jackson, R., & Ribeau, S. (2003). African tions (pp. 207–223). New York: Springer-­Verlag.
American communication: Exploring identity Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (Eds.). (1986). Contact
and culture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. and conflict in intergroup encounters. Oxford,
Hecht, M., & Lu, Y. (2015). Culture and competence: UK: Blackwell.
Ethnicity and race. In A. F. Hannawa & B. H. Hewstone, M., & Jaspars, J. (1984). Social dimen-
Spitzberg (Eds.), The handbook of communica- sions of attribution. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social
tion science: Communication competence (Vol. dimension (Vol. 2, pp. 379–404). Cambridge, UK:
22, pp. 289–314). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Cambridge University Press.
Hecht, M., Sedano, M., & Ribeau, S. (1993). Under- Hewstone, M., & Swart, H. (2011). Fifty odd-years
standing culture, communication, and research: of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to inter-
Applications to Chicanos and Mexican Ameri- group theory. British Journal of Social Psychol-
cans. International Journal of Intercultural Rela- ogy, 50(3), 374–386.
tions, 17, 157–165. Hinner, M. (2017). Conflicts in an international
Hecht, M., Warren, J., Jung, E., & Krieger, J. (2005). business context: A theoretical analysis of inter-
A communication theory of identity: Develop- personal (pseudo) conflicts. In X. D. Dai & G.
ment, theoretical perspective, and future direc- M. Chen (Eds.), Conflict management and inter-
tions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about cultural communication: The art of intercultural
intercultural communication (pp. 257–278). harmony (pp. 254–277). Abingdon, UK: Rout-
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. ledge.
Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal Ho, C., & Jackson, J. W. (2001). Attitude toward Asian
causality. Psychological Review, 51, 258–374. Americans: Theory and measurement. Journal of
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal Applied Social Psychology, 31(8), 1553–1581.
relations. New York: Wiley. Ho, M. K. (1987). Family therapy with ethnic minor-
Heine, S. J. (2003). An exploration of cultural varia- ities. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
tion in self-­enhancing and self-­improving moti- Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2012). Interpersonal
vations. In V. Murphy-­Berman & J. J. Berman conflict (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-­Hill.
(Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivations: Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2018). Interpersonal
Vol. 49. Cross-­ cultural differences in perspec- conflict (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-­Hill.
tives on self (pp. 101–128). Lincoln: University of Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Inter-
Nebraska Press. national differences in work-­related values. Bev-
Helms, J. (1986). Expanding racial identity theory to erly Hills, CA: SAGE.
cover counseling process. Journal of Counseling Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations:
Psychology, 33, 62–64. Software of the mind. London: McGraw-­Hill.
Helms, J. (Ed.). (1993). Black and White racial iden- Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The
tity: Theory, research, and practice. Westport, taboo dimension of national culture. Thousand
CT: Praeger. Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Helms, J., & Carter, R. (1990). Development of White Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences:
 References 419

Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and Hotta, J., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (2013). Intercultural
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand adjustment and friendship dialectics in interna-
Oaks, CA: SAGE. tional students: A qualitative study. International
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 550–566.
Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.
Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Leadership, Culture, and
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s culture Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societ-
dimensions. Journal of Cross-­Cultural Psychol- ies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
ogy, 15, 417–433. Howell, W. (1982). The empathic communicator.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
connection: From cultural roots to economic Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of “face.”
growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4–21. American Anthropologist, 46, 45–64.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Huang-­Nissen, S. (1999). Dialogue groups: A prac-
Cultures and organizations; Software of the mind tical guide to facilitate diversity conversation.
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Blue Hill, ME: Medicine Bear.
Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long-­ versus Hummert, M. L. (2010). Age group identity, age ste-
short-term orientation: New perspectives. Asia reotypes, and communication in a life span con-
Pacific Business, 16(4), 493–504. text. In H. Giles, S. Reid, & J. Harwood (Eds.),
Hogg, M. A. (2013). Intergroup relations. In J. DeLa- The dynamics of intergroup communication
mater & A. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of social psy- (pp. 41–52). New York: Peter Lang.
chology (pp. 533–561). Dordrecht, The Nether- Hummert, M. L., Garstka, T. A., Ryan, E. B., & Bon-
lands: Springer. nesen, J. L. (2004). The role of age stereotypes in
Hogg, M., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifica- interpersonal communication. In J. F. Nussbaum
tions. London: Routledge. & J. Coupland (Eds.), Handbook of communica-
Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psy- tion and aging research (2nd ed., pp. 91–114).
chology. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Mahawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holmes, P. (2005). Ethnic Chinese students’ com- Hwang, H. C., & Matsumoto, D. (2017). Emotion dis-
munication with cultural others in a New Zea- play and expression. In L. Chen (Ed.). Handbook
land university. Communication Education, 54, of intercultural communication (pp. 219–238).
289–311. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hong, Y. Y., Benet-­Martinez, V., Chiu, C. Y., & Mor- Hwang, W. C., & Goto, S. (2008). The impact of per-
ris, M. W. (2003). Boundaries of cultural influ- ceived racial discrimination on the mental health
ence: Construct activation as a mechanism for of Asian American and Latino college students.
cultural differences in social perception. Journal Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychol-
of Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 34(4), 453–464. ogy, 14(4), 326–335.
Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-­ Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of lan-
Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A guage and social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes
dynamic constructivist approach to culture and (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnog-
cognition. American Psychologists, 55, 709–720. raphy of communication (pp. 37–71). New York:
Hoskins, M. L. (1999). Worlds apart and lives Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
together: Developing cultural attunement. Child Imahori, T. T., & Cupach, W. R. (2005). Identity
and Youth Care Forum, 28, 73–85. management theory: Facework in intercultural
Hotta, J. (2010). An integrative theory-­based and relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theoriz-
research-­ based intercultural communication ing about intercultural communication (pp. 195–
training program: Understanding international 210). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
students’ identity transformation process and Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and postmod-
promoting intercultural engagement. Unpub- ernization: Cultural, economic, and political
lished master’s project, California State Univer- change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
sity, Fullerton, CA. University Press.
420 References

Inman, A. G. (2006). South Asian women: Identi- Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Inter-
ties and conflicts. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic group distinctiveness and differentiation: A
Minority Psychology, 12, 306–319. meta-­analytic integration. Journal of Personality
Inman, A. G., Constantine, M. G., & Ladany, N. and Social Psychology, 86(6), 862–879.
(1999). Cultural value conflict: An examination Jia, Y., & Jia, X. L. (2017). A dialogic approach to
of Asian Indian women’s bicultural experience. intercultural conflict management and harmoni-
In D. S. Sandhu (Ed.), Asian and Pacific Islander ous relationships: Dialogue, ethics, and culture.
Americans: Issues and concerns for counseling In X. D. Dai & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Conflict man-
and psychotherapy (pp. 31– 41). Commack, NY: agement and intercultural communication: The
Nova Science. art of intercultural harmony (pp. 29–37). Abing-
Inman, A. G., Howard, E. E., Beaumont, R. L., & don, UK: Routledge.
Walker, J. A. (2007). Cultural transmission: Influ- Jian. G., & Ray, G. (Eds.). (2016), Relationship and com-
ence of contextual factors in Asian Indian immi- munication in East Asian Cultures: China, Japan
grant parents’ experiences. Journal of Counseling and South Korea. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-­Hunt.
Psychology, 54, 93–100. Jiang, C. C. (2011, April 25). Why more Chi-
Institute of International Education. (2016). Open nese singles are looking for love online. Time.
doors data report. Retrieved November 27, 2016, Retrieved from www.time.com/time/world/arti-
from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org. cle/0,8599, 2055996,00.html?xid=rss-­fullworld-­
Ishii, S., & Bruneau, T. (1991). Silence and silences yahoo?xid=huffpo-­direct.
in cross-­cultural perspective: Japan and the Johnson, M. (1991). Commitment to personal rela-
United States. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), tionships. In W. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Intercultural communication: A reader (6th ed., Advances in personal relationship (Vol. 3,
pp. 314–319). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. pp. 117–143). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Iyer, P. (1989). Video night in Kathmandu and other Jones, J. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). New
reports from the not-so-Far-East. New York: Vin- York: McGraw-­Hill.
tage Departures. Jones, S., & Yarborough, A. (1985). A naturalistic
Iyer, P. (2013, July 13). Pico Iyer: Where is home? study of the meanings of touch. Communication
[Video file]. Retrieved from www.ted.com/talks/ Monographs, 52, 19–56.
pico_iyer_where_is_home. Ju, R., Jia, M., & Shoham, M. (2016). Online social
Izard, C. (1980). Cross-­cultural perspectives on emo- connection: Exploring international students’ use
tion and emotion communication. In H. Triandis of new media in their adaptation process. China
& W. Lonner (Eds.), Handbook of cross-­cultural Media Research, 12, 76–89.
psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 185–221). Boston: Allyn Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go there you
& Bacon. are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life.
Jackson, R. (1999). The negotiation of cultural iden- New York: Hyperion.
tity. Westport, CT: Praeger. Kale, D. (1991). Ethics in intercultural communica-
Jackson, R. L. (2002). Cultural contracts theory: tion. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercul-
Toward an understanding of identity negotiation. tural communication: A reader (6th ed., pp. 421–
Communication Quarterly, 50(3&4), 359–367. 426). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jennings, S., Khanlou, N., & Su, C. (2014). Public Kale, S. H., & Spence, M. T. (2009). A trination anal-
health policy and social support for immigrant ysis of social exchange relationships in e-­dating.
mothers raising disabled children in Canada. In C. Romm-­Livermore & K. Setzekorn (Eds.),
Journal Disability and Society, 29(10), 1645– Social networking communities and e-­dating ser-
1657. vices: Concepts and implications (pp. 314–328).
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2001). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Similarity as a source of differentiation: The Kanayama, T. (2003). Ethnographic research on the
role of group identification. European Journal of experience of Japanese elderly people online.
Social Psychology, 31(6), 621–640. New Media and Society, 5, 267–288.
 References 421

Kanouse, D. E., & Hanson, L. R., Jr. (1972). Negativ- Germany but . . . ingroup projection, group based
ity in evaluations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, emotions and prejudice against immigrants.
H. H. Kelly, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6),
(Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of 985–997.
behavior (pp. 47–62). Morristown, NJ: General Kienzle, J., & Soliz, J. (2017). Intergroup communi-
Learning Press. cation. In L. Chen (Ed.), Intercultural communi-
Karis, T. A., & Killian, K. (Eds.). (2009). Intercul- cation (pp. 369–388). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
tural couples: Exploring diversity in intimate Kim, J. K. (1980). Explaining acculturation in a com-
relationships. New York: Routledge. munication framework. Communication Mono-
Kashima, Y., Foddy, M., & Platow, M. (2002). Self graphs, 47, 155–179.
and identity: Personal, social, and symbolic. Kim, M. S., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A.,
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. (1996). Individual vs.
Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., & Kidd, E. (2014). Lan- cultural-­level dimensions of individualism and
guage and culture. In T. M. Holtgraves (Ed.), The collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational
Oxford handbook of language and social psychol- styles. Communication Monographs, 63, 28–49.
ogy (pp. 46–61). New York: Oxford University Press. Kim, M. S., & Leung, T. (2000). A multicultural view
Kashima, Y., & Triandis, H. (1986). The self-­serving of conflict management styles: Review and criti-
bias in attributions as a coping strategy: A cross-­ cal synthesis. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication
cultural study. Journal of Cross-­ Cultural Psy- Yearbook, 23 (pp. 227–269). Thousand Oaks, CA:
chology, 17, 83–97. SAGE.
Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: “Dugri” speech Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Chen, S. M. (2011). Cultural
in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge, UK: Cam- difference in motivation for using social net-
bridge University Press. work sites: A comparative study of American and
Katriel, T. (1991). Communal webs: Communication Korean college students. Computers in Human
and culture in contemporary Israel. Albany: State Behavior, 27, 365–372.
University of New York Press. Kim, Y.-H. (2011). Culture and self-­enhancement. In
Kaushal, R., & Kwantes, C. (2006). The role of cul- A. K.-Y. Leung, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.),
ture and personality in choice of conflict manage- Cultural processes: A social psychological per-
ment strategy. International Journal of Intercul- spective (pp. 139–153). Cambridge, UK: Cam-
tural Relations, 30, 579–603. bridge University Press.
Kayan, S., Fussell, S. R., & Setlock, L. D. (2006). Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-­cultural
Cultural differences in the use of instant messag- adaptation: An integrative theory. Clevedon, UK:
ing in Asia and North America. Proceedings of Multilingual Matters.
CSCW 2006, 525–528. New York: ACM. Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An inte-
Keating, C. (2006). Why and how the silent speaks grative theory of communication and cross-­
volumes: Functional approaches in nonverbal cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
impression management. In V. Manusov & M. Kim, Y. Y. (2004). Long-term cross-­cultural adap-
Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of non- tation: Training implications of an integrative
verbal communication (pp. 321–339). Thousand theory. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett
Oaks, CA: SAGE. (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd
Keefe, S. E. (1992). Ethnic identity: The domain of ed., pp. 337–362). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
perceptions and attachment to ethnic groups and Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Adapting to a new culture:
cultures. Human Organization, 51, 35–41. An integrative communication theory. In W.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psy- Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural
chology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, communication (pp. 375–400). Thousand Oaks,
192–238. CA: SAGE.
Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Funke, F., Brown, R., Kim, Y. Y. (2007). Ideology, identity, and intercul-
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., et al. (2010). We all live in tural communication: An analysis of differing
422 References

academic conceptions of cultural identity. Jour- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
nal of Intercultural Communication Research, 336–353.
36, 237–254. Kito, M. (2005). Self-­disclosure in romantic relation-
Kim, Y. Y. (2013). The identity factors in intercultural ships and friendships among American and Japa-
conflict. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), nese college students. Journal of Social Psychol-
The SAGE handbook of conflict communication ogy, 145, 127–140.
(2nd ed., pp. 639–660). Thousand Oaks, CA: Kittler, M. G., Rygl, D., & Mackinnon, A. (2011).
SAGE. Beyond culture or beyond control?: Review-
Kim, Y. Y., & McKay-­ Semmler, K. (2013). Social ing the use of Hall’s high-/low-­context concept.
engagement and cross cultural adaptation: An International Journal of Cross-­Cultural Manage-
examination of direct-­ and mediated interper- ment, 11, 63–82.
sonal communication activities of educated non- Kline, S. L., Horton, B., & Zhang, S. (2008). Commu-
natives in the United States. International Jour- nicating love: Comparisons between American
nal of Intercultural Relations, 37(1), 99–112. and East Asian university students. International
Kimata, H. (2006). Emotion with tears decreases Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 200–214.
allergic responses to latex in atopic eczema Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in
patients with latex allergy. Journal of Psychoso- value orientations. New York: Row, Peterson.
matic Research, 61, 67–69. Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2001). Nonverbal com-
Kim-Jo, T., Benet-­Martinez, B., & Ozer, D. (2010). munication in human interaction. Orlando, FL:
Culture and interpersonal conflict resolution Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
styles: Role of acculturation. Journal of Cross-­ Kochman, T. (1990). Force fields in Black and White
Cultural Psychology, 41, 264–269. communication. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cul-
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and tural communication and intercultural contact
politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to (pp. 193–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Kohls, L. R. (1996). Survival kits for overseas living
Psychology, 43(4), 414–431. (3rd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Kitano, H., Fujino, D., & Sato, J. (1998). Interracial Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking:
marriages. In L. Lee & N. Zane (Eds.), Handbook Frameworks for analysis. Rowley, MA: Newbury
of Asian American psychology (pp. 233–260). House.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Krishnan, A., & Berry, J. (1992). Acculturative stress
Kitayama, S. (1990). Interaction between affect and and acculturative attitudes among Indian immi-
cognition in word perception. Journal of Person- grants to the United States. Psychology and
ality and Social Psychology, 58, 209–217. Developing Societies, 4, 187–212.
Kitayama, S. (1991). Impairment of perception by Kroeber, A., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A crit-
positive and negative affect. Cognition and Emo- ical review of concepts and definitions (Papers
tion, 5, 255–274. of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 47, 1, pp. 1–229).
Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (Eds.). (1994). Emo- Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.
tion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual Kudo, K., & Simkin, K. A. (2003). Intercultural
influence. Washington, DC: American Psycho- friendship formation: The case of Japanese stu-
logical Association. dents at an Australian university. Journal of Inter-
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & cultural Studies, 24, 91–114.
Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and col- Kupperbusch, C., Matsumoto, D., Kooken, K.,
lective processes of self-­ esteem management: Loewinger, S., Uchida, H., Wilson-­ Cohn, C.,
Self-­enhancement in the United States and self-­ et al. (1999). Cultural influences on nonverbal
depreciation in Japan. Journal of Personality and expressions of emotion. In P. Philippot, R. S.
Social Psychology, 72, 1245–1267. Feldman, & E. J. Coats (Eds.), Studies in emo-
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differ- tion and social interaction: The social context of
ences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, nonverbal behavior (pp. 17–44). New York: Cam-
behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-­ analysis. bridge University Press.
 References 423

Labov, W. (1972). Transformation of experience in Asian undergraduates who took part in a study-­
narrative syntax. In W. Labov (Ed.), Language in abroad program. International Journal of Inter-
the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Penn- cultural Relations, 31, 545–559.
sylvania Press. Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and
LaBrack, B. (2015). Reentry. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The between-­ culture variation: Individual differ-
SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural competence ences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and
(Vol. 2, pp. 723–727). Los Angeles: SAGE. dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and
LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects Social Psychology, 100, 507–526.
of nonverbal behavior. International Journal of Leung, A. K.-Y., Qiu, L., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2014). Psy-
Intercultural Relations, 2, 71–89. chological science of globalization. In V. Benet-
Lama, D. (2001). Ethics for the new millennium. Martínez & Y-Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
New York: Riverhead. book of multicultural identity: Basic and applied
Lama, D. (2011). Beyond religion: Ethics for a whole psychological perspectives (pp. 181–201). Oxford:
world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Oxford University Press.
Lama, D. (2014, February 21). The Dalai Lama’s sec- Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A
ular ethics. Retrieved from www.pbs.org/wnet/ model of social beliefs in multi-­cultural perspec-
religionandethics/2014/02/21/february-21-2014- tive. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experi-
secular-­ethics/22165. mental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 119–197).
Lambert, W. E. (1967). A social psychology of bilin- San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
gualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 91–109. Levin, S., Taylor, P. L., & Caudle, E. (2007). Inter-
Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: ethnic and interracial dating in college: A lon-
Addison-­Wesley. gitudinal study. Journal of Social and Personal
Langer, E. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Relationships, 24, 323–341.
Reading, MA: Addison-­Wesley. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of typological psychol-
Lavan, N., Scott, S. K., & McGettigan, C. (2016). Laugh ogy. New York: McGraw-­Hill.
like you mean it: Authenticity modulates acoustic, Leyens, J.-P., Yzerbyt, V., & Schadron, G. (1994). Ste-
physiological and perceptual properties of laughter. reotypes and social cognition. London: SAGE.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(2), 133–149. Lim, T.-S. (2017). Verbal communication across cul-
LeBaron, M. (2003). Bridging cultural conflicts: A tures. In L. Chen (Ed.), Handbook of intercul-
new approach for a changing world. San Fran- tural communication (pp. 179–198). Berlin: De
cisco: Jossey-­Bass. Gruyter Mouton.
Lee, C., & Gudykunst, W. (2001). Attraction in initial Lim, T.-S., & Choi, S. (1996). Interpersonal relation-
interethnic encounters. International Journal of ships in Korea. In W. Gudykunst, S. Ting-­Toomey,
Intercultural Relations, 25, 373–387. & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in interper-
Lee, P. (2006). Bridging cultures: Understanding the sonal relationships across cultures (pp. 137–155).
construction of relational identity in intercultural Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
friendship. Journal of Intercultural Communica- Lin, C. (2006). Culture shock and social support: An
tion Research, 35, 3–22. investigation of a Chinese student organization
Lee, P. (2008). Stages and transitions of relational on a US campus. Journal of Intercultural Com-
identity formation in intercultural friendship: munication Research, 35, 117–137.
Implications for identity management theory. Lindemann, S. (2003). Koreans, Chinese or Indi-
Journal of International and Intercultural Com- ans?: Attitudes and ideologies about non-­native
munication, 1, 51–69. English speakers in the United States. Journal of
Leeds-­Hurwitz, W. (2002). Wedding as text: Com- Sociolinguistics, 7, 348–364.
municating cultural identity through ritual. Mah- Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Lan-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum. guage, ideology, and discrimination in the United
Leong, C. (2007). Predictive validity of the multicul- States. London: Routledge.
tural personality questionnaire: A longitudinal Lippmann, W. (1936). Public opinion. New York:
study on the socio-­ psychological adaptation of Macmillan.
424 References

Liu, S. (2017). Cross-­cultural adaptation: An identity for social behavior. In S. Kitayama & H. Markus
approach. In L. Chen (Ed.), Handbook of inter- (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of
cultural communication (pp. 437–455). Berlin: mutual influence (pp. 89–130). Washington, DC:
De Gruyter Mouton. American Psychological Association.
Lock, C. (2004). Deception detection: Psychologists Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural
try to learn how to spot a liar. Science News, psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-­
166(5), 72–76. Cultural Psychology 29, 63–87.
Locke, D. (1992). Increasing multicultural under- Marsden, P., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring
standing: A comprehensive model. Newbury tie strength. Social Forces, 63, 482–501.
Park, CA: SAGE. Martin, J. N., Bradford, L. J., Drzewiecka, J. A., &
Locke, D. C., & Bailey, D. F. (2014). Increasing mul- Chitgopekar, A. S. (2003). Intercultural dating
ticultural understanding. Thousand Oaks, CA: patterns among young white U.S. Americans:
SAGE. Have they changed in the past 20 years? Howard
Loden, M., & Rosener, J. (1991). Workforce America!: Journal of Communications, 14, 53–73.
Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Martin, J., & Butler, R. (2001). Toward an ethic of
Homewood, IL: Business One–Irwin. intercultural communication research. In V. Mil-
Luft, J. (1969). Of human interaction. Palo Alto, CA: house, M. Asante, & P. Nwosu, P. (Eds.), Trans-
National Press. cultural realities: Interdisciplinary perspectives
Lukens, J. (1978). Ethnocentric speech. Ethnic on cross-­cultural relations (pp. 283–298). Thou-
Groups, 2, 35–53. sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society. Martin, J., & Harrell, T. (1996). Reentry training
International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45–51. for intercultural sojourners. In D. Landis & R.
Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural train-
borders and mental barriers: The relationship ing (2nd ed., pp. 307–326). Thousand Oaks, CA:
between living abroad and creativity. Journal SAGE.
of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1047– Martin, J., & Harrell, T. (2004). Intercultural reen-
1061. try of students and professionals: Theory and
Mangan, J., & Borrooah, K. V. (2009). Multicultural- practice. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett
ism versus assimilation: Attitudes towards immi- (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd
grants in Western countries. International Jour- ed., pp. 309–336). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
nal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research, Martinez, L., Ting-­Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2016).
11(2), 33–50. Identity management and relational culture in
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true interfaith marital communication in a United
lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. States context: A qualitative study. Journal of
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149. Intercultural Communication Research, 45,
Manusov, V. (2017). A cultured look at nonverbal 503–525.
cues. In L. Chen (Ed.), Handbook of intercul- Mastro, D. E., Behm-­Morawitz, E., & Kopacz, M.
tural communication (pp. 261–288). Berlin: De A. (2008). Exposure to television portrayals of
Gruyter Mouton. Latinos: The implications of aversive racism and
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the social identity theory. Human Communication
self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and Research, 34, 1–27.
motivation. Psychological Review, 2, 224–253. Matsumoto, D. (1989). American-­Japanese cultural
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1994a). A collective fear differences in the recognition of universal facial
of the collective: Implications for selves and theo- expressions. Journal of Cross-­Cultural Psychol-
ries of selves. Personality and Social Psychology ogy, 23, 72–84.
Bulletin, 20, 568–579. Matsumoto, D. (1992). Cultural influences on the
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1994b). The cultural perception of emotion. Journal of Cross-­Cultural
construction of self and emotion: Implications Psychology, 20, 92–104.
 References 425

Matsumoto, D., Frank, M. G., & Hwang, S. S. (Eds.). McIntosh, P. (2002). White privilege: Unpack-
(2013). Nonverbal communication: Science and ing the invisible backpack. In A. Kasselman, L.
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. D. McNair, & N. Scheidewind (Eds.), Women,
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2016). The cul- images, and realities: A multicultural anthology
tural bases of nonverbal communication. In D. (pp. 424–426). New York: McGraw–­Hill.
Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), McKay-­Semmler, K., & Kim, Y. (2014a). Local news
APA handbook of nonverbal communication media cultivation of host receptivity in Plain-
(pp. 77–101). Washington, DC: American Psycho- stown. Human Communication Research, 40,
logical Association. 188–208.
Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. McKay-­Semmler, K., & Kim, Y. (2014b). Cross-­
(Eds.). (2016). APA handbook of nonverbal com- cultural adaptation of Hispanic youth: A study
munication. Washington, DC: American Psycho- of communication patterns, functional fitness,
logical Association. and psychological health. Communication Mono-
Matsumoto, D., & Kudoh, T. (1993). American–­ graph, 81, 133–156.
Japanese cultural differences in attributions McLachlan, D. A., & Justice, J. (2009). A grounded
based on smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, theory of international student well-being. Jour-
17, 231–243. nal of Theory Construction and Testing, 13,
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & LeRoux, J. A. (2010). 27–32.
Emotion and intercultural adjustment. In D. McLaren, L. M. (2003). Anti-­immigrant prejudice in
Matsumoto (Ed.), APA handbook of intercultural Europe: Contact, threat perception, and prefer-
communication (pp. 23–39). Washington, DC: ences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces,
American Psychological Association. 81(3), 909–936.
Matusitz, J. (2005). The acculturative experience McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996).
of French students in a southwestern university Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups.
apartment complex in the United States. Paper Small Group Research, 27, 248–264.
presented at the annual conference of the Inter- McNamara, R. P., Tempenis, M., & Walton, B.
national Communication Association, New York. (1999). Crossing the line: Interracial couples in
Mayo, C., & LaFrance, M. (1977). Evaluating the South. Westport, CT: Praeger.
research in social psychology. Monterey, CA: Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago:
Brooks/Cole. University of Chicago Press.
McCall, G., & Simmons, J. (1978). Identities and Meares, M., & Oetzel, J. (2010). A case of mis-
interaction. New York: Free Press. treatment at work? In J. Keyton & P. Shockley-­
McCann, R., Honeycutt, J., & Keaton, S. (2010). Zalabak (Eds.), Case studies for organizational
Toward greater specificity in cultural value anal- communication: Understanding communication
yses: The interplay of intrapersonal communica- processes (pp. 270–277). New York: Oxford Uni-
tion affect and cultural values in Japan, Thailand, versity Press.
and the United States. Journal of Intercultural Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit com-
Communication Research, 39, 157–172. munication of emotions (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
McGlone, M. S., & Giles, H. (2011). Language and Wadsworth.
interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & Merkin, R. (2006). Power distance and facework
J. A. Daly (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of inter- strategies. Journal of Intercultural Communica-
personal communication (pp. 201–237). Los tion Research, 35, 139–160.
Angeles: SAGE. Merskin, D. (2007). Three faces of Eva: Perpetuation
McGuire, M., & McDermott, S. (1988). Communi- of the hot-­Latina stereotype in Desperate House-
cation in assimilation, deviance, and alienation wives. Howard Journal of Communication, 18(2),
states. In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), 133–151.
Cross-­cultural adaptation: Current approaches Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social struc-
(pp. 90–105). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. ture. New York: Free Press.
426 References

Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transforma- multinational corporation. In X. Dai & G.-M.
tion: Critical perspectives on a theory in prog- Chen (Eds.), Conflict management and intercul-
ress. San Francisco: Jossey-­Bass. tural communication (pp. 295–310). New York:
Midooka, K. (1990). Characteristics of Japanese-­style Routledge.
communication. Media, Culture and Society, 12, Moran, R. T., Youngdahl, W. E., & Moran, S. V.
477–489. (2009). Intercultural competence in business—­
Miike, Y. (2017). Non-­western theories of communi- Leading global projects: Bridging the cultural
cation: Indigenous ideas and insights. In L. Chen and functional divide. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.),
(Ed.), Handbook of intercultural communication The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence
(pp. 67–97). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. (pp. 287–303). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Miles, E., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). A meta-­analytic test Morrison, T., Conaway, W., & Borden, G. (1994).
of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Pro- Kiss, bow, or shake hands: How to do business in
cesses and Intergroup Relations, 17, 3–26. sixty countries. Holbrook, MA: Adams.
Miller, J. G. (1991). A cultural perspective on the Morry, M. M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as
morality of beneficence and interpersonal respon- a predictor of similarity ratings: A test of the
sibility. In S. Ting-­Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), attraction-­similarity hypothesis. Journal of Social
Cross-­ cultural interpersonal communication and Personal Relationships, 22, 561–584.
(Vol. 15, pp. 11–23). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Mortenson, S. T., Burleson, B. R., Feng, B., & Liu,
Minkov, M. (2009). Predictors of differences in M. (2009). Cultural similarities and differences
subjective well-being across 97 nations. Cross-­ in seeking social support as a means of coping:
Cultural Research, 43, 152–179. A comparison of European Americans and Chi-
Minkov, M., Blagoev, V., & Hofstede, G. (2013). The nese: An evaluation of mediating effects of self-­
boundaries of culture; Do questions about soci- construal. Journal of Intercultural Communica-
etal norms reveal cultural differences? Journal of tion, 2, 208–239.
Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 44(7), 1094–1106. Mortland, C., & Ledgerwood, J. (1988). Refu-
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution gee resource acquisition. In Y. Y. Kim & W.
of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross-­Cultural Manage- Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-­cultural adaptation:
ment, 18(1), 10–20. Current approaches (pp. 286–306). Newbury
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012a). Hofstede’s fifth Park, CA: SAGE.
dimension: New evidence from the World Values Mui, A. C., Kang, S.-Y., Kang, D., & Domanski, M. P.
Survey. Journal of Cross-­ Cultural Psychology, (2007). English language proficiency and healthy-­
43(1), 3–14. related quality of life among Chinese and Korean
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012b). Is national immigrant elders. Health and Social Work, 32,
culture a meaningful concept?: Cultural values 119–127.
delineate homogeneous national clusters of in-­ Munshi, D., Broadfoot, K., & Smith, L. (2011). Decol-
country regions. Cross-­Cultural Research, 46(2), onizing communication ethics: A framework for
133–159. communicating otherwise. In G. Cheney, S. May,
Molinsky, A. (2007). Cross-­cultural code-­switching: & D. Munshi (Eds.), The ICA handbook of com-
The psychological challenges of adapting behav- munication ethics (pp. 119–132). Mahway, NJ:
ior in foreign cultural interactions. Academy of Erlbaum.
Management Review, 32, 622–640. Murray, D. A. B. (2014). Real queer: “Authentic”
Moon, D. (1996). Concepts of “culture”: Implications LGBT refugee claimants and homonationalism
for intercultural communication research. Com- in the Canadian refugee system. Anthropologies,
munication Quarterly, 44, 70–84. 56, 21–32.
Moorthy, R., DeGeorge, R., Donaldson, T., Ellos, Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials
W., Solomon, R., & Textor, R. (1998). Uncom- in the workplace: A communication perspective
promising integrity: Motorola’s global challenge. on millennials’ organizational relationships and
Schaumberg, IL: Motorola University Press. performance. Journal of Business and Psychol-
Moosmuller, A. (2017). Intercultural challenges in ogy, 25, 225–238.
 References 427

Nabi, R. (2010). The case for emphasizing discrete Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought.
emotions in communication research. Communi- New York: Free Press.
cation Monographs, 77, 153–159. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K. P., Choi, I., & Norenza-
Nadal, K. (2013). That’s so gay!: Microaggressions yan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought:
and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological
community. Washington, DC: American Psycho- Review, 108, 291–310.
logical Association. Nydell, M. K. (1987). Understanding Arabs. Yar-
Nagata, A. (2004). Promoting self-­reflexivity in inter- mouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
cultural education. Journal of Intercultural Com- Nydell, M. K. (1996). Understanding Arabs (2nd ed.).
munication, 8, 139–167. Yarmouth, ME: intercultural Press.
Nam, K.-A., & Condon, J. (2010). The DIE is cast: The Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock and the problems of
continuing evolution of intercultural communica- adjustment to new cultural environments. Practi-
tion’s favorite classroom exercise. International cal Anthropology, 7, 170–179.
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 81–87. Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development.
Naotsuka, R., Sakamoto, N., Hirose, T., Hagihara, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
H., Ohta, J., Maeda, S., et al. (1981). Mutual Oetzel, J. G. (2005). Intercultural work group com-
understanding of different cultures. Tokyo: Tai- munication theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
shukan. Theorizing about intercultural communication
Nash, D. (1991). The cause of sojourner adaptation: (pp. 351–371). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
A new test of the U-curve hypothesis. Human Oetzel, J. G. (2009). Layers of intercultural commu-
Organization, 50, 283–286. nication. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Neuliep, J. (2012). The relationship among intercul- Oetzel, J. G., Arcos, B., Mabizela, P., Weinman, M.,
tural communication apprehension, ethnocen- & Zhang, Q. (2006). Historical, political, and
trism, uncertainty reduction and communication spiritual factors of conflict: Understanding con-
satisfaction during intercultural interaction: An flict perspectives and communication in the Mus-
extension of anxiety and uncertainty manage- lim world, China, Colombia, and South Africa. In
ment (AUM) theory. Journal of Intercultural J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE
Communication Research, 41, 1–16. handbook of conflict communication (pp. 549–
Neuliep, J., & Ryan, D. (1998). The influence of 574). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
intercultural communication apprehension and Oetzel, J. G., & Bolton-­Oetzel, K. (1997). Explor-
socio-­communicative orientation on uncertainty ing the relationship between self-­construal and
reduction during initial cross-­ cultural interac- dimensions of group effectiveness. Management
tion. Communication Quarterly, 46, 88–99. Communication Quarterly, 10, 289–315.
Neuliep, J., & Speten-­Hensen, K. (2013). The influ- Oetzel, J. G., Garcia, A., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (2008).
ence of ethnocentrim on social perceptions of An analysis of the relationships among face
nonnative accents. Language and Communica- concerns and facework behaviors in perceived
tion, 33, 167–176. conflict situations: A four-­culture investigation.
Newbold, K. B., & Simone, D. (2015). Comparing International Journal of Conflict Management,
disability amongst immigrants and native-­born 19, 382–403.
in Canada. Social Sciences and Medicine, 145, Oetzel, J. G., Myers, K., Meares, M., & Lara, E.
53–62. (2003). Interpersonal conflict in organizations.
Nguyen, A.-M., & Benet-­Martinez, V. (2010). Multi- Explaining conflict styles via face-­ negotiation
cultural identity: What is it and why it matters? theory. Communication Research Reports, 20,
In R. Crisp (Ed.), The psychology of social and 106–115.
cultural diversity (pp. 87–114). West Sussex, UK: Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (2003). Face con-
Wiley-­Blackwell. cerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-­cultural
Nhat Hanh, T. (1991). Peace is every step: The path of empirical test of the face-­ negotiation theory.
mindfulness in everyday Life. New York: Bantam Communication Research, 30, 599–624.
Books. Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (2011). Intercultural
428 References

perspectives on interpersonal communication. about Barack Obama. Lanham, MD: Lexington

In M. Knapp & J. Daly (Eds.), The SAGE hand- Books.
book of interpersonal communication (4th ed., Orbe, M. (2012). Researching biracial/multiracial
pp. 563–596). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. identity negotiation: Lessons from diverse con-
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-­Toomey, S., Chew-­Sanchez, M., temporary U.S. public perceptions. In N. Bard-
Harris, R., Wilcox, R., & Stumpf, S. (2003). Face han & M. Orbe (Eds.), Identity research and
and facework in conflicts with parents and sib- communication: Intercultural reflections and
lings: A cross-­cultural comparison of Germans, future directions (pp. 165–178). Lanham, MD:
Japanese, Mexicans, and U.S. Americans. Journal Lexington Books.
of Family Communication, 3, 67–93. Orbe, M., Everett, M. A., & Putman, A. (2013). Inter-
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-­Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yoko- racial and interethnic conflict and communica-
chi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., et al. (2001). Face behav- tion in the United States. In J. Oetzel & S. Ting-­
iors in interpersonal conflicts: A cross-­cultural Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict
comparison of Germany, Japan, China, and the communication (2nd ed., pp. 661–685). Thousand
United States. Communication Monographs, 68, Oaks, CA: SAGE.
235–258. Orbe, M., & Harris, T. M. (2008). Interracial com-
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-­Toomey, S., & Rinderle, S. (2006). munication: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). Thou-
Conflict communication in contexts: A social sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
ecological perspective. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­ Orbe, M., & Spellers, R. E. (2005). From the mar-
Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict gins to the center: Utilizing co-­cultural theory
communication (pp. 727–739). Thousand Oaks, in diverse contexts. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
CA: SAGE. Theorizing about intercultural communication
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-­Toomey, S., & Willow, J. A. (2013). (pp. 173–191). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Conflict communication in contexts: Organizing Osgood, C., May, W., & Miron, M. (1975). Cross-­
themes and future directions. In J. G. Oetzel & S. cultural universals of meaning. Urbana: Univer-
Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of con- sity of Illinois Press.
flict communication (2nd ed., pp. 815–829). Los Osland, J. (1995). The adventure of working abroad:
Angeles: SAGE. Hero tales from the global frontier. San Fran-
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-­Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masu- cisco: Jossey-­Bass.
moto, T., & Takai, J. (2000). A typology of face- Paige, R. M. (2015). Culture learning. In J. M. Ben-
work behaviors in conflicts with best friends and nett (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of intercul-
relative strangers. Communication Quarterly, tural competence (pp. 200–204). Thousand Oaks,
48, 397–419. CA: SAGE.
Okabe, R. (1983). Cultural assumptions of East Paige, R. M., & Goode, M. (2009). Intercultural compe-
and West: Japan and the United States. In W. tence in international education administration—­
Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication cultural mentoring: International education pro-
theory: Current perspectives (pp. 21–44). Beverly fessionals and the development of intercultural
Hills, CA: SAGE. competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE
Olsen, M. (1978). The process of social organization handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 333–
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 349). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Opotow, S. (1990a). Moral exclusion and injustice. Paige, R. M., & Martin, J. N. (1996). Ethics in inter-
Journal of Social Issues, 46, 1–20. cultural training. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat
Opotow, S. (1990b). Deterring moral exclusion. Jour- (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd
nal of Social Issues, 46, 173–182. ed., pp. 35–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Orbe, M. (1998). Constructing co-­culture-­theory: An Paniagua, F. (1994). Assessing and treating cultur-
explication of cultures, power, and communica- ally diverse clients. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Parham, T. (1989). Cycles of psychological Nigres-
Orbe, M. (2011). Communication realities in a “post cence. The Counseling Psychologist, 17, 187–226.
racial” society: What the U.S. public really thinks Parham, T., & Helms, J. (1985). The relationship of
 References 429

racial identity attitudes to self-­actualization of Pettigrew, T. (1979). The ultimate attribution error.
Black students and affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5,
Counseling Psychology, 32, 431–440. 461–476.
Park, M. (1979). Communication styles in two cul- Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does
tures: Korean and American. Seoul: Han Shin. intergroup contact reduce prejudice?: Meta-­
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: analytic tests of three mediators. European Jour-
Free Press. nal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.
Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2008). U. S. population Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ,
projections 2005–2050. Pew Research Center. O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact
Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/ theory. International Journal of Intercultural
reports/85.pdf. Relations, 35, 271–280.
Patzer, G. (1985). The physical attractiveness phe- Pew Institute Center. (2010). American Community
nomenon. New York: Plenum Press. Survey Report on interracial marriage.
Pearce, B. (2005). The coordinated management Pew Institute Center. (2015, June 12). Religious
of meaning (CMM). In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), landscape study—“Interracial marriage: Who
Theorizing about intercultural communication is marrying out?” Retrieved from http://pewrsr.
(pp. 35–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. ch/1C2VmlJ.
Pearce, K. (2012). Compassionate communicating: Pew Research Center. (2015, June 26). 5 Facts about
Poetry, prose, and practices. Oracle, AZ: CMM same-sex marriage. Retrieved from http://pewrsr.
Institute for Personal and Social Evolution. ch/2sT2nsu.
Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist behaviour: Themes and Pflug, J. (2011). Contextuality and computer-­
conceptual schemes. New York: Channel View. mediated communication: A cross-­cultural com-
Pedersen, P. (1997). Do the right thing: A question of parison. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1),
ethics. In K. Cushner & R. Brislin (Eds.), Improv- 131–137.
ing intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-­ Pham, H. (2007). Face-off: Strategies in conflict
cultural training programs (Vol. 2, pp. 149–164). between immigrant parents and U.S.-born chil-
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. dren. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
Pedersen, P., Crethar, H., & Carlson, J. (2008). Inclu- the NCA 93rd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL.
sive cultural empathy: Making relationships cen- Philipsen, G. (1987). The prospect of cultural com-
tral in counseling and psychotherapy. Washing- munication. In L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communica-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association. tion theory: Eastern and western perspectives
Pennington, D. (1990). Time in African culture. In (pp. 245–254). New York: Academic Press.
A. Asante & K. Asante (Eds.), African culture: Philipsen, G. (1992). Speaking culturally. Albany:
The rhythms of unity. Trenton, NJ: Africa World State University of New York Press.
Press. Philipsen, G. (2010a). Some thoughts on how to
Peters, W. (1987). A class divided: Then and now approach finding one’s feet in unfamiliar cul-
(expanded ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University tural terrain. Communication Monographs, 77(4),
Press. 160–168.
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialec- Philipsen, G. (2010b). Researching culture in con-
tics of disclosure. Albany: State University of texts of social interaction: An ethnographic
New York Press. approach, a network of scholars, illustrative
Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy man- moves. In D. Carbaugh & P. Buzzanell (Ed.),
agement theory: What do we know about family Distinctive qualities of communication research
privacy regulation? Journal of Family Theory and (pp. 87–105). New York: Routledge.
Review, 2(3), 175–196. Philipsen, G., Coutu, L., & Covarrubias, P. (2005).
Pettigrew, T. (1978). The ultimate attribution error: Speech codes theory: Restatement, revisions, and
Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of preju- responses to criticisms. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.),
dice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Theorizing about intercultural communication
5, 461–476. (pp. 55–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
430 References

Phinney, J. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity develop- Pusch, M., & Loewenthall, N. (1988). Helping
ment in minority group adolescents. Journal of them home: A guide for leaders of professional
Adolescence, 9, 34–49. integrity and reentry workshops. Washington,
­
Phinney, J. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescence DC: National Association for Foreign Student
and adulthood: A review. Psychological Bulletin, Affairs.
108, 499–514. Putnam, L. L. (2013). Definitions and approaches to
Phinney, J. (1991). Ethnic identity and self-­esteem: conflict and communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S.
A review and integration. Hispanic Journal of Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of con-
Behavioral Sciences, 13, 193–208. flict communication (2nd, pp. 1–32). Thousand
Phinney, J. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity Oaks, CA: SAGE.
measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Putnam, L. L., & Powers, S. R. (2015). Developing
Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176. negotiation competencies. In A. F. Hannawa & B.
Phoenix, A. (2010). Ethnicities. In M. Wetherell & C. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The handbook of communi-
T. Mohanty (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of identi- cation science: Communication competence (Vol.
ties (pp. 297–320). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 22, pp. 367–395). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Pieraccini, C., & Alligood, D. L. (2005). Color televi- Radio and Television Business Report. (2011, April
sion: Fifty years of African American and Latino 5). Week 28: Univision #4 in primetime network.
images on prime-time television. Dubuque, IA: Retrieved from www.rbr.com/tv-cable/tv-cable_
Kendall/Hunt. ratings/week-28-univision-­no-4-network- in-­
Pitts, M. J. (2009). Identity and the role of expec- primetime.html.
tations, stress, and talk in short-term student Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling
sojourner adjustment: An application of the interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management
integrative theory of communication and cross-­ Journal, 26, 368–376.
cultural adaptation. International Journal of Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organiza-
Intercultural Relations, 33, 450–462. tions (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Plant, E., & Devine, P. (2003). The antecedents and Rakic, T., Steffens, M. C., & Mummendey, A. (2011).
implications of interracial anxiety. Personality When it matters how you pronounce it: The
and Psychology Bulletin, 29, 790–801. influence of regional accents on job interview
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychological outcome. British Journal of Psychology, 102,
essentialism of human categories. Current Direc- 868–883.
tions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 202–206. Richmond, Y. (1996). From nyet to da: Understand-
Puentha, D., Giles, H., & Young, L. (1987). Intereth- ing the Russians (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Inter-
nic perceptions and relative deprivation: British cultural Press.
data. In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-­ Ridley, C. R., & Udipi, S. (2002). Putting cultural
cultural adaptation: current approaches. New- empathy into practice. In P. Pedersen, J. Dra-
bury Park, CA: SAGE. guns, W. Lonner, & J. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling
Purkiss, S. L. S., Perewe, P. L., Gillespie, T. L., across cultures (5th ed., pp. 317–333). Thousand
Mayes, B. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Implicit Oaks, CA: SAGE.
sources of bias in employment interview judge- Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006).
ments and decisions. Organizational Behavior Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A
and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 152–167. meta-­analytic review. Personality and Social Psy-
Pusch, M. (2004). Intercultural training in historical chology Review, 10, 336–353.
perspective. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Ben- Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity
nett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training complexity. Personality and Social Psychological
(3rd ed., pp. 13–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Review, 6(2), 88–106.
Pusch, M. D. (2009). The interculturally compe- Romano, R. (2003). Race mixing: Black–white mar-
tent global leader. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The riage in postwar America. Cambridge, MA: Har-
SAGE handbook of intercultural competence vard University Press.
(pp. 66–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Rosaldo, M. (1984). Toward an anthropology of self
 References 431

and feeling. In R. Shweder & R. LeVine (Eds.), the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace
Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and society & World.
(pp. 137–154). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- Schaefer, R. (2009). Racial and ethnic groups (12th
versity Press. ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Rosenblatt, P., Karis, T., & Powell, R. (1995). Multi- Schaetti, B. (2015). Third-­ culture kids/global
racial couples: Black and White voices. Thousand nomads. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE ency-
Oaks, CA: SAGE. clopedia of intercultural competence (Vol. 2,
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in pp.797–800). Los Angeles: SAGE.
the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ Schaetti, B., Ramsey, S., & Watanabe, G. (2008).
intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rine- Making a world of difference: Personal leader-
hart & Winston. ship. Seattle, WA: FlyingKite.
Ross, J., & Ferris, K. (1981). Interpersonal attraction Scherer, K. (1994). Affect bursts. In S. van Goozen,
and organizational outcome: A field experiment. N. Van de Poll, & J. Sergeant (Eds.), Emotions:
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 617–632. Essays on emotion theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving identity-­based con- baum.
flict in nations, organizations, and communities. Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory
San Francisco: Jossey-­Bass. of the universal content and structure of values.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for inter- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
nal versus external control of reinforcement. Psy- 878–891.
chological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28. Schwartz, S., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the
Rowe, W., Bennett, S., & Atkinson, D. (1994). White structure of human values with confirmatory fac-
racial identity development models: A critique tor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality,
and alternative proposal. The Counseling Psy- 38, 230–255.
chologist, 22, 129–146. Schwartz, S., Vignoles, V., Brown, R., & Zagefka, H.
Ruben, B., & Kealey, D. (1979). Behavioral assess- (2014). The identity dynamics of acculturation
ment of communication competency and the pre- and multiculturalism: Situating acculturation
diction of cross-­cultural adaptation. International in context. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y.-Y. Hong
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15–48. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural
Ruiz, A. (1990). Ethnic identity: Crisis and resolu- identity: Basic and applied psychological per-
tion. Journal of Multicultural Counseling, 18, spectives (pp. 57–93). Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-
29–40. versity Press.
Ryan, E. (2004). Interpersonal attraction: The force Scollon, R. S., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (2012).
that draws people together. Retrieved from www. Intercultural communication: A discourse
simplysolo.com/relationships/interpersonal_ approach (3rd ed.). London: Wiley-­Blackwell.
attraction_elizabeth_ryan.html. Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psy-
Ryan, E. B., Bajorek, S., Beaman, A., & Anas, A. P. chological and sociocultural adjustment during
(2005). “I just want you to know that ‘them’ is cross-­cultural transitions. International Journal
me”: Intergroup perspectives on communication of Intercultural Relations, 14, 449–464.
and disability. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of
Intergroup communication: Multiple perspec- symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and
tives (pp. 117–137). New York: Peter Lang. Social Psychology, 85(2), 259–275.
Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., Bartolucci, G., & Henwood, Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Vevea, J. (2005). Pan-
K. (1986). Psycholinguistic and social psychologi- cultural self-­enhancement reloaded: A meta ana-
cal components of communication by and with lytic reply to Heine. Journal of Personality and
elderly. Language and Communication, 6(1/2), Social Psychology, 89, 539–551.
1–24. Settles, I., & Buchanan, N. (2014). Multiple groups,
Sani, F. (Ed.) (2008). Individual and collective self-­ multiple identities, and intersectionality. In V.
continuity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Benet-Martínez & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford
Sapir, E. (Ed.). (1921). Language: An introduction to handbook of multicultural identity: Basic and
432 References

applied psychological perspectives (pp. 160– Smith, P., & Bond, M. (1998). Social psychology
180). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press across cultures (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice
Sheriff, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., Hall.
& Sheriff, C. W. (1988). The robbers cave experi- Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Kagitcibasi, C. (2006).
ment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Mid- Understanding social psychology across cultures:
dletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Living and working in a changing world. Thou-
Shim, T., Kim, M.-S., & Martin, J. (2008). Changing sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Korea: Understanding communication and cul- Smith, P., Dugan, S., Peterson, M. F., & Leung, K.
ture. New York: Peter Lang. (1998). Individualism–­collectivism and the han-
Shuper, P., Sorrentino R., Otsubo Y., Hodson, G., & dling of disagreement: A 23 country study. Inter-
Walker, A. (2004). A theory of uncertainty orien- national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22,
tation: Implications for the study of individual 351–367.
differences within and across cultures. Journal of Sodowsky, G., Kwan, K.-L., & Pannu, R. (1995). Eth-
Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 35, 460–481. nic identity of Asians in the United States. In J.
Shuter, R. (1976). Proxemics and tactility in Latin Ponterotto, J. Casas, L. Suzuki, & C. Alexander
America. Journal of Communication, 26, 46–52. (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling
Shuter, R. (2012). Intercultural New Media Stud- (pp. 124–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
ies: The next frontier in intercultural communi- Soliz, J., & Giles, H. (2014). Relational and identity
cation. Journal of Intercultural Communication processes in communication: A contextual and
Research, 41, 219–237. meta-­analytical review of communication accom-
Shuter, R. (2017). Intercultural new media studies: modation theory. In E. L. Cohen (Ed.), Commu-
Still the next frontier in intercultural communi- nication Yearbook 38 (pp. 107–144). New York:
cation. In L. Chen (Ed.), Handbook of intercul- Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
tural communication (pp. 617–636). Berlin: De Sorrells, B. (1983). The nonsexist communicator.
Gruyter Mouton. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-­Hall.
Sias, P. M., Drzewiecka, J. A., Meares, M., Bent, Sorrells, K. (2016). Intercultural communication:
R., Oretga, M., & White, C. (2008). Intercul- Globalization and social justice (2nd ed.). Los
tural friendship development. Communication Angeles: SAGE.
Reports, 21, 1–13. Sorrentino, R. (2012). Uncertainty orientation: A the-
Siegel, D. J. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflection ory where the exception forms the rule. Revista
and attunement in the everyday life. New York: de Motivación y Emoción, 1, 1–11.
Bantam Books. Sorrentino, R., Nezlek, J., Yasunaga, S., Kouhara,
Singelis, T. (1994). The measurement of independent S., Otsubo, Y., & Shuper, P. (2008). Uncertainty
and interdependent self-­construals. Personality orientation and affective experiences: Individual
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. differences within and across cultures. Journal of
Singelis, T., & Brown, W. (1995). Culture, self, and Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 39(2), 129–146.
collectivist communication: Linking culture to Sorrentino, R. M., & Roney, C. R. J. (2000). The
individual behavior. Human Communication uncertain mind: Individual differences in facing
Research, 21, 354–389. the unknown. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Singelis, T., Triandis, H., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, Sorrentino, R. M., & Short, J. C. (1986). Uncertainty
M. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions orientation, motivation and cognition. In R. Sor-
of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical rentino & E. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of
and measurement refinement. Cross-­Cultural motivation and cognition: Foundations of social
Research, 29(3), 240–275. behavior (pp. 379–403). New York: Guilford
Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as prob- Press.
lematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeast- Spencer-­Rodgers, J., & McGovern, T. (2002). Atti-
ern University Press. tudes toward culturally different: The role of
Smith, P., & Bond, M. (1993). Social psychology intercultural communication barriers, affective
across cultures. New York: Harvester. responses, consensual stereotypes, and perceived
 References 433

threat. International Journal of Intercultural Stefanone, M., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2011).
Relations, 26, 609–631. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social network-
Spitzberg, B. (2009). Axioms for a theory of inter- ing. Computers in Human behavior, 14, 41–49.
cultural communication competence [invited Steinfatt, T. (1989). Linguistic relativity: A broader
article, Japanese Association of Communication view. In S. Ting-­Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.),
and English Teachers]. Annual Review of English Language, communication, and culture: Current
Learning and Teaching, 14, 69–81. directions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Spitzberg, B. (2015). Problems, paradoxes, and pros- Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (1992). Reducing
pects. In A. F. Hannawa & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), intercultural anxiety through intercultural con-
The handbook of communication science: Com- tact. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
munication competence (Vol. 22, pp. 745–755). tions, 16, 89–106.
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (2003). Cogni-
Spitzberg, B., Canary, D., & Cupach, W. (1994). A tion and affect in cross-­cultural relations. In W.
competence-­based approach to the study of inter- B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-­cultural and intercul-
personal conflict. In D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in tural communication (pp. 111–126). Thousand
personal relationships (pp. 183–202). Hillsdale, Oaks, CA: SAGE.
NJ: Erlbaum. Stephan, W. G. (1999). Reducing prejudice and ste-
Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptual- reotyping in schools. New York: Teachers College
izing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff Press/Columbia University.
(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural compe- Stephan, W. G., Diaz-­ Loving, R., & Duran, A.
tence (pp. 2–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural
Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (1984). Interpersonal attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal
communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: of Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 240–249.
SAGE. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Intergroup
Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (1989). Handbook of relations. Boulder, CO: Westview.
interpersonal competence research. New York: Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An inte-
Springer-­Verlag. grated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp
Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (2002). Interpersonal (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination
skills. In M. Knapp and J. Daly (Eds.), Hand- (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
book of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving
pp. 564–611). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (2011). Interpersonal Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W.
skills. In M. Knapp and J. Daly (Eds.), Hand- B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A com-
book of interpersonal communication (4th ed., parison of anxiety/uncertainty management the-
pp. 481–524). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. ory and integrated threat theory. International
Starosta, W., & and Olorunnisola, A. (1998). A meta- Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613–628.
model for third-­culture development. In G. M. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999).
Chen & W. Starosta (Eds.), Foundations in inter- Prejudice towards immigrants. Journal of
cultural communication (pp. 45–63). Boston: Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221–2237.
Allyn & Bacon. Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Explorations of love. In D.
Statistica—­The Statistics Portal. (2018, January). Perlman & W. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal
Number of monthly active Facebook users relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 171–196). Greenwich,
worldwide of 4th quarter 2017. Retrieved from CT: JAI Press.
www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-­of-­ Sternberg, R. (1988a). The triangle of love. New
monthly-­active-­facebook-­u sers-­worldwide. York: Basic Books.
Steele, C. M. (2003). Race and the schooling of Black Sternberg, R. (1988b). Triangulating love. In R. J.
Americans. In S. Plous (Ed.), Understanding Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychol-
prejudice and discrimination (pp. 98–107). New ogy of love (pp. 119–138). New Haven, CT: Yale
York: McGraw-­Hill. University Press.
434 References

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook for creativ- educators and students. College Student Affairs
ity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Journal, 22, 136–143.
Stewart, E., & Bennett, M. (1991). American cultural Sue, D. W., Lin. A. I., Torino, G. C., Copodilupo,
patterns: A cross-­cultural perspective (2nd ed.). C. M., & Rivera, D. P. (2009). Racial aggressions
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. and difficult dialogues in the classroom. Cultural
Stohl, C., McCann, R. M., & Bakar, H. A. (2013). Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15,
Conflict in the global workplace. In J. G. Oetzel 183–190.
& S. Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of Sue, D., & Sue, D. W. (1990). Counseling the cultur-
conflict communication (2nd ed., pp. 713–736). ally different: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). New
Los Angeles: SAGE. York: Wiley.
Storlie, C. A. (2016). Exploring school counselor Sumner, W. (1940). Folkways. Boston: Ginn.
advocacy in the career development of undocu- Sussman, N. (1986). Reentry research and training:
mented Latino youth. Journal of Social Action in Methods and implications. International Journal
Counseling and Psychology, 8(1), 70–88. of Intercultural Relations, 10, 235–254.
Storti, C. (2001). Old world/new world. Yarmouth, Sussman, N., & Rosenfeld, H. (1982). Influence of
ME: Intercultural Press. culture, language, and sex on conversational dis-
Stryker, S. (1981). Symbolic interactionism: Themes tance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
and variations. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner ogy, 42, 66–74.
(Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspec- Suzuki, L. K., Davis, H. M., & Greenfield, P. M.
tives (pp. 3–29). New York: Basic Books. (2008). Self-­enhancement and self-­effacement in
Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Developments reaction to praise and criticism: The case of mul-
and extensions. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), tiethnic youth. Journal of the Society for Psycho-
Self and society: Psychosocial perspectives logical Anthropology, 36, 78–97.
(pp. 89–103). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Swami, V., Frederick, D. A., & 59 co-­authors. (2010).
Stryker, S. (1991). Exploring the relevance of social The attractive female body weight and female
cognition for the relationship of self and society: body dissatisfaction in 26 countries across 10
Linking the cognitive perspective and identity world regions: Results of the International Body
theory. In J. Howard & P. Callero (Eds.), Self-­ Project I. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
society dynamic: Emotion, cognition and action letin, 36, 309–325.
(pp. 19–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of group dif-
sity Press. ferentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation
Sue, D. W. (2010a). Racial microaggressions in between groups: Studies in the social psychol-
everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orienta- ogy of intergroup relations (pp. 77–100). London:
tion. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Academic Press.
Sue, D. W. (Ed.). (2010b). Microaggressions and mar- Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social cat-
ginality: Manifestation, dynamics and impact. egories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Press.
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A., Nadal, K., & Torino, Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative the-
G. (2007). Racial microaggressions and the Asian ory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G.
American experience. Cultural Diversity and Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup rela-
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 72–81. tions (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-­Cole.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., & Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity
Torino, G. (2008). Racial microaggressions and theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel &
the power to impose reality. The American Psy- W. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup
chologist, 63, 277–279. relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, Nelson Hall.
Sue, D. W., & Constantine, M. G. (2007). Racial Tamis-­ LeMonda, C., Way, N., Hughes, D.,
microaggressions as instigators of difficult dia- Yoshikawa, H., Kalman, R., & Niwa, E. (2008).
logues on race: Implications for student affairs Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic
 References 435

coexistence of individualism and collectivism in Ting-­Toomey, S. (1993). Communicative resourceful-

cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17, ness: An identity negotiation perspective. In R.
183–209. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural com-
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: munication competence (pp. 72–111). Newbury
Women and men in conversation. New York: Wil- Park, CA: SAGE.
liam Morrow. Ting-­Toomey, S. (1994a). Managing conflict in inti-
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking 9 to 5. New York: William mate intercultural relationships. In D. Cahn
Morrow. (Ed.), Intimate conflict in personal relationships
Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and development of (pp. 47–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
cultural intelligence: The importance of mindful- Ting-­Toomey, S. (1994b). Managing intercultural
ness. Group and Organizational Management, conflicts effectively. In L. Samovar & R. Porter
31, 78–99. (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader
Thomas, D., & Peterson, M. (2015). Cross-­cultural (7th ed., pp. 360–372). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
management: Essential concepts (3rd ed.). Los Ting-­Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cul-
Angeles: SAGE. tures. New York: Guilford Press.
Thurlow, C. (2001). Naming the “outsider within”: Ting-­Toomey, S. (2004). Translating conflict face-­
Homophobic pejoratives and the verbal abuse negotiation theory into practice. In D. Landis, J.
of lesbian, gay and bisexual high-­school pupils. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of inter-
Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 25–38. cultural training (3rd ed., pp. 217–245). Thousand
Ting-­Toomey, S. (1980). Talk as a cultural resource in Oaks, CA: SAGE.
the Chinese American speech community. Com- Ting-­Toomey, S. (2005a). Identity negotiation theory:
munication, 9, 193–203. Crossing cultural boundaries. In W. Gudykunst
Ting-­Toomey, S. (1981). Ethnic identity and close (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communica-
friendship in Chinese American college students. tion (pp. 211–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Ting-­Toomey, S. (2005b). The matrix of updated face
5, 383–406. negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
Ting-­Toomey, S. (1984). Qualitative research: An Theorizing about intercultural communication
overview. International and Intercultural Com- (pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
munication Annual, 8, 169–184. Ting-­Toomey, S. (2007a). Researching intercultural
Ting-­Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict conflict competence: Some promising lenses. Jour-
and culture. In W. Gudykunst, L. Stewart, & S. nal of International Communication, 13, 7–30.
Ting-­Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, Ting-­Toomey, S. (2007b). Intercultural conflict train-
and organizational processes (pp. 71–86). Bev- ing: Theory-­ practice approaches and research
erly Hills, CA: SAGE. challenges. Journal of Intercultural Communica-
Ting-­Toomey, S. (1986). Conflict communication tion Research, 36, 255–271.
styles in Black and White subjective cultures. In Ting-­Toomey, S. (2009a). Facework collision in
Y.-Y. Kim (Ed.), Interethnic communication: Cur- intercultural communication. In F. Bargiela-­
rent research (pp. 75–88). Newbury Park, CA: Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communi-
SAGE. cation and social interaction (pp. 227–249). Lon-
Ting-­Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: don: Equinox.
A face-­ negotiation theory. In Y.-Y. Kim & W. Ting-­Toomey, S. (2009b). Intercultural conflict com-
Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural com- petence as a facet of intercultural competence
munication (pp. 213–235). Newbury Park, CA: development: Multiple conceptual approaches.
SAGE. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook
Ting-­Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expressions in of intercultural competence (pp. 100–120). Thou-
three cultures: France, Japan, and the United sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
States. International Journal of Intercultural Ting-­Toomey, S. (2009c). A mindful approach to
Relations, 15, 29–46. managing conflicts in intercultural-­ intimate
436 References

couples. In T. A. Karis & K. Killian (Eds.), Inter- Ting-­Toomey, S. (2017b, May). Transforming conflict
cultural couples: Exploring diversity in intimate face-­negotiation theory into practice: A “third
relationships (pp. 31–49). New York: Routledge/ face” perspective. International Communication
Taylor & Francis Group. Association conference, San Diego, CA.
Ting-­Toomey, S. (2010a). Applying dimensional val- Ting-­Toomey, S. (2017c). Identity negotiation theory
ues in understanding intercultural communica- and mindfulness practice. In H. Giles & J. Har-
tion. Communication Monographs, 77, 169–180. wood (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of
Ting-­Toomey, S. (2010b). Mindfulness. In R. Jackson communication. New York: Oxford University
(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of identity (Vol. 1, Press.
pp. 455–458). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Ting-­Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2012). Under-
Ting-­Toomey, S. (2010c). Intercultural mediation: standing intercultural communication (2nd ed.).
Asian and Western conflict lens. In D. Busch, New York: Oxford University Press.
C.-H. Mayer, & C. M. Boness (Eds.), Interna- Ting-­Toomey, S., & Cole, M. (1990). Intergroup
tional and regional perspectives on cross-­cultural diplomatic communication: A face-­ negotiation
mediation (pp. 79–98). Frankfurt am Main, Ger- perspective. In F. Korzenny & S. Ting-­Toomey
many: Peter Lang. (Eds.), Communicating for peace: Diplomacy and
Ting-­
Toomey, S. (2011). Intercultural communica- negotiation across cultures (pp. 77–95). Newbury
tion ethics: Multiple layered issues. In G. Cheney, Park, CA: SAGE.
S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), The ICA handbook Ting-­Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2014). Language,
of communication ethics (pp. 335–352). Mahwah, identity, and culture: Multiple identity-­ based
NJ: Erlbaum. perspectives. In T. Holtgraves (Ed.), The Oxford
Ting-­Toomey, S. (2014). Managing identity issues in handbook of language and social psychology
intercultural conflict communication: Develop- (pp. 27–45). New York: Oxford University Press.
ing a multicultural identity attunement lens. In Ting-­Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2015). Intercultural
V. Benet-­Martinez & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Oxford and intergroup communication competence:
handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 485– Toward an integrative perspective. In A. F. Han-
506). New York: Oxford University Press. nawa & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The handbook of
Ting-­Toomey, S. (2015a). Mindfulness. In J. Bennett communication science: Communication compe-
(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural tence (Vol. 22, pp. 503–538). Berlin: De Gruyter
competence (Vol. 2, pp. 797–800). Los Angeles: Mouton.
SAGE. Ting-­Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2017). Multifaceted
Ting-­Toomey, S. (2015b). Identity negotiation theory. identity approaches and cross-­cultural commu-
In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of nication styles: Selective overview and future
intercultural competence (Vol. 1, pp. 418–422). directions. In L. Chen (Ed.). Handbook of inter-
Los Angeles: SAGE. cultural communication (pp. 141–177). Berlin:
Ting-­Toomey, S. (2015c). Facework/Facework nego- De Gruyter Mouton.
tiation theory. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE Ting-­Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim,
encyclopedia of intercultural competence (Vol. 1, H. S., Lin, S.-L., et al. (1991). Culture, face main-
pp. 325–330). Los Angeles: SAGE. tenance, and styles of handling interpersonal
Ting-­Toomey, S. (2015d). Meta-­ethics contextualism conflict: A study in five cultures. International
position. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE ency- Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–296.
clopedia of intercultural competence (Vol. 2, Ting-­Toomey, S., & Korzenny, F. (Eds.). (1989). Lan-
pp. 611–615). Los Angeles: SAGE. guage, communication, and culture: Current
Ting-­Toomey, S. (2017a). Conflict face-­ negotiation directions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
theory: Tracking its evolutionary journey. In X. Ting-­Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework
Diao & G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Conflict management competence in intercultural conflict: An updated
and intercultural communication (pp. 123–143). face-­negotiation theory. International Journal of
New York: Routledge. Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.
 References 437

Ting-­Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. (2001). Managing inter- Triandis, H. (1994a). Culture and social behavior.
cultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: New York: McGraw-­Hill.
SAGE. Triandis, H. (1994b). Major cultural syndromes and
Ting-­Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. (2002). Cross-­cultural emotion. In S. Kitayama & H. Markus (Eds.),
face concerns and conflict styles: Current status Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual
and future directions. In W. Gudykunst & B. influence (pp. 285–306). Washington, DC: Amer-
Mody (Eds.), Cross-­ cultural and intercultural ican Psychological Association.
communication (pp. 143–163). Thousand Oaks, Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism.
CA: SAGE. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ting-­Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2013). Culture-­ Triandis, H. (2002). Individualism and collectivism.
based situational conflict model: An update and In M. Gannon & K. Newman (Eds.), Handbook
expansion. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­ Toomey of cross-­cultural management (pp. 16–45). New
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict commu- York: Erlbaum.
nication (2nd ed., pp. 763–789). Thousand Oaks, Triandis, H., Brislin, R., & Hui, H. (1988). Cross-­
CA: SAGE. cultural training across the individualism–­
Ting-­Toomey, S., Oetzel, J., & Yee-Jung, K. (2001). collectivism divide. International Journal of
Self-­
construal types and conflict management Intercultural Relations, 12, 269–289.
styles. Communication Reports, 14, 87–104. Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International grad-
Ting-­Toomey, S., & Takai, J. (2006). Explaining uate students’ social interactions with American
intercultural conflict: Promising approaches and students. Journal of College Student Develop-
directions. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-­ Toomey ment, 45, 671–687.
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communi- Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture:
cation (pp. 691–723). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Understanding diversity in global business. Burr
Ting-­Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K., Shapiro, R., Garcia, Ridge, IL: Irwin.
W., Wright, T., & Oetzel, J. (2000). Ethnic/cul- Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-­Turner, C. (1998). Rid-
tural identity salience and conflict styles in four ing the waves of culture: Understanding diversity
U.S. ethnic groups. International Journal of in global business. Boston: McGraw-­Hill.
Intercultural Relations, 24, 47–81. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-­ Turner, C. (2012).
Toomey, A., Dorjee, T., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (2013). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding
Bicultural identity negotiation, conflicts, and diversity in global business (3rd ed.). New York:
intergroup communication strategies. Journal McGraw-­Hill.
of Intercultural Communication Research, 42, Trubisky, P., Ting-­Toomey, S., & Lin, S.-L. (1991).
112–134. The influence of individualism–­collectivism and
Triandis, H. (1972). The analysis of subjective cul- self-­monitoring on conflict styles. International
ture. New York: Wiley. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 65–84.
Triandis, H. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: Tsurutani, C. (2012). Evaluation of speakers with
A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-­ foreign-­accented speech in Japan: The effect
cultural psychology. In G. Verma & C. Bagley of accent produced by English native speakers.
(Eds.), Cross-­cultural studies of personality, atti- Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Devel-
tudes and cognition (pp. 60–95). London: Mac- opment, 33, 589–603.
millan. Tung, R. (1994). Strategic management thought
Triandis, H. (1989). Self and social behavior in dif- in East Asia. Organizational Dynamics, 22,
fering cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 55–65.
96, 269–289. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group:
Triandis, H. (1990). Theoretical concepts that are A self-­categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Black-
applicable to the analysis of ethnocentrism. In R. well.
Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-­cultural psychology U.S. Census Bureau. (2016, July 1). Quick facts on
(pp. 34–55). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. White alone, not Hispanic or Latino percent:
438 References

United States. Retrieved from www.census.gov/ Schwartz, & K. Luycks (Eds.), Handbook of iden-
quickfacts/geo/chart/US/PST045216. tity: Theory and research (pp. 1–27). New York:
UNESCO. (2016, July). Global flow of tertiary-level Springer.
students. 2016 Annual Report. Paris: UNESCO/ Villagran, M. M., & Sparks, L. (2010). Social iden-
Institute for Statistics Report. tity and health contexts. In H. Giles, S. Reid, &
UNWTO. (2016). United Nations World Tour- J. Harwood (Eds.), Dynamics of intergroup com-
ist Organization Annual Report 2015. Madrid, munication (pp. 235–247). New York: Peter Lang.
Spain: UNWTO. Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact
Uskul, A. K., Oyserman, D., & Schwarz, N. (2010). and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The
Cultural emphasis on honor, modesty or self-­ mediational role of anxiety and the moderational
enhancement: Implications for the survey-­ role of group salience. Group Processes and
response process. In J. A. Harkness, M. Braun, B. Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54.
Edwards, T. P. Johnson, L. Lyberg, P. Mohler, et Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail to catch liars
al. (Eds.), Survey methods in multinational, mul- and how they can improve. Legal and Crimino-
tiregional, and multicultural contexts (pp. 191– logical Psychology, 9(2), 159–181.
201). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Vrij, A. (2006). Nonverbal communication and decep-
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2013). tion. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The
Culture shock or challenge?: The role of personal- SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication
ity as a determinant of intercultural competence. (pp. 341–359). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Journal of Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 44, 928– Wang, G., & Liu, Z.-B. (2010). What collective?: Col-
940. lectivism and relationalism from a Chinese per-
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., spective. Chinese Journal of Communication, 3,
Tan, & M. L., Koh, C. (2012). Sub-­dimensions 42–63.
of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Wang, Q., Stephen, C. J., Williams, W., & Kopka, K.
Expanding the conceptualization and measure- (2004). Culturally situated cognitive competence:
ment of cultural intelligence. Social and Person- A functional framework. In R. J. Sternberg & E.
ality Psychology, 6(4), 295–313. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Culture and competence:
van Knippenberg, A. (1989). Strategies of identity Contexts of life success (pp. 225–249). Washing-
management. In J. Van Oudenhoven & T. Wil- ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
lemsen (Eds.), Ethnic minorities: Social psycho- Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R.
logical perspectives (pp. 59–76). Amsterdam: Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural train-
Swets & Zeitlinger. ing (2nd ed., pp. 124–147). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2002). SAGE.
Predicting multicultural effectiveness of inter- Ward, C. (1999). Models and measurements of accul-
national students: The Multicultural Personality turation. In W. I. Lonner, D. L. Dinner, D. K.
Questionnaire. International Journal of Intercul- Forgays, & S. A. Hayes (Eds.), Merging past,
tural Relations, 26, 679–694. present and future in cross cultural psychology
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Ward C. (2013). Fading (pp. 221–230). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
majority cultures: The effects of transnationalism Ward, C. (2004). Psychological theories of culture
and demographic developments on the accultura- contact and their implications for intercultural
tion of immigrants. Journal of Community and training and interventions. In D. Landis, J. Ben-
Applied Social Psychology, 23, 81–97. nett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of inter-
Verkuyten, M. (2010). Multiculturalism and toler- cultural training (3rd ed., pp. 185–216). Thou-
ance: An intergroup perspective. In R. Crisp sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
(Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural Ward, C. (2008). Thinking outside the Berry boxes:
diversity (pp. 147–170). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-­ New perspectives on identity, acculturation and
Blackwell. intercultural relations. International Journal of
Vignoles, V. L. (2011). Introduction: Toward an inte- Intercultural Relations, 32, 105–114.
grative view of identity. In V. L. Vignoles, S. J. Ward, C. (2015). Culture shock. In J. Bennett (Ed.),
 References 439

The SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural compe- Wiemann, J., Chen, V., & Giles, H. (1986, Novem-
tence (Vol. 1, pp. 207–209). Los Angeles: SAGE. ber). Beliefs about talk and silence in a cultural
Ward, C., & Berno, T. (2011). Beyond social exchange context. Paper presented at the annual meeting
theory: Attitudes toward tourists. Annals of Tour- of the Speech Communication Association, Chi-
ism Research, 38, 1556–1569. cago, IL.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The Williams, A., & Garrett, P. (2005). Intergroup per-
psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Philadel- spectives on aging and intergenerational commu-
phia: Routledge. nication. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Inter-
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where’s the culture group communication: Multiple perspectives
in cross-­cultural transition?: Comparative stud- (pp. 93–115). New York: Peter Lang.
ies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-­ Williams, P. (2002). The paradox of power. New
Cultural Psychology, 24, 221–249. York: Warner Books.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strate- Wills, T. A. (1991). Similarity and self-­esteem in
gies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural downward comparison. In J. Suls & T. Wills
competence during cross-­ cultural transitions. (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, and research (pp. 51–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18, 329–343. Wiseman, R. (2003). Intercultural communica-
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). Psychological and tion competence. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
socialcultural adjustment during cross-­ cultural Cross-­cultural and intercultural communication
transitions: A comparison of secondary students (pp. 191–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
at home and abroad. International Journal of Psy- Wiseman, R., & Koester, J. (Eds.). (1993). Intercul-
chology, 28, 129–147. tural communication competence. Newbury
Waters, M. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identi- Park, CA: SAGE.
ties in America. Berkeley: University of Califor- Wood, J. (1996). Gender, relationships, and commu-
nia Press. nication. In J. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relation-
Watson, O. (1970). Proxemic behavior: A cross-­ ships (pp. 89–121). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
cultural study. The Hague: Mouton. Wood, J. (1997). Gendered lives: Communication,
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). The gender, and culture (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wad-
pragmatics of human communication. New York: sworth.
Norton. Wood, J. (2013). Gendered lives: Communication,
Wheeler, L., & Kim, Y. (1997). What is beautiful is gender, and culture (10th ed.). Boston: Wad-
culturally good: The physical attractiveness ste- sworth/Cengage Learning.
reotype has different content in collectivistic Wood, J., & Fixmer-­ Oraiz, N. (2017). Gendered
cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- lives: Communication, gender, and culture (12th
letin, 23, 795–800. ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Whitley, B., & Egisdottir, S. (2000). The gender World Internet Users Statistics. (2017, March 31).
belief system, authoritarianism, social dominance World Internet usage and population statistics—­
orientation, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward Update. Retrieved from www.internetworld-
lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 42, 947–967. stats.com/stats.htm.
Whitty, M. T. (2009). E-­ dating: The five phases World Values Survey. (ongoing). www.worldvalues-
on online dating. In C. Romm-­Livermore & K. survey.org.
Setzekorn (Eds.), Social networking communities Wyatt, T. A. (1995). Language development in Afri-
and e-­dating services: Concepts and implications can American English child speech. Linguistics
(pp. 278–291). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. and Education, 7, 7–22.
Whorf, B. (1952). Collected papers on metalinguis- Wyatt, T. A. (2015). Contemporary approaches and
tics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, perspectives for assessing young and school-­
Foreign Service Institute. age AAE speakers. In S. Lanehart (Ed.), The
Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought and reality. Oxford handbook of African American language
New York: Wiley. (pp. 526–43). New York: Oxford University Press.
440 References

Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-­cultural adaptation:
commitment in the United States and Japan. Current approaches (pp. 191–211). Newbury
Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 129–166. Park, CA: SAGE.
Yancey, G. (2007). Experiencing racism: Differences Zanna, M., & Olson, J. (Eds.). (1994). The psychol-
in the experiences of Whites married to Blacks ogy of prejudice: The Ontario Symposium: Vol. 7.
and non-Black racial minorities. Journal of Com- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
parative Family Studies, 38, 197–213. Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J., Ting-­Toomey, S., & Zhang, J.
Ye, J. (2006a). An examination of acculturative stress, (2015, October). Making up or getting even?: The
interpersonal social support, and use of online effects of face concerns, self-­construal, and apol-
ethnic social groups among Chinese interna- ogy on forgiveness, reconciliation, and revenge in
tional students. Howard Journal of Communica- the U.S. and China. Communication Research.
tions, 17, 1–20. Available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
Ye, J. (2006b). Traditional and online support net- abs/10.1177/0093650215607959.
works in the cross-­cultural adaptation of Chinese Zhang, Q., Ting-­Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014).
international students in the United States. Jour- Linking emotion to the conflict face-­negotiation
nal of Computer-­Mediated Communication, 11, theory: A U.S.-China investigation of the medi-
863–876. ating effects of anger, compassion, and guilt in
Yeh, J.-H. B. (2010). Relations matter: Redefining interpersonal conflict. Human Communication
communication competence from a Chinese per- Research, 40, 373–395.
spective. Chinese Journal of Communication, 3, Zhang, R., & Ting-­Toomey, S. (2014). Analyzing an
64–75. intercultural conflict case study: Application of a
Yinger, M. (1994). Ethnicity. Albany: State Univer- social ecological perspective. In M. Hinner (Ed.),
sity of New York Press. Chinese culture in a cross-­cultural comparison
Yoshikawa, M. (1988). Cross-­ cultural adaptation (pp. 485–510). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang/
and perceptual development. In Y. Y. Kim & W. PL Academic Research.
Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-­cultural adaptation: Zhang, R., Ting-­Toomey, S., Dorjee, T., & Lee, P.
Current approaches (pp. 140–148). Newbury (2012). Culture and self-­construal as predictors
Park, CA: SAGE. of relational responses to emotional infidelity:
Young, L. (1994). Crosstalk and culture in Sino–­ China and the United States. Chinese Journal of
American communication. Cambridge, UK: Communication, 5, 137–159.
Cambridge University Press. Zhang, Y. (2017). Stereotyping and communication.
Yousafzai, M., with Lamb, C. (2013). I am Malala: In L. Chen (Ed.). Handbook of intercultural com-
The girl who stood up for education and was shot munication (pp. 529–562). Berlin: De Gruyter
by the Taliban. New York: Little Brown. Mouton.
Yuki, M., Maddux, W., & Masuda, T. (2007). Are the Zhang, Y., & Van Hook, J. (2009). Marital dissolution
windows to the soul the same in the East and among interracial couples. Journal of Marriage
West?: Cultural differences in using the eyes and and Family, 71, 95–107.
mouth as cues to recognize emotions in Japan and Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B., & Rosenthal, R. (1981).
the United States. Journal of Experimental Social Verbal and nonverbal communication of decep-
Psychology, 43(2), 303–311. tion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experi-
Yum, J. O. (1988a). The impact of Confucianism in mental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New
interpersonal relationships and communication York: Academic Press.
in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, Zuckerman, M., Lipets, M., Koivumaki, J., & Rosen-
374–388. thal, R. (1975). Encoding and decoding nonver-
Yum, J. O. (1988b). Locus of control and communica- bal cues of emotion. Journal of Personality and
tion patterns of immigrants. In Y.-Y. Kim & W. Social Psychology, 32, 1068–1076.
Author Index

Note. f or t after a page number indicates a figure or a table.

Abrams, D., 51 B Benet-Martinez, V., 130, 153, 333

Abrams, J., 123 Bennett, J. M., 12, 149, 278, 279f, 280,
Adams, R., 247 Bachman, G., 270 306, 309, 384
Adelman, M., 111, 112 Bacon, P. L., 183 Bennett, M. J., 12, 278, 279f, 280, 306
Adler, N., 5, 96, 97, 283, 373 Baer, R. A., 154, 155 Bennett, S., 117
Afifi, T., 150, 359 Bahnan, N., 356 Berendt, E. A., 207
Agar, M., 201 Baig, N., 122, 323, 331 Berg, M. V., 80
Alba, R., 59 Bailey, D. F., 194 Berger, C. R., 12, 346, 347
Alcoff, L., 382 Bakar, H., 65 Berno, T., 79
Alexitch, L. F., 93 Bakardjieva, M., 85 Berry, J. W., 103, 106, 109, 110, 114,
Allen, K. B., 154 Baker, S. C., 148 115, 117, 126, 127
Alligood, C. L., 281 Baldwin, J., 37, 383 Berscheid, E., 352
Allport, G., 129, 288 Barge, J. K., 314 Bharati, A., 209
Almaney, A., 226 Barker, V., 39 Bhawuk, D., 172
Altman, I., 238, 252, 254, 353, 390 Barnes, S., 281 Billig, M., 271
Alwan, A., 226 Barnlund, D., 23, 24, 227, 250, 251, Bilsky, W., 170
Amico, J., 236 354, 355 Birdwhistell, R., 234, 241
Andersen, P. A., 251 Bartolucci, G., 122, 124 Blagoev, V., 180
Anderson, A., 250 Barton, E. E., 124 Blumer, H., 67
Anderson, L., 87, 103 Basso, K., 20, 228 Blumstein, P., 67
Andreas, D., 314 Baumeister, R. F., 237 Bochner, S., 75, 80, 84, 111, 112
Ang, S., 155, 308 Baxter, L. A., 51, 345 Boehnke, K., 345
Arasaratnam, L. A., 139 Beavin, J., 23 Bogle, K., 350
Arcos, B., 336 Becker, M., 271 Bohm, D., 390
Armstrong, K. R., 287 Beelmann, A., 146 Boldt, E., 186
Asante, K., 192 Behm-Morawitz, E., 291 Bolls, P., 156
Asante, M., 192 Belenky, M., 62 Bolton-Oetzel, K., 182
Atkinson, D., 117 Bellah, R., 172 Bond, M. H., 67, 111, 169, 173, 178,
Auletta, G., 294 Bem, S., 185 191, 239, 285, 323

441
442 Author Index

Bonnesen, J. L., 122 Carroll, R., 228, 247 Coupland, N., 151
Borooah, K. V., 106 Carter, R., 117 Couta, L., 41
Boski, P., 115 Casmir, F., 9, 92, 129 Covarrubias, P. O., 41, 42
Bourhis, R. Y., 148, 209, 210 Caudle, E., 359 Coveleski, S., 150, 359
Bradac, J. J., 201 Center for American Progress, 6 Cox, T. H., 11, 281
Bradford, L. J., 359 Chaffee, S., 113 Crethar, H., 309
Braithwaite, D. O., 51 Chaika, E., 202, 203, 204 Crisp, R. J., 18, 146
Brake, T., 375 Chang, W. C., 83 Crohn, J., 360, 362, 363, 366, 367
Bratter, J., 364, 365 Chang, Y., 95 Cross, S. E., 183
Bresnahan, M., 350, 355 Changnon, G., 86, 146, 152, 153 Cross, W., Jr., 83, 115, 117, 118, 119
Brewer, M. B., 18, 38, 51, 120, 168, Chapdelaine, R. F., 93 Croucher, S. M., 21
239, 272, 273, 275, 286 Chemers, M., 252 Cupach, W. R., 65, 138, 139, 140, 150,
Briley, D., 333 Chen, G.-M., 7, 8, 333 305, 306, 323, 358, 365
Brinkmann, J., 374 Chen, V., 227 Cushman, D., 20
Brislin, R., 29, 40, 172, 289, 293 Chen, W., 103, 113
Broadfoot, K., 377 Chen, Y. R., 286
Brochu, P. M., 106 Chen, Y. W., 354 D
Broome, B., 387, 390 Chi, G.-C., 64
Brown, J., 91 Chitgopekar, A. S., 359 Dai, X. D., 333
Brown, K., 154, 155 Chiu, C.-Y., 130 Dalai Lama, 385–386
Brown, L., 84, 87, 91 Choi, A. S. K., 113 D’Andrade, R., 14
Brown, P., 320 Choi, I., 220 Dandy, J., 106
Brown, R., 213, 272, 281 Choi, S., 214, 355 Darwin, C. R., 235, 241
Brown, W., 182 Choi, S. M., 10 Davis, E., 259
Bruneau, T., 227 Christ, O., 146 Davis, H. M., 225
Bucceri, J., 294 Chua, W. L., 83 Davis, J. L., 236
Bujaki, M., 115 Chung, L. C., 8, 9, 89, 91, 226, 268, Davitz, J., 244
Bull, R., 259 309, 358 Davitz, L., 244
Buller, D. B., 26, 259 Church, A., 93 Deardorff, D., 86, 152, 308
Burgoon, J. K., 12, 26, 27, 235, 239, Clarke, C. H., 303 Deaux, K., 53, 61
248, 240, 259, 260, 352 Clement, R., 148, 209 D’Emilio, F., 106
Burke, K., 59, 275 Clinchy, B., 62 Devine, P., 157, 274, 319
Burleson, B. R., 84 Cocroft, B.-A., 38, 322 Diaz, S., 106
Buss, D., 350 Cohen, D., 328 Diaz-Loving, R., 319
Butler, R., 382, 383 Cohen, R., 223, 224, 226 Dickson, K. R., 106
Buzzanell, P. M., 11, 46 Cohn, D., 6 Dion, K. K., 248, 349
Byrne, D., 352, 353 Cole, M., 323, 325 Dion, K. L., 248, 349
Coleman, L. J., 356 Doerfel, M. L., 139
Coleman, S., 309 Domanski, M. P., 110
C Collie, P., 56 Donaldson, T., 375
Collier, M. J., 46, 47, 194 Dorfman, P., 164
Cahn, D., 20, 66 Condon, J., 188, 189 Dorjee, S., 334
Cai, D. A., 39 , 226, 304, 336 Constantine, M. G., 122, 295 Dorjee, T., 22, 36, 39, 50, 51, 52, 54,
Calabrese, R. J., 347 Cook, J. N., 84 57, 94, 107, 116, 122, 126, 145, 146,
Campbell, K. E., 85 Copeland, A., 77, 78 157, 201, 208, 210, 215, 271, 307,
Canary, D. J., 139, 140, 153, 155, 305, Copodilupo, C. M., 295 323, 324, 331, 332, 333, 335, 365,
306 Cort, D., 110 378, 385
Capodilupo, C. M., 294 Cortes, C. E., 384 Dovidio, J. F., 201, 203, 208, 215,
Carbaugh, D., 41, 42 Costanzo, F., 244 271, 287
Cargile, A. C., 201, 208, 240 Costanzo, R., 244 Drake, L. E., 39
Carl, D., 312 Coucher, S. M., 114 Drzewiecka, J. A., 359
Carlson, J., 309 Coupland, J., 151 Dugan, S., 312
 Author Index 443

Duggan, A. P., 124, 125 Fullman, D., 251, 252 Grinde, D., 16
Duran, A., 319 Furnham, A., 75, 79, 80, 84, 111, 112 Gudykunst, W. B., 10, 18, 36, 38, 51,
Fussell, S. R., 243 86, 137, 147, 170, 172, 182, 185,
221, 244, 251, 268, 269, 284, 317,
E 318, 346, 347, 348, 353
G Guerrerro, L. K., 235, 259, 333
Earley, P. C., 155, 308 Gullahorn, J. E., 87
Ebesu Hubbard, A., 27 Gaertner, L., 226 Gullahorn, J. T., 87
Edwards, J., 207, 208, 214 Gaertner, S. L., 286 Gundersen, A., 5, 373
Egisdottir, S., 123 Galati, D., 235 Gundling, E., 77
Ekman, P., 235, 236, 241, 242, 245, Galinsky, A. D., 11 Gupta, S. R., 54
259 Gallois, C., 27, 37, 51, 122, 146, 149, Gupta, V., 164, 312
Ellis, D. G., 149 150, 151, 240 Gursoy, D., 64
Engebretson, D., 251, 252 Gannon, M. J., 376
Engholm, C., 178 Gao, G., 65, 181, 211, 222, 223, 322,
Esses, V. M., 106, 271, 287 349 H
Everett, M. A., 46 Garcia, W. R., 213
Gareis, E., 84, 350 Habermas, J., 47
Garstka, T. A., 122 Hafen, S., 383, 384
F Gasiorek, J., 122 Hajek, C., 123, 125
Gauvin, M., 238 Halberstadt, A., 251
Farb, P., 207, 212, 217 Geertz, C., 41, 48 Hall, E. T., 10, 19, 39, 217, 220, 227,
Fassaert, T., 110 Gelfand, M., 172, 187 238, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 320
Fassett, D. L., 289 Gheorghiu, M., 343 Hall, J. A., 245, 249, 250
Feagin, C. B., 291 Giles, H., 21, 27, 39, 51, 106, 122, Hall, M., 255, 256, 258
Feagin, J. R., 291, 294 123, 124, 125, 126, 137, 140, 141, Hall, S., 45, 289
Fehr, B., 348 146, 148, 151, 201, 203, 207, 208, Halualani, R. T., 47, 103
Feng, B., 84 209, 214, 215, 227, 239, 240, 269, Hamby, C. E., 47
Ferraro, G., 250 276, 291 Hamilton, D., 274
Ferris, G. R., 215 Gillespie, T. L., 215 Hampden-Turner, C., 170, 186, 376
Ferris, K., 248, 352 Gilligan, C., 185 Hanges, P. J., 164
Fink, E., 304, 336 Gilman, A., 213 Hannawa, A. F., 52, 139, 146, 204,
Finkel, E. J., 237 Girdler, S. S., 236 333
Firebaugh, S., 357 Giroux, H. A., 289 Hanson, L. R., Jr., 284
Firmin, N., 357 Glick, P., 271 Haritatos, J., 153
Fisher, G., 210 Global Mobility Effectiveness Survey, Harrell, T., 95
Fisher-Yoshida, B., 41, 308, 309 4 Harris, R., 79
Fiske, A. P., 170 Global Trends Relocation survey, 4 Harris, T. M., 281
Fiske, S. T., 280 Gluszek, A., 201, 203, 208, 215 Harvey, O. J., 287
Fitch, K., 181, 213, 214 Gochenour, T., 246 Harwood, J., 51, 124, 125, 127, 141,
Fixmer-Oraiz, N., 62 Goffman, E., 59, 320 146
Fletcher, C. V., 330 Gogo, S., 294 Haslett, B., 392
Floyd, K., 235, 259 Goldberger, N., 62 Haynes, M. T., 235
Foddy, M., 183 Gonzales, N. A., 123 Hecht, M., 140, 146, 153, 192, 194,
Foeman, A. K., 357 Gonzalez, M. C., 382 209, 251, 319
Fox, S. A., 124 Goode, E., 259 Heckert, A., 259
Frank, M. G., 235, 241, 259 Gottman, J., 362 Heckert, D. M., 259
Frankenberg, R., 360 Graf, J., 222 Heider, F., 284
Frederick, D. A., 351 Graham, J., 246 Heider, K. G., 259
Freilich, M., 14 Greenfield, P. M., 225 Heine, S. J., 225
Friesen, W., 235, 236, 241, 245 Grewen, K. M., 236 Heinemann, K. S., 146
Fujino, D., 357 Grice, H. P., 220 Helms, J., 115, 117, 118, 119
444 Author Index

Heningsen, D. D., 259 Jackson, R. L., 146, 318 Kim, J. K., 37, 113
Henry, P. J., 286 Jacobson, L., 281 Kim, M. S., 164, 182, 326
Henwood, K., 122, 124 Jakobsson Hatay, A.-S., 390 Kim, U., 115
Hesselink, A. E., 110 Javidan, M., 164, 312 Kim, Y. Y., 10, 90, 103, 105, 110, 111,
Hewstone, M., 271, 272, 281, 285, 287 Jennings, S., 124 112, 114, 149, 306, 351, 355
Hinner, M., 305 Jetten, J., 273 Kim, Y.-H., 226
Ho, M. K., 194, 287 Jia, M., 84 Kimata, H., 236
Hocker, J. L., 25, 290 Jia, X. L., 380 Kim-Jo, T., 333
Hodson, G., 184 Jia, Y., 380 Kinder, D. R., 287
Hofstede, G., 38, 39, 169, 170, 171, Jian, G., 345 Kindon, S., 56
171t, 172, 173, 174, 174t, 175, 176, Jiang, C. C., 356 King, M., 110
176t, 177t, 179t, 180, 188, 242, 310, Johnson, M., 350 King, R., 364, 365
313, 314, 321 Johnson, P., 126, 148, 209, 291 Kitano, H., 357
Hogg, M. A., 51, 273 Jones, E., 240 Kitayama, S., 67, 83, 182, 225, 243,
Holloway, I., 91 Jones, J., 360 315, 328, 345
Holmes, P., 84 Jones, R. H., 203 Kite, M. E., 123
Honeycutt, J., 173 Jones, S., 251 Kito, M., 355
Hong, Y. Y., 130, 152 Jones, T., 294 Kittler, M. G., 221
Hoobler, G. D., 251 Joyce, N., 146 Kline, S. L., 65, 349, 350
Hood, W. R., 287 Ju, R., 84 Kluckhohn, C., 187
Hopkins, J., 155 Justice, J., 93 Kluckhohn, F., 14, 16, 187, 188, 189f,
Horton, B., 65, 349 255
Hoskins, M. L., 154 Knapp, M. L., 245
Hotta, J., 56, 89, 91, 93 K Kochman, T., 226, 227, 258
House, R. J., 164, 170, 310 Koester, J., 152
Howell, W., 142 Kabat-Zinn, J., 12, 154 Kohls, L. R., 86, 192
Hu, H. C., 320 Kagitcibasi, C., 67 Koivumaki, J., 244
Hui, H., 172 Kale, D., 387 Kooken, K., 236
Hummert, M. L., 122, 140, 141, 151 Kale, S. H., 356 Kopacz, M., 291
Hung, E., 153 Kaleel, S., 77 Korzenny, F., 207
Hwang, W. C., 236, 238, 241, 243, Kanayama, T., 243 Kramarae, C., 46
294 Kang, D., 110 Krieger, J., 153
Hymes, D., 41, 206 Kang, S.-Y., 110 Krietemeyer, J., 155
Kanouse, D. E., 284 Krishnan, A., 110
Karadag, E., 64 Kroeber, A., 14
I Karis, T. A., 358, 361 Kudo, K., 84
Kashima, E., 220 Kudoh, T., 238, 248, 352
Imahori, T. T., 305, 358, 365 Kashima, Y., 183, 220, 285, 286 Kupperbusch, C., 236, 241
Inglehart, R., 180 Katriel, T., 221 Kurogi, A., 153, 320, 321, 322, 323
Inman, A. G., 122 Kaushal, R., 327 Kwan, K.-L., 117
Institute of International Education, Kay, A. C. S., 113 Kwantes, C., 327
76 Kayan, S., 243
Ishii, S., 227 Kealey, D., 110
Iyer, P., 16, 97 Keating, C., 234 L
Izard, C., 241, 242 Keaton, S., 173
Kelley, H. H., 284 Labov, W., 206
Kennedy, A., 109, 110, 112 LaBrack, B., 97
J Kessler, T., 277 Lackaff, D., 10
Khanlou, N., 124 Ladany, N., 122
Jackson, D., 23 Kidd, E., 220 LaFrance, M., 247, 252
Jackson, J. W., 287 Kienzle, J., 129 Lakey, S. G., 139, 153, 305, 306
Jackson, L. M., 287 Killian, K., 358 Lambert, W. E., 39
 Author Index 445

Langer, E., 12, 154, 308, 347 Mann, S., 259 Moorthy, R., 380
Lavan, N., 239, 240 Manstead, A. S. R., 273 Moosmuller, A., 4
LeBaron, M., 308 Manusov, V., 234 Moran, A., 4
Ledgerwood, J., 107, 112 Markel, N., 244 Moran, S. V., 4
Lee, C. M., 36, 353 Markus, H. R., 67, 83, 182, 225, 243, Morris, M. L., 130, 183, 333
Lee, F., 130, 153 315, 328, 345 Morrison, T., 246
Lee, P., 84, 324 Marsden, P., 85 Morry, M. M., 352
Leong, C., 82 Martin, J. N., 95, 164, 359, 372, 382, Mortensen, S. T., 84
LeRoux, J. A., 86 383 Mortland, C., 107, 112
Leu, J., 130 Martinez, L., 365, 366 Mui, A. C., 110
Leung, A. K.-Y., 328 Mastro, D. E., 291 Mummendey, A., 201
Leung, K., 111, 312 Masuda, T., 243 Munshi, D., 377
Leung, T., 326 Masumoto, T., 324 Murachver, T., 123
Levin, S., 359 Matsumoto, D., 86, 236, 238, 241, Murray, D. A. B., 123
Levinson, S., 320 243, 248, 250, 352 Myers, K. K., 64, 121
Lewin, K., 252, 253 Matsumoto, H., 225
Leyens, J.-P., 274 Matusitz, J., 84
Light, K. C., 236 May, W., 204 N
Lim, T.-S., 206, 214 Mayes, B. T., 215
Lin, A., 294, 295 Mayo, C., 247, 252 Nabi, R., 156
Lin, C., 84 McCall, G., 51, 52 Nadal, K., 275, 294
Lin, S. L., 322 McCann, R., 173 Nagata, A., 155
Lindemann, S., 201 McCann, R., 65 Nakazawa, M., 354
Lipets, M., 244 McGettigan, C., 239 Nance, T., 357
Lipp, G. D., 303 McGlone, M. S., 214 Naotsuka, R., 219, 225
Lippi-Green, R., 215 McGovern, T., 319 Nash, D., 87
Lippmann, W., 274, 280 McGuire, M., 110 Nelson, A., 247
Liu, J., 56, 153 McIntosh, P., 147, 148, 290, 361 Neuliep, J., 306, 348
Liu, M., 84 McKay-Semmler, K., 111, 112 Newbold, K. B., 124
Liu, S., 51 McLachlan, D. A., 93 Newheiser, A.-K., 203
Liu, Z.-B., 183 McLaren, L. M., 287 Nguyen, A.-M., 153
Lobel, S. A., 11 McLeod, P. L., 11 Nhat Hanh, T., 12, 154
Lock, C., 259 McNamara, R. P., 360, 361, 363 Nisbett, R. E., 220
Locke, D. C., 64, 191, 194, 205 Mead, M., 67 Nishida, T., 36
Loden, M., 6, 7 Mehrabian, A., 234 Norasakkunkit, V., 225
Loewenthall, N., 96 Merkin, R., 327 Norenzayan, A., 220
Lowenger, S., 236 Merskin, D., 281 Nydell, M. K., 245, 251, 254, 257
Lu, Y., 140 Merton, R., 292
Luft, J., 390, 391, 391f Metts, S., 65, 323
Lukens, J., 278 Mezirow, J., 308 O
Lysgaard, S., 87 Midooka, K., 316, 334
Miike, Y., 43 Oberg, K., 79
Miles, E., 146 Ochs, E., 186
M Miller, D. T., 274 Oetzel, J. G., 11, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45,
Miller, J. G., 181 47, 48, 153, 182, 221, 308, 310, 312,
Mabizela, P., 336 Miller, N., 51, 168, 272, 273, 275 313, 314, 315, 323, 324, 325, 326,
MacIntyre, P. D., 148 Minkov, M., 169, 178, 180 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 336, 364,
Mackinnon, A., 221 Miron, M., 204 372, 396t
Maddux, W. W., 11, 243 Moaz, I., 149 Ogawa, N., 36
Madsen, R., 172 Molinsky, A., 139, 307, 309 Ogay, T., 27, 146
Mangan, J., 106 Montgomery, B. M., 51, 345 Okabe, R., 224
Mania, E. W., 286 Moon, D., 45 Olorunnisola, A., 129
446 Author Index

Olsen, M., 16 Powell, R., 361 Ryan, R., 154, 155

Olson, J., 278 Power, S., 115 Rygl, D., 221
Opotow, S., 386, 387 Prentice, D. A., 274
Orbe, M., 46, 50, 59, 148, 276, 281, Puentha, D., 106
319, 382 Purkiss, S. L. S., 215 S
Osgood, C., 204 Pusch, M., 86, 96, 280, 383
Osland, J., 93, 95 Putnam, A., 46 Sachdev, I., 209
Ostrom, T., 274 Sadaghiani, K., 64, 121
Ota, H., 240 Sani, F., 272
Otsubo, Y., 184 R Sapir, E., 211, 213
Oyserman, D., 226 Sato, J., 357
Ozer, D., 333 Radio and Television Business Schadron, G., 274
Report, 112 Schaefer, R., 59, 288
Rahim, M. A., 324 Schaetti, B., 11, 78
P Rahmani, D., 114 Scherer, K. R., 235, 251
Raider, E., 309 Schwartz, S., 170, 345
Paige, R. M., 80, 84, 279f, 280, 372, Rakic, T., 148, 201, 203, 208, 214, Schwarz, N., 226
383 215 Scollon, R. S., 203
Palomares, N. A., 125 Ramsey, S., 11 Scollon, S. W., 203
Paniagua, F., 17, 211 Ray, G., 345 Scott, S. K., 239
Pannu, R., 117 Reid, S., 51 Searle, W., 112
Parham, T., 115, 117, 118 Reis, H., 352 Sears, D. O., 286, 287
Park, M., 223 Ribeau, S., 146, 192, 194 Sedano, M., 192
Parsons, T., 186, 376 Ricci-Bitti, P., 235 Sedikides, C., 226
Passel, J. S., 6 Richmond, Y., 243 Setlock, L. D., 243
Patzer, G., 248 Ridley, C. R., 390 Shaw, A. Z., 235
Pearce, B., 157, 269 Riek, B. M., 286, 287 Sheriff, C. W., 287
Pearce, K., 157, 269 Riforgiate, S., 235 Sheriff, M., 287
Pearce, P. L., 41 Rinderle, S., 331 Shim, T., 164
Pedersen, P., 309, 376 Rivera, D. P., 295 Shoham, N., 84
Peng, K. P., 220 Robinson, J. D., 124 Short, J. C., 185
Pennington, D., 192, 193, 256 Roccas, S., 275 Shuper, P., 184
Pe-Pua, R., 106 Romano, R., 358 Shuter, R., 8, 9, 84, 252
Perewe, P. L., 215 Roney, R. M., 67 Sias, P. M., 76
Peters, W., 291 Rosaldo, M., 53 Siegel, D. J., 154
Peterson, M. F., 172, 312 Rosen, D., 10 Sillars, A., 139
Peterson, R. S., 155, 308 Rosenblatt, P., 361, 362 Silver, N., 362
Petronio, S., 254 Rosener, J., 6, 7 Simkin, K. A., 84
Pettigrew, T. F., 38, 146, 275, 284, 285 Rosenfeld, H., 251 Simmel, G., 346
Pew Institute Center, 342 Rosenthal, R., 244, 281 Simmons, J., 51, 52
Pflug, J., 243 Ross, J., 248, 352 Simone, D., 124
Pham, H., 122 Rothman, J., 305 Simonson, I., 333
Philipsen, G., 41, 42, 206 Rowe, W., 117 Singelis, T., 172, 182
Phinney, J., 115, 119 Ruben, B., 110 Sioufi, R., 209
Phoenix, A., 275 Ruiz, A., 115, 117 Smallwood, M., 251
Pieraccini, C., 281 Russell, A. M., 280 Smith, D. E., 46
Pitts, M. J., 76, 109 Russell, J. A., 348 Smith, G. T., 154, 155
Plant, E., 319 Ryan, D., 348 Smith, L., 377
Platow, M., 183 Ryan, E., 351 Smith, P., 191, 239, 312, 328, 343
Podsiadlowski, A., 56 Ryan, E. B., 122, 201 Smith, P. B., 67, 271, 285, 286
Postmes, T., 273 Ryan, E. G., 124 Sodowsky, G., 117
 Author Index 447

Sohn, D., 10, 355 Taylor, P. L., 359 Van Dyne, L., 156
Soliz, J., 129, 149 Tempenis, M., 361 Van Hook, J., 364
Sorrells, K., 45, 46, 47, 387 Thomas, D. C., 155, 156, 172 van Knippenberg, A., 276
Sorrels, B., 216 Thompson, T. L., 124 Van Oudenhoven, J. P., 80, 82, 109
Sorrentino, R., 67, 184, 185 Thurlow, C., 123 Vaughan, G. M., 273
Sparks, L., 140 Ting-Toomey, S., 8, 9, 12, 21, 36, 37, Verhoeff, A. P., 110
Spears, R., 273 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, Verkuyten, M., 53, 61
Spellers, R. E., 46, 382 54, 56, 57, 89, 91, 93, 94, 103, 104, Vevea, J., 226
Spence, M. T., 356 122, 137, 138, 139, 145, 150, 153, Vignoles, V. L., 272, 343
Spencer-Rodgers, J., 319 154, 155, 170, 172, 173, 181, 207, Villagran, M. M., 140
Speten-Hansen, K., 306 208, 211, 218, 222, 223, 226, 228, Voci, A., 287
Spitzberg, B. H., 52, 86, 138, 139, 244, 251, 256, 268, 271, 305, 307, Vrij, A., 259
140, 144, 146, 152, 153, 306, 333 308, 309, 310, 311f, 312, 313, 314,
Starosta, W., 129 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322,
Statistics—The Statistics Portal, 355 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, W
Steele, C. M., 294 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 355,
Stefanone, M., 10 358, 364, 365, 367, 376, 379, 383, Wagner, U., 146
Steffens, M. C., 201 390, 396t Waldron, V., 12
Steinfatt, T., 212 Tipton, S., 172 Walker, A., 184
Stephan, C. W., 38, 147, 270, 274, 277, Toh, Y., 83 Walker, D., 375
280, 287, 296, 297, 317 Toney, L., 155 Walker, T., 375
Stephan, W. G., 38, 147, 270, 274, 277, Toomey, A., 57, 153, 333 Walton, B., 360
280, 287, 296, 297, 317, 318, 319 Torino, G. C., 294, 295 Wang, G., 183
Sternberg, R., 11, 343, 348 Triandis, H., 15, 19, 67, 80, 164, 169, Ward, C., 75, 79, 80, 83, 84, 86, 93,
Stewart, E., 280 170, 171, 172, 177, 184, 186, 187, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 117
Stohl, C., 65, 66 236, 237, 277, 280, 281, 285, 286, Warren, J. T., 153, 289
Storlie, C. A., 108, 313 321, 328, 343, 376 Watanabe, G., 11
Strodtbeck, F., 16, 187, 188, 189f, 255 Trice, A. G., 93 Waters, M., 115
Stryker, S., 51, 59 Trompenaars, F., 170, 172, 186, 190, Watson, O., 250
Su, C., 124 192, 376 Watzlawick, P., 23, 25
Sue, D., 115, 117, 193, 194 Tropp, L. R., 38, 146, 275 Weinman, A. M., 336
Sue, D. W., 193, 194, 294, 295 Trubisky, P., 322 Wheeler, L., 351
Sullivan, W., 172 Tsurutani, C., 203 White, B. J., 287
Sumner, W., 277 Tung, R., 256 Whitley, B. E., Jr., 123
Sung, Y., 355 Turner, J., 52, 269, 273 Whitty, M. T., 356
Sussman, N., 95, 96, 251 Whorf, B., 211, 212, 213
Suzuki, L. K., 225 Wiemann, J., 227, 228
Swami, V., 351 U Wilkinson, L. C., 384
Swart, H., 285 Williams, A., 124
Swidler, A., 172 Uchida, H., 236 Williams, P., 376
Udipi, S., 390 Willow, J. A., 308
UNESCO, 76 Wilmot, W. W., 25, 290
T U. S. Census Bureau, 5, 6 Wilson, S. R., 39
UNWTO, 78, 79 Wilson-Cohn, C., 236
Tajfel, H., 52, 269, 272, 273, 346 Uskul, A. K., 226 Windchief, S. R., 42
Takai, J., 315, 316, 323, 324 Wiseman, R., 138, 152
Tamis-LeMonda, C., 172 Woldery, M., 124
Tanita, K., 207 V Wood, J., 62, 185, 216, 345
Tannen, D., 185, 345 Woodall, W. D., 26
Tarule, J., 62 Valde, K. S., 259 World Internet Users Statistics, 7
Taylor, D., 148, 353, 390 Van der Zee, K. I., 80, 82 Wyatt, T. A., 209
448 Author Index

Y Yokochi, Y., 324 Z

Yoo, S. H., 86
Yamagishi, M., 343 Yoshikawa, M., 129 Zagefka, H., 272
Yamagishi, T., 343 Young, L., 106, 203 Zanna, M., 278
Yancey, G., 365 Zhang, Q., 336
Young, M., 115
Yarborough, A., 251 Zhang, R., 39, 324, 328, 329, 330,
Youngdahl, W. E., 4
Ybarra, O., 270 332, 364
Ye, J., 85 Yousafzai, M., 387 Zhang, S., 65, 349
Yee-Jung, K., 328, 364 Yuki, M., 243, 272 Zhang, Y., 364
Yeh, J.-H. B., 183 Yum, J. O., 225 Zhu, Y., 350, 355
Yinger, M., 59 Yzerbyt, V., 274 Zuckerman, M., 244
Subject Index

Note. f or t after a page number indicates a figure or a table.

ABC model of culture shock, 80–81 Activity value orientation, 189t, 193–194 Africans, temporal orientation of, 192
Ability-difference orientations, Adaptability, communication, 158 American culture, direct
stigmatization of, 124–125 Adaptors, in conversational communication style in, 223
Absolutism, ethical, 377, 378f management, 248 American English, social evaluation
Accent, 202–203 Adult third-culture kids (ATCKs), function and, 215
social evaluation and, 214–215 78, 97 Androgynous gender identity, versus
Acculturation, defined, 105, 131 Advocacy, critical paradigm and, 49 traditional sex role identity,
Acculturation process, 101–132 AEIOU negotiation, 309 185–186
antecedent factors in, 104–114, Affection Anger, cultural associations with, 329
105f online disclosure of, 355–356 Anxiety/uncertainty management
individual-level, 109–111 public displays of, 18 (AUM), 37, 185
interpersonal-level, 111–114 Affective attunement orientation, identity-based threats and, 317
systems-level, 105–108 experience and self-regulated intercultural intimate relationships
critical thinking and connective judgment and, 155–156 and, 346–348
application questions, 132 Affective experience, defining Appropriateness, communication,
intercultural dating dilemma and, characteristics of, 156 158
101–102 Affective meaning of language, 204 Arab cultures, verbal style in, 226
and intergroup contacts/adaptation African American population, Asian American population,
strategies, 115–127 demographic changes in, 5–6 demographic changes in, 5–6
identity change models, 115–120 African American racial identity, Asian Americans
intergroup communication five-stage development model activity orientation and, 194
challenges/adaptation and, of, 118 ethnic identity and, 60
121–125 African Americans relational orientation and, 195
for intergroup interaction, activity orientation and, 194 Asian cultures
125–127 ethnic identity and, 60 self-effacing verbal style in,
intergroup social identity human nature orientation and, 193 225–226
complexity and, 120–121 relational orientation and, 195 temporal orientations of, 191
mindful guidelines for, 130–131 temporal orientation of, 192 Asian-Caucasian individuals,
outcomes of, 127–130 verbal style of, 226–227 bicultural identity and, 57

449
450 Subject Index

Assimilationist societies, ethnic Bigots, active versus passive, 292t, 293 Chronemics, study of, 255
identity in, 106 Bioevolutionary perspective, on Clashes, well-meaning, 29
Assyrian women, acculturation nonverbal communication, Classical value orientations, 187–195
process of, 56 235–236, 237 activity, 189t, 193–194
Attitudes Black English, definition and basic assumptions of, 188–189, 189t
ingroup–outgroup differentiation characteristics of, 209 human nature, 189t, 193
and, 168 Body posture, in conversational people–nature, 189–191, 189t
nonverbal expression of, 241–245 management, 247 relational, 189t, 194–195
open-hearted, developing, 146–149 Boundaries, trends in crossing, 4–5 temporal, 189t, 191–192
Attitudinal similarity, perceptions of, Boundary regulation Clothing, as identity markers, 240
352–353 culture and, 18–19 Co-culture communities, 50, 53
Attitudinal stance social identity theory and, 270–283 Co-culture theory, 46
acculturational process and, 106 (see also Social identity Code switching, 150
of host culture, 106 theory) defined, 209
Attraction, physical, perceptions of, Britain, cultural assimilationist stance intergroup convergence/divergence
351–352 of, 106 and, 334–335
Attractiveness, nonverbal Buddhism; see also Mindfulness; Cognitive reasoning language
communication and, 248–249 Mindfulness practice function, 211–213
Attribution theory, 284–285 intercultural communication and, Cognitive reframing, culture shock
Authoritarian personality approach, 21–22 and, 84
prejudice and, 288 mindfulness practice and, 12 Collectivism
Autonomy, need for, intercultural Tibetan, 107 characteristics of, 170
intimate relationships and, horizontal, 172
345 vertical, 173
Autostereotyping, 280–282 C Collectivistic cultures, 10, 166
Average person myth, avoiding, 260 anxiety/uncertainty management
Avoidance, distance of, 278 California, undocumented and, 347
Awareness, in mindfulness practice, immigrants in, 108 emotional expression and, 242
156–157 Canada high-context communication in, 218t
cultural pluralist stance of, 106 interpersonal interactive synchrony
ethnic identity in, 107 and, 258
B Certainty-oriented personality type, language and, 207
184–185 love attitudes/expectations in, 349
Baby Boomers, 64 Change agents, proactive, 292t, 293 nonverbal communication in, 236
Baig, N., 102 Children, bicultural, raising, 365–366 physical boundaries in, 253–254
Bangladesh, transgender people in, Children’s programming, global reach P-time pattern in, 256–257
123–124 of, 9 relational role identities in, 65
Behaviors, face-losing/face-saving, China, self-concept in, 181 self-disclosure and, 355
319–320 China–U. S. forgiveness study, value tendencies of, 187
Beliefs, culturally shared, 15–16 329–330 verbal interaction styles in,
Bell, M., 34 Chinese culture 221–222
Benevolent approach to intercultural indirect communication style in, Colombia, self-concept in, 181
conflict, 314 222–223 Colombian Americans, ethnic/cultural
Biases; see also Perceptual filters/ role of silence in, 228 identity category options of,
biases; Prejudice sense of self in, 181 117
attribution, 284–285 verbal style in, 226 Colombian culture, sense of self in,
case story, 267–268 Chinese immigrants, acculturation of, 181
perceived intergroup threat and, 113–114 Commitment, personal/structural,
286–287 Chinese international students, social intercultural intimate
Bicultural children, raising, 365–366 media use and, 84–85 relationships and, 350–351
Bicultural identity, of Asian- Chinese language, cultural Communal approach to intercultural
Caucasian individuals, 57 worldview/beliefs and, 211 conflict, 314–315
 Subject Index 451

Communication; see also Communication effectiveness, 158 Coordinated management of meaning

Intercultural communication; defined, 139 theory, 41
Intergroup communication; Communication predicament of Core composite identity domains,
Nonverbal communication disability model (CPDM), 58–69, 58f
about love, 349–350 124–125 complex sociocultural identity
about prejudice/discrimination, Communicative distance, intersection and, 69
296–298 ethnocentrism and, 278 gender identity, 62
critical theory and, 46–47 Compartmentalization, SICT and, 120 personal identity attributes, 66–67
cultural values and, 169–170 Compassion, cultural associations relational role and professional role
culture and, 19–20, 38–39 with, 329 identities, 65–66
digital versus analogical aspects Computer-mediated social support, religious/spiritual identity, 60–62
of, 22–23 Chinese immigrants and, 113 sociocultural membership, 59–60
direct versus indirect, 221–224 Conflict, intergenerational, 122 sociorelational role identities,
ethical transcultural, social justice/ Conflict communication skills, 63–65
peace and, 388–392, 391f constructive, 309 stigmatized group-based identities,
ethnocentrism and, 277–280 Conflict cycles, identity threat types 62–63
gender-related issues in, 167 leading to, 318–319 symbolic interaction identities,
high- versus low-context, 217–221, Conflict emotions, face-sensitive, 329 67–68
218t, 230, 278–279 Conflict face negotiation theory Corporate culture, and ethical issues
intergenerational, 141 (CFNT), 37, 305, 320–336; in developing countries,
challenges and models, 121–122 see also Face negotiation 374–376
interpretations of, 13–14 theory (FNT) Corporations, overseas employees
mindful, 11–13 history of, 319–320 of, 4–5
mind-sets and, 286–298 Conflict facework styles, comparisons Creativity, cross-cultural encounters
nonverbal, pragmatic rules and, 206 of, 38 and, 11
prejudice and, 287–289 Conflict models Creativity language function,
stereotypes and, 280–283, 282t eight-style, 326–327, 326f 215–217
symbolic, 54 five-style, 324–326, 325f Credibility, perceptions of, 352
universal desire for competence Conflict styles, 310 Critical/cultural studies paradigm,
in, 52 recent research on, 334 45–50
verbal versus nonverbal cues in, Confucian dynamism dimension, communication and, 46–47
22–23 178–180, 179t goal of, 47–48
Communication accommodation Confucian philosophy, 179–180 identity issues and, 45–46
theory (CAT), 37, 51 Connotative meaning, 204 methodologies of, 47–49
communication predicament of Constructive conflict communication oppressive structures and, 45–47
disability model and, 124–125 skills, 309 strengths and limitations of, 48
interpersonal/intergroup Contact network, immigrant Cross-cultural, versus intercultural,
communication and, 146, 148, acculturation and, 111–112 20–21
150–151 Content meaning, 24–25 Cross-cultural communication, study
strategies of, 150–152 Context, 29–30 of, 37; see also Intercultural
Communication adaptability, 158 Convergence, 7–8 communication
defined, 139–140 as communicative strategy, 151 Cross-cultural competencies, for
intercultural conflict competence Convergence/divergence issues, global leaders, 5
and, 307 recent research on, 334–335 Cross-cultural verbal communication
Communication appropriateness, 158 Conversation, volume and intensity styles, 217–228
defined, 138–139 of, 245 direct versus indirect, 221–224
Communication competence, Conversational constraints theory, 37 low- and high-context, 217–221,
interpretive perspective on, Conversational management, 218t
42 nonverbal communication in, Cuba, U.S. relationship with, 269
Communication competence/ 245–248 Cultural adjustment; see Intercultural
incompetence, unconscious/ Coordinated management of meaning adjustment
conscious, 142–144, 143f (CMM) model, 157 Cultural codes theory, 41
452 Subject Index

Cultural communication theories, indulgence–restraint dimension Culture shock, 50, 79–98, 131; see
interpretive perspective on, in, 180 also Sojourners
41–42 introduction, 162–163 ABC model of, 80–81
Cultural communities, different, 24 masculinity–femininity dimension affective, behavioral, cognitive
Cultural display rules, 236 in, 176–178, 177t aspects of, 80–81
Cultural distance, 82, 108 mindful guidelines for, 195–196 cultural distance and, 81–83
culture shock and, 81–83 outlier factor and, 164 defined, 80
identity vulnerability and, 103 power distance dimension in, Dorjee and, 72–73, 80, 90, 162
intercultural conflict and, 304, 322 173–175, 174t examples of, 74
newcomer adaptation and, 108, 131 short- versus long-term time intercultural adjustment and,
Cultural distance factor, 131 dimension in, 178–180, 179t 81–95 (see also Intercultural
Cultural empathy, peace building uncertainty avoidance dimension adjustment)
and, 390 in, 175–176, 176t mindful guidelines for, 98–99
Cultural exchange students, as Cultural values and language origin of term, 79
sojourners, 76–77 functions, 207–217 pros and cons of, 81
Cultural frame switching (CFT), 130, cognitive reasoning function, reentry, 95–98
150, 152 211–213 home and, 97–98
Cultural identity creativity function, 215–217 resocialization and, 96–97
critical theory and, 45–47 ethnolinguistic vitality function, surprising elements of, 95–96
defined, 59 209–210 Culture shockers, types of, 88
Cultural identity theory, 46 group identity function, 208–209 Culture-based situational conflict
Cultural knowledge, of immigrants, perpetual filtering function, model, 309–317, 311f
110 210–211 cultural and individual
Cultural meanings of language, etic relational status and intimacy socialization value patterns
versus emic, 205 function, 213–214 in, 310–315
Cultural norms, 16 social evaluation function, 214–215 situational role and relational
changes in, 260 Cultural variability perspective, value distance parameters in,
Cultural pluralist stance, of host dimensions of, 38 315–317
countries, 106 Cultural–ethnic membership values, value dimension approaches in,
Cultural practices, intergroup– intercultural intimate 312–314, 313f
interpersonal discovery relationships and, 343–345, Culture-level systems analysis,
opportunities and, 10–11 344t, 346f 164–180
Cultural relativists, facial expression Cultural–ethnic values, versus social and functions of cultural/personal
of emotions and, 241–242 media values, 9–10 value assumptions, 165–170
Cultural universalists, facial Cultural–personal values, and individualism–collectivism
expression of emotions and, assumptions about, 165–170 value spectrum, 170–173, 171t
241–242 Culture; see also Collectivistic indulgence–restraint value
Cultural value dimensions; see cultures; Individualistic dimension, 180
Classical value orientations; cultures and masculinity–femininity
Cultural value variability collectivist, 10 value variability dimension,
framework; Self-conceptions conceptualization of, 14–20 176–178, 177t
Cultural value variability framework, definition of, 14 and power distance value
161–180 explanatory function of, 17–18 variability dimension,
central value tendencies and, 164– functions of, 17–20 173–175, 174t
165, 165f (see also Culture- hegemonic concept of, 45 short-term versus long-term time
level systems analysis) high- versus low-contact, 250–251 dimension, 178–180, 179t
critical thinking and connective iceberg metaphor for, 14–15, 15f and uncertainty avoidance value
application questions, identity and, 38 variability dimension,
196–197 interpretive paradigm and, 41 175–176, 176t
and functions of cultural/personal meanings of, 13–14 Culture-sensitive competence
value assumptions, 165–170 normative, 15 components, 144–154
individualism–collectivism safety net function of, 20 acquiring, 145–146
spectrum and, 170–173, 171t subjective, 15 desired outcomes, 152–154
 Subject Index 453

flexible mind-set, open-hearted Divorce rates, for interracial critical thinking and connective
attitudes, 146–149 marriages, 365–366 application questions, 393–394
knowledge, 145 Dominance, SICT and, 120 cultural values clashes and, 376
sharpening communication Dorjee, T. differing cultural standards and,
capacities/skillsets, 149–152 commencement speech by, 399–401 372–374
Culture-sensitive knowledge, 307–308 culture shock and, 72–73, 80, 90, 162 ethical positions guiding, 376–379,
378f
female genital mutilation and,
D E 370–371
and global standards versus local
Dalai Lama, 61–62, 126, 293, 385–386 Ecological adaptation, culture and, 19 justice, 372–374
Dating Educational level, acculturation intercultural complexity of, 372
cultural expectations and, 18 process and, 111 intercultural research/training and,
intercultural, 101–102 Effectiveness, communication, 158 382–384
online, 356 Elders, accommodative strategies for, meta-ethics contextualism
Deception, nonverbal communication 151–152 framework and, 379–382
and, 258–260 Embedded systems, 30 mindful guidelines for, 392–393
Decoding, 28–29 Emblems, in conversational and promotion of global social
Demographic variables, acculturation management, 245–246 justice/peace building,
process and, 111 Emic approach, 39, 42, 43, 45 384–392
Denotative meaning, 204 Emic meanings of language, 205, 210 ethical transcultural
Developing countries, corporate Emory–Tibet Partnership, 386 communication and, 388–392
ethical responsibilities in, Emoticons/emoji, research on use of, secular ethics and, 385–388
374–376 243–244 and universalism versus
Developmental model of intercultural Emotional security, identity group particularism, 376
sensitivity (DMIS), 278–280, membership and, 54–55 Ethical intercultural communication,
279f Emotions mindful guidelines for, 393
Deviance, nonverbal communication defining characteristics of, 156 Ethical intercultural research,
and, 258–260 face-sensitive, 329 382–384
Dialect, as identity marker, 241 facework, research on, 333–334 Ethics
Dialogue nonverbal expression of, 235–236, defining, 371–372
constructive, about prejudice/ 241–245 universalist versus particularistic
discrimination, 296–298 Empathy, cultural, peace building approaches to, 376
identity-sensitive, 390 and, 390 Ethnic identity
Digital communication, asynchronous Encoding, 28–29 in assimilationist societies, 106
versus synchronous, 8 Enculturation, defined, 105 defined, 59–60
Digital technologies, availability of, 8 English language preserving, 115–117
Digitality, 7 male generic role in, 216 Ethnic media, immigrant
Disability, stigmatization of, 124–125 verbal style in, 224–225 acculturation and, 112
Discourse, critical theory and, 46 Environment, behavioral influences Ethnocentrism
Discrimination of, 252–253 characteristics of, 147–148
forms of, 291–292 Environmental spatial boundaries, communication and, 277–280
prejudice and, 288 regulation of, 252–254 and communicative distances, 278
Discriminatory practices, mind-sets ESP (ethnocentrism, stereotypes, defined, 12, 277
and, 291–295 prejudice), awareness of, 306, versus ethnorelativism, 278–279,
Disparagement, distance of, 278 317 279f
Dispositions, personal, 180–187 Essentialism, defined, 274 filtering and, 287
Divergence, as communicative Ethical algorithm formula, ingroup favoritism principle and,
strategy, 151 Donaldson’s, 375–376 273–274
Diversity Ethical choices, 370–394 macro level, 290
primary versus secondary case story, 370–371 Muslim stereotyping and, 149
dimensions of, 6–7 and corporate responsibility versus states of, 278–279
U. S. trends in, 5–7 local practices, 374–376 universality of, 299
454 Subject Index

Ethnolinguistic vitality language and dark side of face, 331–332 Friendships, of international students,
function, 209–210 future research directions for, 84, 94
Ethnology of speaking, 43 332–336 Functional/social scientific paradigm,
Ethnorelative perspective, 150 identity-based threats and, 317 37–41
Ethnorelativism, 4 key conditions of, 322 methodologies used in, 39–40
characteristics of, 278, 280 Facebook strengths and limitations of,
defined, 12–13 intercultural intimate relationships 39–40
versus ethnocentrism, 278–279, and, 355–356
279f Muslim immigrants and, 114
Etic bias, 38, 40 Face-losing/saving behaviors, G
Etic meanings of language, 205 319–320
European Americans Face-sensitive emotions, cross- Gandhi, M. K., 293
activity orientation and, 194 cultural study of, 329 Gay marriage, legalization of, 342
dominance of, 148 Face-threatening process (FTP), Gender identity, 62
ethnic identity and, 60 triggering conditions and, androgynous versus traditional sex
human nature orientation and, 193 322 role, 185
people–nature value orientation Facework Gender roles, 176–177; see also
and, 189–190 characteristics of, 320 Masculinity–femininity
relational orientation and, 195 defined, 153 dimension
temporal orientation of, 191 and identity negotiation, research expectations for, intercultural
verbal style of, 226–227 on, 333 intimate relationships and,
Expatriates, defined, 75 intercultural competence in, 345
Expectations 335–336 Generalizations, versus stereotypes,
about love, 348–350 types of, 324 13
intercultural, 27 Facework emotions, research on, Generation, defined, 64
Experimental designs, 39 333–334 Generational role identity, 64–65
Exploitation theory, 288 Facework strategies, 324–327, 325f, Global boundary-crossing, trends
Eye contact, in conversational 326f in, 4–5
management, 247 cultural/individual variability and, Global leaders, cross-cultural
327–328 competencies for, 5
independent versus interdependent Global networks, children’s
F self-construal and, 328 programming and, 9
Facial expressions Global nomads, 78
Face explanations of, 241–242 Global workplace, transferees in,
Chinese concept of, 180 individualism–collectivism 77–78
dark side of, 331–332 spectrum and, 242 Globalization, 3
definition and concept of, 319–320 studies of, 235–236 professional role identities and,
intergenerational, 331–332 Families, global mobility and, 77–78 65–66
Face concerns, facets of, 323–324 Family, uncertainty avoidance Grammar, conceptual reality and,
Face identity issues, 153–154 dimension in, 175 211–212
Face identity support, 152–153 Family role identity, 63–64 Greetings, cultural variations in,
Face negotiation theory (FNT), 49–51 Female genital mutilation, case story, 12–13
constructs/research findings, 370–371 Grice’s conversational clarity maxim,
322–327 Flexible mind-set, developing, 220–221
facets of face concerns, 323–324 146–149 Grounded theory, 43
facework strategies and conflict Forgiveness, cross-cultural study of, Group identity language function,
styles, 324–327, 325f, 326f 329–330 208–209
core assumptions of, 321–322 Frame switching, cultural, 130, 150, Group vitality, measurement of, 148,
cultural/individual variability and, 152; see Cultural frame- 209–210
327–328 switching Groups, identity stigmatized, 53
culture-sensitive knowledge basis France, cultural assimilationist stance Guilt, cultural associations with,
of, 307–308 of, 106 329
 Subject Index 455

H I Identity-based threats, 317–320

integrated threat theory and, 317–319
Haptic studies, 251–252 Iceberg metaphor, 14–15, 15f, 58 Identity-rejection strategies, 150
Harassment, versus teasing, 135–137, Identity(ies) Immigrant acculturation process,
140, 148 changes in sojourners, 95 recommendations for
Hegemony, characteristics of, 45 composite domains of, 57 managing, 131
Heterostereotyping, 280–281 cultural values and, 165–166 Immigrants
High-contact cultures, 250–251 culture and, 17, 38 acculturation process of (see
High-context cultures intercultural conflict and, 305–306 Acculturation process)
communication in, 217–221, intersections among, 63–64 bicultural/multicultural, 153
218t language and, 210 conformist expectations for, 106
nonverbal communication in, language as marker of, 208 cultural knowledge of, 110
243–244 local versus global, 8–9 defined, 75
role of silence in, 227–228 reflection and management of, expectations of, 109–110
Hijras, 123–124 238–241 identity change models for,
Hindu belief system, nonverbal resisting mainstream perspectives 115–120
symbols in, 233–234 of, 46 involuntary, 109
Hindu culture, self-concept in, 181 stigmatized, challenges and motivational orientations of, 109
Home adaptation, 123–125 refugees versus, 104
cultural interpretations of, 16–17 third-culture, 9 religious identity of, 61
sojourners and, 97–98 Identity affirmation, 55–56 undocumented, U. S. meaning
Honeymoon phase of cultural Identity change models definition of, 107
adjustment, 88, 93 bicultural-oriented, 116 in U. S., 6
Hopi language, cognitive reasoning for immigrants/minority members, Impartial approach to intercultural
and, 212 115–120 conflict, 312–313, 313f
Horizontal collectivism, 172 outcomes of, 129–130 Impressions, nonverbal management
Horizontal individualism, 172 traditional-/ethnic-oriented option, of, 248–249
Host country, 106 115–116 Inclusion, practicing, versus valuing
cultural distance and, 108 Identity confirmation, ethnic- diversity, 7
individual-level factors in, sensitive, 300 Independent/interdependent-self
109–111 Identity consistency, 55 individuals, facework
meaning definition of strangers’ Identity diversity issues, intercultural/ strategies and, 328
role in, 107–108 intergroup communication Independent-self individuals, 67, 83,
sexual orientation issues and, and, 137–138 185–186
123–124 Identity in-betweenness, 129 versus interdependent-self
socioeconomic conditions/ Identity management theory, 37 individuals, 67
attitudinal stance of, 106 interracial marriages and, 365–366 India
systems-level factors in, 105–108 Identity meaning, 25 secularism and, 386
Host media, immigrant acculturation Identity negotiation, facework and, Tibetan adaptation and, 107
and, 113 research on, 333 transgender people in, 123–124
Human language system, 200–207 Identity negotiation theory (INT), 37, Indian culture, case story, 233
arbitrariness of, 201 51, 131; see also Integrative Indifference, distance of, 278
functions of, 202f identity negotiation theory Individual mobility strategy, 125
multilayered rules of, 201–205, (IINT) Individualism
202f intercultural communication characteristics of, 170
pragmatic rules and speech competence and, 137 horizontal, 172
community of, 205–207 intercultural conflict competence in U. S. culture, 17
styles of, 202f and, 305 vertical, 172
Human nature value orientation, Identity plan, for intercultural Individualism–collectivism spectrum,
189t, 193 intimate relationships, 170–173, 171t, 181
Humor, culture shock and, 83, 90 366–367 conflict behaviors and, 311–312, 313f
Hypertextuality, 8 Identity stigmatized groups, 53 conflict management and, 337–338
456 Subject Index

Individualism–collectivism spectrum key assumptions of, 54–57 intergroup–interpersonal

(cont.) key backdrop ideas, 51–54 discoveries, 10–11
conflict styles/face concerns and, review of, 270–271 media trends, 7–10
323–324 social identity theory and, 270–271 mindful communication
emotional expression and, 242 underlying metatheoretical practice, 11–13
intercultural intimate relationships premises of, 53 and research on ethical issues,
and, 344–345, 344t Interaction predictability, 55 382–383
and value dimension approaches to Interaction-based knowledge, 110 sociocultural–macro environment
conflict, 312–314, 313f Interactive situation, 26 of, 27
value patterns in, 171t Interactivity, 8 sojourner adjustments and, 86
Individualistic cultures, 165–166 Intercultural acculturation; see also summary and mindful guidelines,
anxiety/uncertainty management Acculturation process 30–31
and, 347 characteristics of, 104–105 and training on ethical issues,
emotional expression and, 242 Intercultural adjustment, 81–95 383–384
interpersonal interactive synchrony models of, 86–95 transactional model of, 22, 22f
and, 258 critiques of, 93–95 transactional nature of, 23
language and, 207 U-curve, 87 Intercultural communication
love attitudes/expectations in, W-shaped, 87f, 88–95 competence
348–349 M-shaped adjustment pattern of, 93 stages of, 142–144, 143f
low-context communication in, studies of, 93–95 theoretical basis of, 137
218t underlying factors, 82–86 Intercultural conflict, defined, 304
M-time pattern in, 256 Intercultural communication Intercultural conflict competence,
nonverbal communication in, 236 clashes in, 29 304, 305–309
physical boundaries in, 253 components of, 199 components of, 307–309
self-disclosure and, 355 conceptualization of, 20–27 criteria for, 306–307
value tendencies of, 187 and characteristics of, 22–27 mindfulness and, 308–309
verbal interaction styles in, key terms in, 20–22 Intercultural intimate relationships,
221–222 and conceptualization of culture, 340–369; see also Interracial
Indulgence–restraint dimension, 180 14–20 marriages; Same-sex
Ingroup favoritism principle, 273–274 context of, 29–30 marriages
Ingroup favoritism/outgroup core assumptions of, 28–30 benefits of, 357–359
discrimination, social identity critical thinking and connective case story, 340–342
theory and, 272–274 application questions, 32 conflict/stumbling blocks,
Ingroup–outgroup differentiation, versus cross-cultural 357–367
cultural values and, 168 communication, 20–21 countering prejudice/racism,
Institutional discrimination, direct defined, 13–27, 22 362–363
versus indirect, 292 embedded systems and, 30 encountering prejudice/racism,
Institutional racism, 293 ethical, mindful guidelines for, 393 359–362
Integrated threat theory (ITT), 287 interactive situation and, 26 raising secure bicultural
identity-based threats and, 317–319 intercultural expectations and, 27 children, 365–366
intergroup encounters and, 270 intergroup perception and, 26–27 transgressions and cross-cultural
Integrative communication theory, 37 introduction to, 3–4 responses, 364–365
Integrative identity negotiation irreversibility and, 23–24 developing identity plan/
competence, criteria for, mindful guidelines, 30–31 relationship satisfaction,
138–144 and negotiation of shared 366–367
Integrative identity negotiation meanings, 24–25 mindful guidelines for, 367–368
theory (IINT), 50–57, 137 paradigms and examples, 395–396 romantic, development stages of,
core composite identity domains process of, 23 357–359
and (see Core composite reasons for studying, 4–13 Intercultural knowledge, 145–146
identity domains) domestic diversity trends, 5–7 Intercultural nonverbal
dialectical nature of, 56–57 global boundary-crossing trends, communication; see
intergroup encounters and, 269 4–5 Nonverbal communication
 Subject Index 457

Intercultural sensitivity, complex sociocultural identity Intergenerational face, 331–332

developmental model of, intersection, 69 Intergenerational groups, competent
278–280, 279f core composite identity domains communication in, 151–152
Intercultural verbal communication; and, 58–70, 58f Intergroup adaptability, 142
see Mindful intercultural gender identity, 62 Intergroup appropriateness, 141
verbal communication personal identity attributes, Intergroup attribution, 283–286, 286f
Intercultural–intergroup 66–67 attribution theory and, 284–285
communication relational role/professional role functions of, 283
skills set component and, 149–152 identities, 65–66 intergroup attribution theory and,
theories under, 37 religious/spiritual identity, 285–286
Intercultural–intergroup 60–62 Intergroup attribution theory,
communication competence, sociocultural membership, intergroup encounters and,
135–160; see also Culture- 59–60 269–270
sensitive competence sociorelational role identities, Intergroup communication
components 63–65 adaptation and, 121–125
culture-sensitive competence stigmatized group-based defined, 140
components and, 144–154 identities, 62–63 increasing opportunities for, 298
desired outcomes for, 152–154 symbolic interaction identities, mindful guidelines for, 298–300
integrative identity negotiation 67–68 qualifying language in, 297
and, 138–144 critical/cultural studies paradigm Intergroup communication,
intercultural competence and, 45–50 paradigms and examples,
criteria and, 138–140 critical thinking and connective 395–396
intergroup competence criteria application questions, 71 Intergroup communication
and, 140–144 functional/social scientific competence
introduction to, 136–138 paradigm and, 37–41 components of, 146
mindfulness components and integrative identity negotiation criteria of, 140–144
outcomes, 154–158 theory framework and, 50–57 intergroup attitudes and, 148–149
mindfulness model of, 145f (see also Identity negotiation versus interpersonal
Intercultural–intergroup conflict theory) communication competence,
issues, 302–339; see also interpretive paradigm and, 41–45 140–141
Culture-based situational introduction to, 35–36 theoretical basis of, 137
conflict model; Face mindful guidelines, 69–70 Intergroup effectiveness, 141–142
negotiation theory (FNT) theorizing and researching, 36–50 Intergroup interaction, defined, 269
case story, 303–304 Intercultural–intimate relationships Intergroup misunderstanding/bias,
critical thinking and connective interpersonal factors in case story, 267–268
application questions, attitudinal similarity, 352–353 Intergroup perceptions, 26–27, 271
338–339 online affection disclosure and, International students
culture-based situational conflict 355 acculturation process of, 56–57
model and, 309–317 physical attractiveness, 351–352 friendships of, 94
identity-based threats and face- self-disclosure and, 353–355 as sojourners, 74–75, 76–77
threatening process, 317–320 sociocultural membership identity Internment camps, for Japanese
and intercultural conflict and, 343–351 Americans, 149
competence, 305–309 stumbling blocks to, 342–343 Interpersonal communication
components of, 307–309 Interdependent-self individuals, 67, cultural values and, 66
criteria for, 306–307 83, 183, 186 underlying theories of, 51
introduction, 304–305 Interfaith dialogue, 61–62 Interpersonal communication
mindful guidelines for, 336–338 Interfaith marriages competence, versus
Intercultural–intergroup engagement, identity management theory and, intergroup communication
33–71 365–366 competence, 140–141
appropriate use of paradigms in, prevalence of, 342 Interpersonal connections, 55
45–50 Intergenerational communication, 141 Interpersonal contexts, versus social
case story, 33–35 challenges and models, 121–122 contexts, 140–141
458 Subject Index

Interpersonal interactive synchrony, L Local institutions, acculturation

257–258 process and, 107
Interpersonal spatial boundaries, Languaculture, 201–202 Locus of control, internal versus
regulation of, 249–252 Language(s); see also Cross-cultural external, 190–191
Interpersonal-level factors verbal communication styles; Love, attitudes/expectations about,
immigrant acculturation process Cultural values and language intercultural intimate
and, 111–114 functions; Human language relationships and, 348–350
outcomes and, 128–129 system; specific languages Low-contact cultures, 250–251
Interpretive paradigm, 41–45 borrowed words in, 214 Low-context cultures
methodologies in, 43 coinage of new words in, 217 communication in, 217–221, 218t
and need for culture-sensitive cultural meanings of, 205 nonverbal communication in,
knowledge/linguistic skills, 43 defined, 200 243–244
strengths and limitations of, 44 emic meanings of, 210
Interracial marriages etic meanings of, 205
divorce rates and, 365–366 gender and, 216 M
prevalence of, 342 identity and, 210
Intersection, SICT and, 120 as identity marker, 67–68, 208 Maintenance, as communicative
In-the-moment present orientation, inclusive versus exclusive, 300 strategy, 151
155 morphological rules of, 203 Mandela, N. R., 293
Isomorphic attribution, 280 non-native speakers of, 229 Marriages, intercultural, 43
Izzat, and dark side of face, 331–332 phonological rules of, 202 Masculinity–femininity spectrum,
power-holders and, 210 176–178, 177t, 181
qualifying, for intergroup Meaning
J perceptions, 297 content, 24–25
relational status/intimacy and, denotative versus connotative, 204
Japanese Americans, during World 213–214 identity, 25
War II, 149 semantic rules of, 204 negotiating, 24
Japanese culture, Midooka’s as shaper of ideas, 211–212 relational, 25–26
relationship classification and, social evaluation functions of, Media
316–317 214–215 host, immigrant acculturation and,
Japanese language, verbal style in, syntactic rules of, 203–204 113
224–225 translation issues and, 204–205 interconnectedness and, 3
Johari window, 390–391, 391f worldviews/beliefs and, 210–211 new, features of, 7–8
Language fluency, of immigrants, Media trends, in intercultural
110 communication, 7–10
K Latino/a Americans Melting pot metaphor, 106
activity orientation and, 194 Merger, SICT and, 120
Kabat-Zinn, J., 12 ethnic identity and, 60 Messages, encoding and decoding of,
Kennedy, A., 342 relational orientation and, 195 28–29
Kinesics Latino/a population, demographic Metacognition awareness orientation,
in conversational management, changes in, 5–6 156–158
245 Leadership, personal, practices of, Meta-ethics contextualism
defined, 241 11–12 framework, 379–382
King, M. L., Jr., 293 LGBT movements, 127 macro- and micro-level analysis
Knowledge Liberals, fair-weather, 292t, 293 and, 379–380
culture-sensitive, 307–308 Linguistic practices, culturally procedures and reflexive questions,
interaction-based, 110 linked, 220–221 380–382
Korean culture, indirect Listening Mexican Americans, temporal
communication style in, 223 mindful, 150, 389 orientation of, 191–192
Korean language mindless, 150 Mexican culture
relational status and, 214 mindless versus mindful, 151t family role identity and, 63–64
verbal style in, 225 Liu Xiaobo, 166 quinceañera and, 166–167
 Subject Index 459

Mexican immigrants, stigmatization intercultural–intergroup Muslims, discrimination against,

of, 123 communication competence 61, 63
Microaggressions, 294–295 and, 145f Muted group theory, 46
constructive dialogue principles as key factor in intercultural
and, 295 communication, 21–22
forms of, 294–295 mindful guidelines for, 158–159 N
Millennials, 64 threefold-faceted prism of,
Mindful communication, cultivating, 154–159 Naming, cultural determinants of,
11–13 Mindfulness practice 209
Mindful intercultural nonverbal roots of, 12 Native American cultures, role of
communication, 232–263 source and definition of, 154 silence in, 228
case story, 233 Mindless listening, 150, 151t Native Americans
critical thinking and connective Mind-set activity orientation and, 194
application questions, 263 communication and, 286–298 ethnic identity and, 60
deception and deviance and, 258–260 discriminatory practices/racism human nature orientation and, 193
interpersonal interactive synchrony and, 291–295 people–nature value orientation
and, 257–258 flexible, developing, 146–149 and, 189–190
introduction, 233–234 group vitality and, 148 relational orientation and, 195
mindful guidelines for, 261–262 intergroup encounters and, temporal orientation of, 191
nonverbal cautions and, 260 269–270 Negativity, principle of, 284
Mindful intercultural verbal microaggressions and, 294–295 Neuroculture perspective
communication, 198–231 and perceived intergroup threat, on emotional facial expression,
case story, 199–200 286–287 241–242
critical thinking and connective power and privilege and, 289–295 on nonverbal communication,
application questions, 231 prejudice and communication and, 236–237
cross-cultural verbal 287–289 New media
communication styles and, and reducing prejudice/ asynchronous versus synchronous,
217–228 discrimination, 296–298 8
cultural values and, 207–217 Minority groups features of, 7–8
human language system and, dominant/mainstream culture sojourner adjustment and, 84–85
200–207 and, 45 Nhat Hanh, T., 12
mindful guidelines for, 229–231 identity change models for, Nixon, R. M., 223–224
O.P.E.N. Guide and, 230–231 115–120 Nomads, global, 78
Mindful listening, 150, 151t Monochronic time, versus Non-native speakers, 229
non-native speakers and, 229 polychronic time, 255–257, Nonverbal communication; see
peace building and, 389 255t also Mindful intercultural
Mindful O-D-I-S method, 388 Moral exclusion, 386–387 nonverbal communication
Mindful reframing, peace building Moral inclusion–exclusion, social bioevolutionary perspective on,
and, 389–390 justice issues and, 385–388 235–236
Mindfulness, 154–158 Morphological rules, 203 cautions for interpreting, 260
as connective hook, 154–155 Mother Teresa, 293 deception/deviance and, 258–260
critical thinking and connective Motivational orientations definition and characteristics, 238
application questions, cultural values and, 167–168 functions and patterns of, 238–249,
159–160 of immigrants, 109 239f
facework and, 335–336 M-shaped adjustment pattern, of conversational management,
intercultural conflict competence intercultural adjustment, 93 245–248
and, 308–309 Muslim Americans, stereotypes of, expression of emotions/attitudes,
intercultural/intergroup 149 241–245
communication and, 135–160 Muslim immigrants impression formation/attraction,
(see also Intercultural Facebook use and, 114 248–249
communication; Intergroup in France, 106 reflection/management of
communication) Muslim religious identity, 61 identities, 238–241
460 Subject Index

Nonverbal communication (cont.) Perceptual filters/biases, intergroup, language preferences and, 210
functions of, 233–234 267–301; see also Intergroup mind-set and, 289–291
identity and, 238–241 attribution; Mind-set; Social Pragmatic language rules, 205–207
impression formation and identity theory Prejudice
attraction and, 248–249 case story, 267–268 approaches to, 288–289
and interpersonal interactive critical thinking and connective arm’s-length, 293
synchrony, 257–258 application questions, 301 communication and, 287–289
mindful decoding of, 262 and cultural values and language defined, 288
mindful guidelines for, 261–262 functions, 210–211 functions of, 289
multiple perspectives on, 234–237 and ethnocentrism and identity threat types leading to,
neuroculture theory and, stereotypes, 269, 287 318–319
236–237 intergroup biased, 51, 298 intercultural intimate relationships
nonverbal cautions and, 260 language as, 207, 217 and, 359–363
sociocultural perspective on, 236 Personal dispositions, 180–187 Prejudice/discrimination
as source of confusion, 234 Personal identity, 53, 158 functions of, 299
spatial boundary regulation and attributes of, 66–67 reducing via constructive dialogue,
environmental, 252–254 possible components of, 52 296–298
interpersonal, 249–252 Personal leadership, practices of, Prejudice–discrimination typology,
temporal, 254–257, 255t 11–12 292–294, 292f
Normative culture, 15 Personal networks, 131 Pride parades, multicultural, 126–127
Personality attributes Privacy
acculturation process and, 110–111 need for, 345
O horizontal versus vertical, 183–184 regulation of, 252–254
Personality traits, culture shock and, Private self, public self versus, 354
Obama, B., 61, 269 82–83 Privilege; see also Power/privilege
Online dating, 356 Personality types, uncertainty- versus critical theory and, 46–47
O.P.E.N. Guide, 230–231 certainty-oriented, 184–185 defined, 290
Open-hearted attitudes, developing, Phonological rules, 202 mind-sets and, 289–291
146–149 Physical attraction, perceptions of, Professional role identities, 65–66
Oppression, critical/cultural studies 351–352 Proxemic studies, 249–251
paradigm and, 45–47 Physical attractiveness, cultural Psychological adjustment, culture
Overgeneralization differences in, 351–352 shock and, 83
avoiding, 260 Physical boundaries, regulation of, Psychological boundaries, regulation
stereotyping and, 280 252–254 of, 254
Pluralistic societies, ethnic identity Public self, versus private self, 354
in, 106–107
P Polychronic time, versus monochronic
time, 255–257, 255t Q
Pakistan, transgender people in, Power, group relations and, 299
123–124 Power distance, 38, 48, 66, 148, 153, Qualitative research, interpretive
Paraphrasing skill, 229–230 162, 163, 166, 169–170, 242 paradigm and, 43
Particularistic societies, examples and conflict behaviors and, 312, 313f Quinceañera, role in Mexican culture,
characteristics of, 186 defined, 173 166–167
Peace building factors associated with, 173–174, 174t
secular ethics and, 385–388 nonverbal versus verbal emotional
transcultural communication and, cues and, 242 R
387–392, 391f relational meaning and, 25–26
Peace Corps volunteers, 75, 76 Power struggles, critical studies Racial–ethnic identity development
People–nature value orientation, paradigm and, 45–47 models, 117–119, 118f
189–191, 189t Power/privilege Racism
Perception checking, 262, 389 definitions of, 289–290 case story, 267–268
Perceptions, intergroup, 26–27 in exploitation theory, 288 cultural, 293
 Subject Index 461

institutional, 293 Scapegoating theory, prejudice and, Similarity–attraction hypothesis,

intercultural intimate relationships 288 352–353
and, 359–363 Secular Ethics in Education: Situational appraisal strategies,
mind-set and, 291–295 Educating the Heart and positive, 83–84
personal, 293 Mind, 386 Situational complexity dynamics, 55
symbolic, 293 Self-conceptions, 180–187 Situational role parameters, in
Reentry culture shock, 95–98 cultural differences in, 181 intercultural conflict,
surprising elements of, 95–96 and culture, personality, situational 315–316
Reframing, mindful, peace building considerations, 186–187 Situational structure, types of,
and, 389–390 defined, 180 186–187
Refugees and horizontal versus vertical Skillsets, intercultural–intergroup
immigrants versus, 104 personality attributes, communication and, 149–152
motivational orientation and, 109 183–184 Smiles, connotations of, 243
Regulators, in conversational independent versus Social categorization, functions and
management, 246–248 interdependent, 182–183 effects of, 274–275
Relational dialectics theory (RDT), 51 sex role identity and, 185 Social comparison, function and types
Relational distance parameters, in situational considerations, 186–187 of, 275–277
intercultural conflict, and uncertainty versus certainty- Social competition strategy, 125–127
316–317 oriented personality type, Social contexts, versus interpersonal
Relational meaning, 25–26 184–185 contexts, 140–141
Relational role identities, 65 Self-construal Social creativity strategy, 125–126
Relational status/intimacy language independent versus Social evaluation language function,
function, 213–214 interdependent, facework 214–215
Relational transgressions, cross- strategies and, 328 Social identity, possible components
cultural responses to, independent versus interdependent of, 52
364–365 (relational), 182–183 Social identity complexity theory
Relational value orientation, 189t, Self-disclosure (SICT), 51–53
194–195 cross-cultural comparisons of, patterns of, 120–121
individual/collateral/lineal 353–355 Social identity theory, 270–283
variations, 194–195 Johari window and, 390–391, 391f core concepts of, 298
Relationships, Midooka’s classification trust building and, 392 ethnocentrism and communication
of, 316–317 Self-enhancement verbal style, in, 277–280
Relativism, ethical, 377–378, 378f versus self-effacement style, intergroup encounters and, 269
Religious/spiritual identity, 60–62 225–227 intergroup perception and, 271–272
Resident aliens, U. S. meaning Self-esteem, ingroup favoritism principles of, 272–274
definition of, 107 principle and, 273 social categorization and, 274–275
Resocialization, of sojourners, 96–97 Self-talk strategies, positive, 83 social comparison and, 275–277
Respect, cultural displays of, 236 Semantic rules, 204 stereotypes and communication in,
Roosevelt, F. D., 149 Sexism, linguistic, 216 280–283, 282t
Sexual orientation, host environments Social justice, promotion of, 384–392
and, 123 secular ethics and, 385–388
S Short- versus long-term time through ethical transcultural
dimension, 178–180, 179t communication, 388–392,
Salad bowl metaphor, 106 Sikhs, discrimination against, 63 391f
Same-sex marriages, legalization of, Silence Social media
342 communicative function of, asynchronous versus synchronous,
Sapir–Whorf language hypothesis, 227–228 8
211–213 in intercultural mediation, and cultural–ethnic values versus
Sato, E., 223–224 308–309 social media values, 9–10
Satyarthi, K., 120, 166, 293 Silent Generation, 64 culture shock and, 99
Saudi student, and intercultural Similarity, attitudinal, perceptions of, immigrant acculturation and,
misunderstanding, 199–200 352–353 113–114
462 Subject Index

Social media (cont.) Sojourners; see also Culture shock Stereotypes

profile construction and, 8 adjustments of, 103 communication and, 280–283, 282t
and redefining/reinventing avoidance strategies of, 89 defined, 280
identities, 9 critical thinking and connective versus generalizations, 13
sojourner adjustment and, 84–85 application questions, 99–100 intergroup interactions and, 269
Social mobility strategy, 276–277 culture shock and adjustment mindless, 287
Social networking sites, intercultural patterns of, 72–100 self-examination for, 297
intimate relationships and, expectations of, 76 types of, 280–281
355–356 global workplace transferees, Stereotyping, 274
Social networks, 131 77–78 factors affecting, 239–240
immigrant acculturation and, identity change in, 95 flexible/mindful, 283
111–112 instrumental versus socioemotional inflexible/mindless, 282, 282t
Social penetration theory, 353–354 goals of, 75–76 mindful, 299
Social perceptions, factors affecting, mindful guidelines for, 98–99 mindless/inflexible, 299
239–240 motivations and expectations of, Stigmatized identities, 62–63
Social structures, tight versus loose, 75–76 challenges and adaptation,
186–187, 237 participator strategies, 89 123–125
Socialization value patterns pounce/passive–aggressive Strangers, and meaning definition in
cultural, 310, 312–314, 313f strategies of, 88–89 host country, 107–108
individual, 315 reentry culture shock and, 95–98 Students; see International students
Societal standards, universal versus resocialization of, 91, 96–97 Subjective culture, 15
particularistic, 186 student, 76–77 Sudan, ethics case story from,
Sociocultural adjustment, culture third-culture kids/global nomads, 372–373
shock and, 83–84 78 Symbolic exchange, 22, 22f
Sociocultural group memberships, versus tourists, 86–87 Symbolic interaction identities,
intercultural/intergroup tourists as, 78–79 67–68
communication and, 137–138 transformer, 91–92, 96–97 Symbolic interaction identity domain,
Sociocultural identities types of, 74–79 53, 54, 67–68
complex, intersection of, 69 South Asia, transgender people in, Symbolic interactionism theory (SIT),
diversity of, 4, 28 123–124 51–52
increased consciousness of, 270 Spanish language Symbols, meanings/interpretations
Sociocultural membership identity, cultural worldview/beliefs and, 211 of, 16
53, 58–60, 58f, 158 relational status and, 213–214 Synchronization, interpersonal,
intercultural–intimate Spatial boundary regulation, 257–258
relationships and, 343–351 249–257 Syntactic rules, 203–204
anxiety/uncertainty interaction environmental, 252–254 Systems-level factors
management and, 346–348 physical, 252–254 in host country, 105–108
cultural–ethnic membership psychological, 254 outcomes and, 128–129
values in, 343–345, 344t, 346f interpersonal, 249–252
love attitudes/expectations and, haptics and, 251–252
348–350 proxemics and, 249–251 T
personal and structural temporal, 254–257, 255t
commitment and, 350–351 Speaking, ethnology of, 43 “Teamsterville,” 42
Sociocultural perspective, on Speech code, defined, 206 Teasing, versus harassment, 135–137,
nonverbal communication, Speech code theory, 41 140, 148
236, 237 Speech community, 206–207 Technological-related industries,
Socioeconomic conditions, in interpretive research and, 41–43 immigrant roles in, 8
acculturation process, 106 Standpoint theory, 46 Temporal–spatial boundaries,
Sociorelational role identities, 53, Status-achievement approach to regulation of, 254–257, 255t
63–65 intercultural conflict, 312, Temporal value orientation, 189t,
Sociotyping, 281–282 313–314, 313f 191–192
 Subject Index 463

Text messaging, advantages and Trust building, self-disclosure and, self-construal and, 181
disadvantages of, 243–244 392 Western-exported, 9
Theoretically guided frame approach, Trust-risk dilemmas, self-disclosure Verbal communication, mindful inter­
43 and, 354 cultural; see Mindful inter­
Third-culture kids (TCKs), 78, 97 cultural verbal communication
Third-culture perspective, 129–130, Verbal interactions, direct versus
279 U indirect, 221–224
Threat; see also Identity-based Verbal styles
threats; Integrated threat “U” learning process, intercultural person- versus status-oriented,
theory (ITT) conflict and, 308–309 224–225
ingroup favoritism-outgroup U-curve adjustment model, 87 self-enhancement versus self-
discrimination and, 273 Uncertainty avoidance dimension, effacement, 225–227
perceived 175–176, 176t Vertical collectivism, 173
intergroup biases and, Uncertainty-oriented personality Vertical individualism, 172
286–287 type, 184–185 Vietnamese Americans, ethnic/
types of, 317–318 Undocumented immigrants, U. S. cultural identity category
Tibetan immigrants meaning definition of, 107 options of, 117
dual challenges of, 116–117 United States Virtuality, 8
social creativity strategy and, 126 cultural assimilationist stance of, Vocabulary
Tibetan language 106 innovations in, 217
accents and dialects of, 201 demographic changes in, 5–6 role in thinking/communicating,
social evaluation function and, diversity trends in, 5–7 212
215 dominant group in, 148 Vocalics, as identity markers, 240–241
Tibetan refugees, in India, 107 foreign born in, 6 Vocalizations, 240
Time immigrant population of, 6 Voice, tone and intensity of, 245
cultural perceptions of, 10 verbal style in, 225–226 Voice qualifiers, 240
monochronic versus polychronic Universalism, ethical, 376, 378f, 379
schedule of, 255–257, 255t Universalistic societies, examples and
study of, 255 characteristics of, 186 W
Ting-Toomey, S. Us–them perspective, 272
honors convocation keynote speech Weddings, intercultural, 43
by, 397–398 Western-centric influences, 40
intercultural journey of, 33–35 V White population, demographic
Tone of voice, 245 changes in, 5–6
Touch Value orientations Workplace
cultural values and, 167 classical (see Classical value norms of, 66–67
haptic studies and, 251–252 orientations) power distance dimension in, 174
Tourists in low- versus high-context uncertainty avoidance dimension
as sojourners, 78–79 communication, 217–221, in, 175–176
versus sojourners, 86–87 218t World Values Survey (WVS), 180
Traditions, culturally shared, 15–16 Values W-shaped cultural adjustment model,
Transformers, 91–92, 96–97 cultural–ethnic, 16 revised, 87f, 88–95
Transgender people, in South Asia, intercultural intimate characteristics of, 92–93
123–124 relationships and, 343–345, stages of, 88–92
Transgressions, relational, cross- 344t, 346f
cultural responses to, versus social media, 9–10
364–365 ethical positions and, 377–379, Y
Translation issues, 204–205 378f
Trump, D., 61 self-conception and, 181 Yousafzai, M., 120, 166, 293, 387
About the Authors

Stella Ting-Toomey, PhD, is Professor of Human Communication Studies at California State

University, Fullerton (CSUF). Her teaching passions include intercultural communication
theory and training and interpersonal conflict management. She is the author or editor of
17 scholarly books, two instructional manuals, two interactive student resource guides, and
more than 120 articles and chapters in prestigious communication journals and handbooks.
Dr. Ting‑Toomey has delivered major keynote speeches on mindful intercultural communica‑
tion in the United States and internationally. She has also conducted a variety of intercultural
conflict competence training workshops for corporations and nonprofit institutes. She is a recipi‑
ent of the CSU Wang Family Excellence Award and the CSUF Outstanding Professor Award
for superlative teaching, research, and service. Dr. Ting-Toomey’s sojourning and immigrant
experiences—as an international student departing from Hong Kong and arriving at Iowa City,
and from Iowa City to Seattle, and then from Seattle onward to New Brunswick, Tempe, and
­Fullerton—together with her daily contact with culturally diverse students at CSUF, enriched
her theorizing and researching journey, as reflected in this book.

Tenzin Dorjee, PhD, is Associate Professor at CSUF. His primary teaching and research inter‑
ests are in intergroup–intercultural identity issues, social justice, and conflict resolution. He is
a recipient of faculty recognition awards for outstanding achievements in teaching, research,
and community service and was recognized as Distinguished Faculty Marshal of the College of
Communications and as Distinguished Faculty Member of the Department of Human Commu‑
nication Studies. In December 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives appointed Dr. Dorjee to
the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). He has traveled
to Burma and Iraq to monitor religious freedom conditions and testified before the U.S. Con‑
gress on religious freedom conditions in Tibet and China. In May of 2018, he was reappointed
to the USCIRF and in June, he was unanimously elected chair of the bipartisan commission. He
has authored or coauthored articles and book chapters on Tibetan culture, identity, and conflict
resolution, among others. He has also translated for His Holiness the Dalai Lama and many
preeminent Tibetan Buddhist professors in India and North America. Dr. Dorjee has distilled
his rich intercultural lived experiences—from growing up and working as a Tibetan refugee in
India for more than 30 years to becoming a professor and the first Tibetan American commis‑
sioner on the USCIRF—as well as his theoretical and research insights in this book.

464