Predictors of intercultural communication competence

Inrernarionrrl Journal of Inrerculruml Relatrom. Printed in the USA. All rights reserved..

Vol. 13. pp. 349-370.

1989 Copyright

EMPIRICAL

0147-1767/89$3.00 + .oO 0 1989 Pergamon Press plc

STUDIES

PREDICTORS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE

RICHARD

L. WISEMAN

California State University MITCHELL

R. HAMMER

American University HIROKO NISHIDA University of Tokyo ABSTRACT This study examined the relationship between intercultural communication (ICC) competence and knowledge of the host culture and cross-cultural attitude. ICC competence was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct which included culture-specific understanding of other, culture-general understanding, and positive regard for other. Using Gudykunst, Wiseman, and Hammer’s model, the cross-cultural attitude consists of cognitive (stereotypes), affective (ethnocentrism), and conative (social distance) components. A total of 887 subjects (206 from Japan, 681 from United States participated in the study which obtained subjects’ open-ended reactions to 44 intercultural situations, and ratings to 29 standardized test items, a social distance scale, and three questions regarding their knowledge of the other culture. Data analysis using the path analysis routine of the LISREL V computer program revealed that the different dimensions of ICC competence had varying relations with the three components of the cross-cultural attitude and knowledge of the other culture. Implications were drawn from the findings and future research foci were recommended.

A breadth of theoretical orientations (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984) have been advanced to examine the “elusive construct” (McCroskey, 1984) of communication competence. It is generally agreed by most writers, however, that the ability to understand is one basic dimension of communication competence. Powers and Lowery (1984), for instance, define commuThis project was partially funded University, Fullerton. Appreciation collection.

by a President’s Summer Stripend is extended to William Gudykunst

from California State for assistance in data

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Dr. Richard L. Wiseman, Speech Communication, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634. 349

Department

of

350

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer, and H. Nishida

nication competence, which they term basic communication fidelity, as the “degree of congruence between the cognitions of two or more individuals following a communication event” (p. 58). Similarly, Littlejohn and Jabusch (1982) identify one basic characteristic of communication competence as process understanding, that is, “the cognitive ability to comprehend the elements and dynamics of a communication event . . . the degree to which a person understands what is going on in a communication transaction” (p. 30). Within the intercultural domain, Gudykunst and Kim (1984) liken communication effectiveness to “minimizing misunderstanding” (p. 191). A second aspect of communication competence is the perceptual judgment made of self and other. Particularly important are those evaluations one makes of the other related to how favorable/unfavorable an impression he/she has made in the conversation. As Spitzberg and Cupach (1984, p. 109) suggest, “The perception of competence is a graduated phenomenon in which behaviors, affective responses, and cognitions are enmeshed within an unfolding dynamic process of conversation. This dynamic process leads to impressions of a person or conversation as more or less appropriate and effective.” Within an intercultural context, communication competence has been investigated in studies with such diverse conceptual foci as sojourner adjustment, immigrant acculturation, intergroup contact, culture shock, cross-cultural training, social change, international management, and foreign student advising, to name but a few (see reviews by Benson, 1978; Brislin, 1981; Gudykunst, 1980; Landis & Brislin, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c; Rogers, 1983; Stening, 1979). When individuals from different cultures interact with one another, interpersonal difficulties may arise due to the cultural backgrounds of the people involved (Barna, 1985; Gudykunst & Kim, 1984). These difficulties typically manifest themselves in mutual misunderstanding and negative impressions of the other and his/her culture (Stening, 1979). Knowledge of the host culture (e.g., its language, values, etc.) and general attitude toward the host culture and its members (e.g., Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Samovar & Porter, 1985) have been consistently posited to play an important role in influencing effective communication across cultures. It is the purpose of the present study, therefore, to examine the influences of knowledge and attitudes toward other on communication competence as evidenced in one’s understanding of communication events and positive impressions of people from a different culture.

KNOWLEDGE OF HOST CULTURE It is perhaps axiomatic to suggest that knowledge of the target or host culture is an important determinant of one’s ability to minimize misun-

Predictors of ICC Competence

351

derstanding with someone from another culture (cf. Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988; Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Porter & Samovar, 1985). Cultural knowledge, according to Miller and Steinberg (1975), refers to one’s “knowledge about another person’s culture-its language, dominant values, beliefs, and prevailing ideology” (p. 226). Cultural knowledge, because it involves an understanding of the norms and communication rules of the other culture, provides an important kind of information upon which the behavior of people from the other culture can be understood (i.e., accurately interpreted and predicted). Research on cultural assimilator training (Fiedler, Mitchell, & Triandis, 1971) suggest that knowledge of the host culture has a positive effect on the sojourner’s ability to make isomorphic attributions (i.e., understand behavior from the host culture’s perspective). Further, research by Bochner (1973) and Guthrie (1975) indicate that cultural learning is a trialand-error process with inaccurate knowledge having in many cases negative consequences for adjustment. Other research on sojourner adjustment reveals that previous cultural experience is an important factor influencing adaptation (Church, 1982; Hull, 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Peterson & Neumeyer, 1948; Selltiz, Christ, Havel, & Cook, 1963). To the extent that previous cultural experience provides accurate knowledge of the host culture, intercultural understanding is maximized (Basu & Ames, 1970; Church, 1982). ATTITUDE TOWARD THE OTHER CULTURE Attitudes an individual holds toward members of a foreign culture play a critical role in influencing how positive or negative his/her impression is of the other culture and its people as well as the degree of mutual understanding that is achieved. Relevant to the present study, Gudykunst, Wiseman, and Hammer (1977) developed a multidimensional model of what they term a general cross-cultural attitude. Consistent with attitude theory (McGuire, 1969), Gudykunst et al. (1977) suggest that a general cross-cultural attitude consists of three interrelated components. The cognitive component refers to how an individual views the attitude object and is composed of the stereotypes he/she has of the other culture and its members. The affective component comprises the individual’s feelings of like/dislike toward the attitude object and may be conceived of as the degree of ethnocentrism felt by the individual. The conative component refers to the individual’s gross behavioral tendencies toward the attitude object and reflects the social distance intentions of the individual towards members of the other culture. As Stening (1979, p. 275) suggests, “There is a considerable amount of evidence within the literature to suggest that many of the misunderstandings which arise in intercultural relationships

352

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer, and H. Nishida

are rooted in the stereotypes, prejudices, and ethnocentristic perspectives of the parties involved.” Research suggests that these three dimensions of a general cross-cultural attitude are interrelated. For instance, stereotypes are related to ethnocentrism (Levine & Campbell, 1972) and impact on discriminatory behavior toward outgroup members (Rubovitz & Maehr, 1973), while ethnocentrism has been found to influence the degree of social distance between members of different social groups (O’Driscoll & Feather, 1983).

The Cognitive Component: Stereotypes Allport (1954) characterizes a stereotype as “an exaggerated belief associated with a category” (p. 187), while Brislin (1981) views a stereotype as “any categorization of individual elements concerned with people which mask differences among those elements” (p. 44). While a tremendous volume of research has examined the influence of stereotypes on human behavior (cf. Cauthen, Robinson, & Krauss, 1971; Hewstone & Giles, 1986; Jaspars & Hewstone, 1982), relevant to the present study is the influence of stereotypes on an individual’s communication with members of a host culture. Hewstone and Giles (1986) recent review of social stereotypes suggests that (a) stereotyping can affect information processing, that is, more favorable information is remembered about in-groups and more unfavorable information is remembered about out-groups; (b) stereotypes generate expectancies which people conform to, that is, people see (and remember) behaviors that confirm their stereotypes; and (c) stereotypes constrain the communicative alternatives of other and cause stereotype-confirming communication from the other, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Further, research suggests that the greater the contrast between two cultures in a specified area/topic, the more likely that feature will appear, in a typically exaggerated fashion, in the stereotype each group has of one another (Campbell, 1967). Thus, stereotypes typically are at least partially inaccurate (Harding, Proshansky, Kutner, & Chein, 1969). Inaccurate stereotypes, in turn, can lead to inaccurate predictions about the behavior of people from the other culture (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988). As Barna (1985) concludes: “Stereotypes are stumbling blocks for communication because they interfere with objective viewing of the stimuli- the sensitive search for cues to guide the imagination toward the other person’s reality” (p. 334).

The Affective Component: Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism

as a construct was first formally introduced by Sumner

Predictors of ICC Competence

353

(1940) as, “the technical name for the view of things in which one’s own is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (p. 13). Originally conceived as a multidimensional concept, more recent formulations have stressed the evaluative (affective) nature of ethnocentrism. Gudykunst and Kim (1984), for instance, define ethnocentrism as the “tendency to identify with our ingroup (e.g., ethnic or racial group, culture) and to evaluate out-groups and their members according to its standards” (p. 92). This emphasis on the affective component of ethnocentrism is supported by Brewer and Campbell (1976), who found in an extensive study of 1500 people from 30 ethnic groups in East Africa that “the facet of ethnocentrism that comes closest to universality” (p. 143) is the tendency to evaluate one’s own group in a positive manner (compared to outgroup members). At the level of individual interaction, typical outcomes of high ethnocentrism include perceptual distortion (Burk, 1976) and misunderstanding (Rokeach, 1960, 1973). As Gudykunst and Kim (1984) suggest, “a high level of ethnocentrism leads us to interpret strangers’ behavior using our own cultural frame of reference, thereby possibly distorting the meaning of the strangers’ behavior” (p. 94). In contrast, a low level of ethnocentrism (i.e., cultural relativity) has been identified by a number of authors as a critical variable facilitating effective intercultural communication (Arensberg & Niehoff, 197 1; Gardner, 1962; Kleinjans, 1972; Mottram, 1963; Samovar & Porter, 1985). Cultural relativity has been posited as an integral component of Bochner’s (1973, 1981) conceptualization of the mediating person and Adler’s (1974) characterization of the multicultural person. Further, in a series of studies sponsored by the Canadian International Developmental Agency (CIDA) which examined predictors of overseas success (Ruben, 1976; Ruben & Kealey, 1979), one recent investigation (Hawes & Kealy, 1979, 1981) found that lower levels of ethnocentrism were significant predictors of CIDA employees’ professional/cultural adjustment.

The Conative Componen 1: Social Distance The third component of Gudykunst et al.‘s (1977) cross-cultural attitude is the conative component. This refers to one’s behavioral intentions (i.e., attitudinal associations with and actions toward members of the other culture). It can be argued that the more predisposed one is to interact and associate with other persons, the more accurate the information he/she should gather, thus increasing his/her understanding. Conversely, the greater the social distance (i.e., the more prejudiced against interacting and associating with other persons), the more likely inaccurate information will be gathered, thus increasing misunderstanding. A long line of research lends credibility to this contention. For example,

354

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer, and H. Nishida

Adorno’s (1950) research on authoritarianism suggests that highly dogmatic and prejudiced individuals tend to bias their perceptions in favor of their predispositions toward the attitude object. More recently, research on one’s behavioral intentions toward an attitude object (often operationalized as racial groups) suggest that this conative dimension acts as a powerful influence on perceptions of and behaviors toward the attitude object (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973a, 1973b, 1974; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974; King, 1975; Wicker, 1969). Further, this research suggests that even when normative demands obligate (or prohibit) certain behaviors, one’s behavioral predispositions to approach (or avoid) the attitude object are powerful predictors of one’s actual behavior. Warner and DeFleur (1969), using the concept of social distance as an operationalization of behavioral intentions, found that individuals having high or low social distance toward blacks exhibited behavior consistent with their social distance orientation, even when negative public sanctions for such behavior were present.

RESEARCH FOCUS OF THE PRESENT STUDY While research has investigated the influence of knowledge of the other culture, stereotypes, ethnocentrism, and social distance on various aspects of intercultural encounters, no research has examined the multivariate influence of these factors on intercultural communication competence. Further, Gudykunst et al.‘s (1977) theoretical model of a general cross-cultural attitude (which conceptually integrates stereotypes, ethnocentrism and social distance) has been examined only with one culture (viz., U.S.) and only within the context of North American sojourners’ attitudinal satisfaction with living in a foreign culture. Therefore, the present research investigates the relationship between intercultural communication competence and knowledge of the other culture, stereotypes, ethnocentrism, and social distance across two quite different cultures: Japan and the United States.

METHODS Sample A total of 887 subjects participated in the study. Of these 206 were enrolled in a major university near Tokyo, Japan, and 681 were college students in three major universities in the United States (fairly evenly distributed over an eastern, midwestern, and western university). In terms of the sample’s demography, the average age was 21.1 (SD=5.2), 38% were male, and 62% were female.

Predictors of ICC Competence

355

Questionnaire One of the first tasks in the construction of the questionnaire was the creation of a variety of situations involving a Japanese and an American. Based upon Nishida and Gudykunst’s (1983) research on common misunderstandings between Japanese and Americans, 44 situations involving problematic interactions were selected as stimulus material for the present study. These situations involved a misunderstanding regarding the communication rules between Japanese and American cultures. The misunderstanding was a result of cultural variations on role, social, linguistic, nonverbal, and/or business rules for behavior, for example, gift giving in a business setting, bowing vs. shaking hands as a form of greeting. To avoid possible subject fatigue in responding to the 44 situations, they were randomly distributed over nine forms of the questionnaire, that is, eight forms had five situations each and one had four situations. For each situation, subjects were asked a number of open-ended questions regarding their impressions of the behavior of the member of the other culture. For example, what did the subject think of the Japanese/ American’s behavior; what was the nature of the conflict; why did the Japanese/American act the way he/she did? Based upon these open-ended responses, three ratings were made: (a) the subject’s understanding of the other culture (i.e., Japan or U.S.), (b) the subject’s understanding of other cultures in general, and (c) the favorableness of the impression of the other culture. The first two ratings were on a four-point scale (1 =no understanding; 4=understands culture very much), and the last rating was on a five-point scale (1 =very negative impression of other culture; 5 =very good impression of other culture). Based upon ratings of a random sample of 630 (of the possible 3,540) open-ended responses by a Japanese and an American rater, the interjudge reliabilities (Scott’s pi) for these three measures were .73, .76, and .84, respectively. This suggests that there was a cross-cultural agreement on the ratings for these three measures. These ratings constituted the three dependent variables for the study.

Knowledge of Other Culture. Besides the open-ended reactions to the situations, the subject’s knowledge of the other culture was assessed. Specifically, subjects rated their (a) perceived degree of knowledge of the other culture (viz., Japan or U.S.) on a nine-point scale; (b) coursework in the other culture (O=no, 1 =yes), and (c) fluency in English/Japanese (O=no, 1 =yes). The interitem reliability was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha=.85). The composite of this scale, Knowledge of Other Culture, was the operationalization for one of the independent variables. The questionnaire also solicited the subject’s opinions to 29 items ex-

356

R. L. Wiseman,M. R. Hammer,and H. Nishida

tracted from three standardized psychological tests. These standardized psychological tests were chosen because they best reflected the constructs under examination in the study, namely, ethnocentrism, prejudice toward the other culture, and one’s general attitude toward the other culture. Further, versions of the three standardized psychological tests have been used with sufficient degrees of reliability and validity in past intercultural research (e.g., Gudykunst, 1983).

Worldmindedness Scale. First, six items were drawn from Sampson and Smith’s (1957) Worldmindedness Scale. The six items were chosen from the 32-item scale because the items were more culture-general in orientation and tended to focus on issues of current concern. For example, “our country should permit the immigration of foreign peoples even if it lowers our standard of living.” The six items are presented in Table 1. Negative Stereotypes. Second, six items were selected from the Levinson and Sanford’s (1944) Anti-Semitism Scale. These items were chosen from the 26-item scale on the basis of their relevance to Japanese and American cultures. An example of one item is: “one problem with Japanese/American businesspersons is that they stick together and prevent other people from having a fair chance in competition.” The six items are presented in Table 1. The items were reworded to reflect Japanese/American culture.

Attitude toward Other Culture Scale. Lastly, 17 items were Remmers’ (1960) Attitude toward Other Culture Scale. These items were concerned with subjects’ perceptions regarding the other culture, for example, honesty, considerateness of others, gregariousness. These 17 items are presented in Table 1. All 29 of these items were rated on a four-point scale (1 =strongly disagree; 4=strongly agree). The 29 items from these three scales were translated and cross-translated for the Japanese version of the questionnaire. Since these three scales (and their constituent items) are multidimensional in nature, we proceeded to operationalize our independent variables through a factor analysis of the 29 items. A Cattell’s (1966) Scree Test of the eigenvalues suggested a three-factor solution. The three-factor solution was computed using a an oblique rotation. The factor loadings for this solution are presented in Table 2. An examination of these factor loadings suggested the following labels for factors 1, 2, and 3, respectively: negative stereotypes toward other culture, ethnocentrism/plural, and positive stereotypes toward other culture. These three factors accounted for 40.1% of the total variance in the 29 items. Further, two of

Predictors of ICC Competence

357

TABLE 1 ftems from Standardized Tests

Worldmindedness Our country is probably no better than many others. It would be better to be a citizen of the world than of any particular nation. Our responsibility to people of other races ought to be as great as our responsibility to people of our own area. Any healthy individual, regardless of race or religion, should be allowed to live wherever s/he wants to in the world. Our schools should teach the history of the world rather than of our own nation. Our country should permit the immigration of foreign peoples even if it lowers our standard of living. Negative Stereotypes One trouble with Japanese/American businesspersons is that they stick together and prevent other people from having a fair chance in competition. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Japanese/American. There may be a few exceptions, but in general Japanese/Americans are pretty much alike. The trouble with letting J/A into a nice neighborhood is that they gradually give it a typical J/A atmosphere. To end prejudice against J/A, the first step is for the J/As to try sincerely to get rid of their irritating faults. There is something different and strange about Japanese/Americans; it’s hard to tell what they are thinking and planning, and what makes them tick.

Total

Japan

USA

t

P

2.1ga .80 2.38 .87 2.99 .75

2.25 .69 2.74 .78 3.13 91

2.17 .83 2.27 .87 2.95 .79

-1.3

ns.

-6.8

.OOl

-3.0

.003

3.27 .74

3.27 .75

3.28 .73

1.1

n.s.

2.87 .75

2.66 .76

2.93

4.8

,001

2.33 .78

2.74 .68

2.08 .?4

-11.2

.OOl

2.22 .88

2.28 .67

2.20 .66

-1.4

n.s.

2.53 .96 2.11 .72

2.32 .86 2.37 .70

2.59

1.83 .66

2.02 .62

t .83 .?O 2.09 .77

.74

.98 2.04 .71

3.6

.OOl

-5.7

.OOl

1.77 .66

-4.6

.ool

2.34 .60

1.67 .65

- 12.9

.ool

2.46 .71

1.98 .75

- 8.0

.OOl

(continued)

358

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer, and H. Nishida TABLE 1 Continued

Attitude toward Other Culture The Japanese/Americans are honest. The J/As tend to improve any group with which they come in contact. I consider it a privilege to associate with Japanese/American people. The Japanese/Americans are on a level with my own group. The Japanese/Americans are religiously inclined. The Japanese/Americans are considerate of others. The Japanese/Americans can be resourceful when necessary. The Japanese/Americans should be regarded as any other group. The Japanese/Americans are equal in intelligence to the average person. I have no particular love or hatred for the Japanese/Americans. The Japanese/Americans are gregarious. I suppose the Japanese/Americans are all right, but I’ve never liked them. The Japanese/Americans have a tendency toward insubordination. The Japanese/Americans are envious of others. The Japanese/Americans are discourteous. The Japanese/Americans are slow and unimaginative. The Japanese/Americans are the most despicable people in the world. ‘Mean

is upper number: standard deviation

Total

Japan

USA

2.65a .53 2.42 .50 2.66 .62 2.85 .62 2.79 .61 2.86 .60 3.04 .52 2.96 .77 3.04 .64 3.05 64 2.51 .64 1.81 .60 1.96 .57 1.98 .53 1.88 .62 1.72 .58 1.37 57

2.72 .57 2.20 54 2.60 .65 2.86 .56 2.80 .72 2.62 .61 2.72 .51 2.06 .58 2.80 .52 2.83 .62 2.61 .64 2.00 .48 2.14 .52 2.09 .48 2.15 .57 1.87 .49 1.56 .57

2.89 .52 2.49 .57 2.68 .61 2.84 .63 2.78 .57 2.94 .57 3.14 .49 3.23 .59 3.12 .66 3.11 .63 2.48 .63 1.75 .62 1.91 .58 1.94 .53 1.80 .61 1.68 .60 1.32 .56

t

P

3.8

,001

6.3

.OOl

1.5

n.s.

- .3

n.s.

-.3

n.s.

6.7

,001

10.4

,001

24.8

.OOl

6.1

.OOl

5.5

.OOl

-2.5

.012

- 5.2

,001

-5.2

,001

- 3.4

.OOl

-7.1

.OOl

-4.2

.OOl

- 5.4

.OOl

is lower number.

the three correlations among the factors were significant: the negative and positive stereotypes toward other culture correlated at - .36, which is to be expected. The ethnocentrism/pluralism factor and the positive stereotypes toward other culture factor correlated at .21, suggesting that more positive affect toward the other culture is associated with greater degrees of pluralism. The last variable operationalized within the questionnaire was the per-

Predictors of ICC Competence

359

TABLE 2 Factor Loadings for Standardized Test Items Facl Our country is probably no better than many others. It would be better to be a citizen of the world than of any particular country. Our responsibility to people of other races ought to be as great as our responsibility to people of our own area. Any healthy individual, regardless of race or religion, should be allowed to live wherever he/she wants to in the world. Our schools should teach the history of the world rather than of our own country. Our country should permit the immigration of foreign peoples even if it lowers our standard of living. One trouble with Japanese/American businesspersons is that they stick together and prevent other people from having a fair chance in competition. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Japanese/ American. There may be a few exceptions, but in general Japanese/Americans are pretty much alike. The trouble with letting Japanese/Americans into a nice neighborhood is that they gradually give it a typical Japanese/American atmosphere. To end prejudice against Japanese/Americans, the first step is for the Japanese/Americans to try sincerely to get rid of their harmful and irritating faults. There is something different and strange about Japanese/Americans; it’s hard to tell what they are thinking and planning, and what makes them tick. The Japanese/Americans are honest. The Japanese/Americans tend to improve any group with which they come in contact. I consider it a privilege to associate with Japanese/ American people. The Japanese/Americans are on a level with my own group. The Japanese/Americans are religiously inclined. The Japanese/Americans are considerate of others. The Japanese/Americans can be resourceful when necessary. The Japanese/Americans should be regarded as any other group. The Japanese/Americans are equal in intelligence to the average person.

- .12

Face

Fac3

.31

-.-03

.47a

- .Ol

-.lO

.45a

.lO

-.19

.31

.ll

- .17

.lO

.21

- .04

&la

- .06

.44a

- .08

- .Ol

.22=

- .39

- .07

.55a

- .12

.ll

.55a

- .13

-.06

.71a

.12

.5a= - .05

.03 - .08

.09 .52a

- .05

- .Ol

.56a

- .09

.20

.50a

- .29 .05 - .26

.23 - .03 - .Ol

.23 .41a .48a

- .24

- .20

.4sa

- .45a

- .33

.18

- .32

-.03

.08

- .02

.15 (continued)

360

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer, and H. Nishida TABLE 2 Continued Facl

FacP

- .22 .09

-.15 .07

Fac3

I have no particular love or hatred for the Japanese/ Americans. The Japanese/Americans are gregarious I suppose the Japanese/Americans are all right, but I’ve never liked them. The Japanese/Americans have a tendency toward insubordination. The Japanese/Americans are envious of others. The Japanese/Americans are discourteous. The Japanese/Americans are slow and unimaginative. The Japanese/Americans are the most despicable people in the world. altem reflecting

a substantial

- .03 .15

.50=

- .14

- .09

.51a .5P .54a .51a

- .lO -.ll - .06 - .06

.02 .03 -.20 - .ll

.44a

- .03

-.17

loading on the factor.

ceived social distance from the other culture. This was measured by Borgardus’ (1967) Social Distance Scale. The scale consisted of seven items with varying degrees of behavioral intentions, ranging from 1 =accept Japanese/American in close kinship by marriage to 7 =would exclude Japanese/American from my country. The larger the score on this measure, the greater the perceived social distance from the other culture.

Data Analysis This study is an examination of the relationship between a set of predictors- knowledge of the other culture, positive and negative stereotypes toward the other culture, ethnocentrism/pluralism, and perceived social distance from the other culture-and a set of criterion variablesunderstanding of the Japanese/American culture, knowledge of other cultures in general, and impression of the other culture (viz., unfavorable vs. favorable impression). To compute these relationships we employed the path analysis routine in the LISREL V computer program (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981). The LISREL V computer program provides estimates of parameters in linear structural equations through the method of maximum likelihood. LISREL V also provides a goodness of fit test for models that are overidentified (i.e., ones where spurious paths exist between predictor and criterion variables). The next section describes the results of the preliminary descriptive analyses and the structural equation model tests and revisions.

Predictors of ICC Competence

361

RESULTS Preliminary Descriptive Analyses Means and standard deviations were computed for all variables. For the three variables that constituted the knowledge of Other Culture Scale, the mean (and standard deviation) for whether the subjects speak Japanese/English was .21 (.41); for courses in Japanese/American culture, the mean was .13 (.34); and for perceived knowledge in the other culture, the mean was 2.13 (.82). For each of these variables the means for the Japanese subjects (.85, .40, and 2.59, respectively) were significantly greater than the means for the American subjects (.02, .05, and 1.99, respectively) (t= - 14.8, -50.8, -3.5, respectively; all significant at p< .OOl with 882 dfl. On the bases of these data, we would conclude that Americans know less about Japanese culture, whereas the Japanese know much more about American culture. Contrasted with these data are the findings from the social distance measure: the mean (and SD) for the overall data was 2.52 (1.53), for the American data it was 2.23 (1.33), and for the Japanese data it was 3.49 (1.74) (t= - 10.8, df=883,p< .OOl). In essence, the Japanese know more about the Americans but perceive greater social distance, on the other hand, the Americans know less about Japanese culture but perceive closer social distance. In terms of the 29 items from the psychological tests, there was great variability in the averages (cf. Table 1). The greatest agreement on six Worldmindedness items concerned the freedom to live where one wants (3.27). The least agreement concerned one’s country being no better than others (2.19). There were no differences between Japanese and American samples in this interitem pattern. However, as presented in Table 1, there were significant group differences on individual items; more specifically Japanese subjects expressed greater agreement on the preference for world citizenship (t= -6.8, df=881, p-c .OOl), our responsibility for other races (t= -3.0, df=880, p< .003), and freer immigration laws (f = - 11.2, df =882, p < .OOl), while Americans expressed greater agreement for the need for education in world history (t=4.6, df=880, p< .OOl). For the six negative stereotyping items (i.e., Anti-Semitism Scale), the greatest agreement was expressed in regards to not marrying a Japanese/ American (2.53), while the least agreement was indicated for two items: negative influences of Japanese/Americans on the neighborhood (1.83) and the need for Japanese/Americans to reduce their negative faults (1.83). For the most part, the ratings of the Japanese and Americans had a similar interitem pattern. However, as Table 1 illustrates, there were group differences in the ratings on the items of this scale. The Japanese subjects expressed greater agreement on the similarity of the two cultures (t= -5.7, df=879, p< .OOl), the adverse effects of the other culture on

362

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer. and H. Nishida

the neighborhood (t= -4.6, df=879, p< .OOl), the need to eliminate others’ faults to reduce prejudice (t= - 12.9, df=877, pc .OOl), and the difficulty in understanding others’ thinking patterns (t= -8.0, df=881, p< .OOl), while American subjects indicated significantly more agreement with the idea of marrying a member of the other culture (t=3.6, df=880, p< .OOl). Means and standard deviations were also computed for the four criterion variables. The overall mean (and SD) for the understanding of Japanese/American culture construct was 2.17 (90 on a four-point scale). While the means for the Japanese and American samples on this variable were similar (2.22 and 2.16, respectively), the difference proved to be statistically significant (t= -9.8 df=4146, p< .OOl). For the construct, understanding of foreign cultures in general, the means (and SDS) for the overall, Japanese, and American samples were 1.81 (.86), 2.21 (.87), and 1.72 (.83), respectively. The difference between the Japanese and American subjects’ ratings were statistically significant (t= -25.5, df=4049, p< .OOl), suggesting that the Japanese sample had greater culture-general understanding. Lastly, the American sample had a more favorable impression of the Japanese culture (mean=3.13, SD= .87), than the Japanese sample had of American culture (mean=2.61, SD=.73) (t=3.4, df=4137, p< .OOl).

Path Analysis In a manner somewhat analogous to stepwise regression, we specified all possible paths between the predictor and criterion variables initially, and then deleted spurious (i.e., nonsignificant) paths. A total of four paths were found to be nonsignificant and were thus deleted. The resultant model proved to be a good fit of the data (goodness of fit = .98 and the root mean square residual=.OOg). Overall, a total of 14% of the variance in the three criterion variables was accounted for by the five predictor variables. The LISREL V path analysis routine assessed the strength of the relationship of the predictor variables with each of the criterion variables (Table 3). For the first criterion variable-understanding of Japanese/ American culture-the best predictors were one’s ethnocentrism/pluralism @= .l 1) and one’s perceived social distance from the other culture @= .lO). Three of the predictor variables accounted for a significant amount of the variance in the subjects’ understanding of foreign cultures in general: ethnocentrism/pluralism (p = .16), perceived social distance from the other culture @=.13), and knowledge of Japanese/American culture (p = .lO). The last criterion variable was minimally correlated with three predictor variables: ethnocentrism/pluralism @= .08), perceived so-

Predictors of ICC Competence

Standardized

TABLE 3 Path Coefficients and Corresponding

363

t-Values

Predictor Variablesa Zl

z2

Pt

Understanding of Japanese/ American Culture Understanding of foreign cultures in general Impression of Japanese/ American culture

.03

.ll 2.2

-

z4

z3

Pf

Pt

7.4

z5

Pf

.03 2.2

Pf

.lO

7.0

.05

3.5

.16

12.6

-

.13

10.5

.lO

7.0

.06

5.9

-

.07

5.6

.06

4.4

aLabels for predictor variables: Z,: Negative attitude toward other culture. Z,: Ethnocentrism/pluralism. Zs: Positive attitude toward other culture. Z,: Perceived social distance from other culture. Z,: Knowledge of other culture.

cial distance from Japanese/American culture 0, = .07), and knowledge of Japanese/American culture (p= .06). DISCUSSION The present study sheds some light on the dynamics of intercultural communication competence. This paper conceptualized intercultural communication competence as a multidimensional construct, which included culture-specific understanding (e.g., Japan, U.S.), culture-general understanding, and positive regard for the other culture. As reviewed earlier in this paper, past research (e.g., Ruben & Kealey, 1979) has found that these dimensions of intercultural communication competence are important determinants of one’s successful adaptation to another culture, understanding of others, and satisfaction with intercultural relations. We extended upon past research by applying Gudykunst et al.3 (1977) model of the cross-cultural attitude to an understanding of the dynamics of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence. The model posits three components: stereotypes of the other culture (cognitive), ethnocentrism (affective), and behavioral intentions (conative). These components, as well as knowledge of the other culture, were thought to be determinants of communication competence as manifested in its three dimensions. Our study found that the components of the cross-cultural attitude and one’s knowledge of the other culture had varying relationships with the

364

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer, and H. Nishida

communication competence dimensions. For the first dimension of communication competence (culture-specific understanding), the strongest predictor was one’s ethnocentrism. Specifically, more ethnocentric subjects manifested less understanding of the American or Japanese culture. This finding is consistent with the research of Burk (1976) and Rokeach (1960). The next strongest predictor of culture-specific understanding was one’s perceived social distance from (i.e., behavioral intentions toward) the other culture. In contrast to past research (e.g., Warner & DeFleur, 1969; Wicker, 1969), we found that subjects who perceived greater social distance manifested greater culture-specific understanding, whereas subjects who perceived less social distance expressed less culture-specific understanding. This finding may in part be due to the influence of the Japanese sample on the data; the Japanese sample had higher degrees of understanding of the other culture (i.e., U.S.), but also perceived greater social distance from Americans. In any event, this finding suggests individuals who have greater behavioral intentions to avoid the other culture have greater understanding of that culture. Three predictor variables proved significantly related to our second dimension of intercultural communication competence, that is, culturegeneral understanding. First, ethnocentrism, that is, the affective component of the cross-cultural attitude, was related to culture-general understanding, such that higher degrees of ethnocentrism were associated with less culture-general understanding. In a sense, the highly ethnocentric individual suffers a form of cultural myopia. Second, greater degrees of perceived knowledge of a specific culture (Japan or U.S.) were related to greater culture-general understanding. By studying another culture, speaking its language, or visiting its nation, one learns the boundaries of one’s own culture and discovers new cultural perspectives. Last, as with the findings regarding culture-specific understanding, the culture-general dimension of communication competence was positively correlated with perceived social distance. As noted above, this last finding seems inconsistent with past research and conventional wisdom. One’s positive regard for members of another culture- the last dimension of intercultural communication competence investigated-was minimally related to three predictor variables. Greater positive regard was slightly associated with less ethnocentrism, greater knowledge of the other culture, and greater perceived social distance. The first two relations are consistent with reviews of past research (e.g, Gudykunst bt Kim, 1984), however the last findings suggest an inconsistency between one’s attitude toward another and one’s behavioral intentions toward that individual. Perhaps it is easier to express positive regard for others, but more difficult to behave in a positive manner toward them (cf. the research on the attitude-behavior controversy, e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1974). The results of this study help enhance our understanding of intercul-

Predictors of ICC Competence

365

tural communication competence and its relationship with the cross-cultural attitude. More specifically, different aspects of communication competence appear to be influenced by varying psychological and personal factors. With further investigation, intercultural researchers and trainers can better locate the sources of functional and dysfunctional communication. Besides a general research orientation toward intercultural communication competence and its dynamics, two specific research foci are suggested by the present study. First, the rather unexpected, yet pervasive, findings regarding the social distance construct need further examination. Further research should examine both the conceptualizations and measures of social distance and their relationships with communication competence. Second, given that only 14% of the variance in the three dimensions of communication competence was accounted for by the cross-cultural attitude and knowledge of the other culture, future research should attempt to broaden one’s explanation of communication competence. While one approach would be to add more explanatory variables to the model, perhaps a better approach for future research would be to examine situational influences that mediate the relationship between communication competence and individual-level factors. Perhaps certain types of situations are more conducive, for example, to the relationship between culture-specific understanding and positive stereotyping. The controversy between situational vs. personal traits as accounts for human conduct should enlighten an investigation of situationally-mediated behavior (cf. Brislin, 1981; Cody & McLaughlin, 1985; Mischel, 1973, 1979). Whichever form of inquiry one imparts upon, however, intercultural research should endeavor to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of other cultures.

REFERENCES ADLER, P. S. (1974). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections upon cultural and multicultural man. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 22-41. ADORNO, T. W. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper. AJZEN, I., & FISHBEIN, M. (1973a). Attitudinal variables as predictors of specific behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 41-57. AJZEN, I., & FISHBEIN, M. (1973b). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. In C. D. Mortensen & K. Soreno (Eds.), Advances in communication research (pp. 71-87). New York: Harper and Row. AJZEN, I., & FISHBEIN, M. (1974). Factors influencing intentions and the intention-behavior relation. Human Relations, 27, 1-15. ALLPORT, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. ARENSBERG. C. M., & NIEHOFF, A. H. (1971). Introducing social change: A manual for community development (2nd ed.). Chicago: Aldene-Athertan. BARNA, L. M. (1985). Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. In L.

366

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer, and H. Nishida

A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (4th ed.) (pp. 330-338). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. BASU, A. K., & AMES, R. G. (1970). Cross-cultural contact and attitude formation. Sociology and Social Research, 55, S-16. BENSON, P. G. (1978). Measuring cross-cultural adjustments: The problem of criteria. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 21-37. BOCHNER, S. (1981). The mediating person: Bridges between cultures. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. BOCHNER, S. (1973). The mediating man: Cultural interchange and transnational education. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center. BORGARDUS, E. S. (1967). Measuring social distance scales. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 71-76). New York: Wiley. BREWER, M., & CAMPBELL, D. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes. New York: Wiley. BRISLIN, R. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face interaction. New York: Pergamon. BURK, J. L. (1976). The effects of ethnocentrism upon intercultural communication: Functional and dysfunctional. In E L. Casmir (Ed.), The international and intercultural annual (vol III). Annendale, VA: Speech Communication Association. CAMPBELL, D. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception of group difference. American Psychologist, 22, 817-829. CATTELL, R. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276. CAUTHEN, N. R., ROBINSON, I. E., & KRAUSS, H. H. (1971). Stereotypes: A review of the literature 1926-1968. The Journal of Social Psychology, 84, 103-125. CHURCH, A. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540572. CODY, M. J., & MCLAUGHLIN, M. L. (1985). The situation as a construct in interpersonal communication research. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 263-312). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. FIEDLER, F. E., MITCHELL, T., & TRIANDIS, H. C. (1971). The culture assimilator: An approach to cross-cultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 95-102. FISHBEIN, M., & AJZEN, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59-74. GARDNER, G. H. (1962). Cross-cultural communication. Journal of Social Psychology, 58,241-256. GUDYKUNST, W. B. (1980). Intercultural contact and attitude change: A review of literature and suggestions for future research. International and Interczdtural Communication Annual, 4, 1-16. GUDYKUNST, W. B. (1983). Similarities and differences in perceptions of initial intracultural and intercultural encounters: An exploratory investigation. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 49,49-65. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & HAMMER, M. R. (1988). Strangers and hosts: An ex-

Predictors of ICC Competence

367

tension of uncertainty reduction theory to intercultural adaptation. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-culturul aduptution (pp. 106-139). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & KIM, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: Random House. GUDYKUNST, W. B., WISEMAN, R. L., & HAMMER, M. R. (1977). Determinants of a sojourner’s attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook I (pp. 415-425). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. GUTHRIE, G. M. (1975). A behavioral analysis of culture learning. In R. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-culturalperspectives on learning. New York: Wiley. HARDING, J., PROSHANSKY, H., KUTNER, B., & CHEIN, I. (1969). Prejudice and ethnic relations. In G. Lindzey 8c E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of socialpsychology (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. HAWES, F., & KEALEY, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian Technical Assistance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 239-258. HAWES, E, & KEALEY, D. J. (1979). Canadians in development: An empirical study of adaptation and effectiveness on overseus assignment. Communication Branch Briefing Center, Canadian International Development Agency. HEWSTONE, M., & GILES, H. (1986). Social groups and social stereotypes in intergroup communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intergroup communiculion. London: Edward Arnold. HULL, W. F. (1978). Foreign students in the United States of America: Coping behavior within the educational environment. New York: Praeger. JASPARS, J., & HEWSTONE, M. (1982). Cross-cultural interaction, social attribution, and inter-group relations. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. JORESKOG, K. G., & SORBOM, D. (1981). LISREL K Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least square methods. Chicago: International Education Services. KING, G. W. (1975). An analysis of attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of intentions and behavior. Speech Monographs, 42, 237-244. KLEINJANS, E. (1972). Opening remarks on a conference on world communication held at the East-West Center, Honolulu, HI. KLINEBERG, O., & HULL, W. F. (1979). At a foreign university: An internutionul study of adaptation and coping. New York: Praeger. LANDIS, D., & BRISLIN, R. W. (Eds.). (1983a). Handbook of intercultura! training, volume I: Issues in theory and research. New York: Pergamon. LANDIS, D., & BRISLIN, R. W. (Eds.). (1983b). Handbook of intercultural training, volume II: Issues in training methodology. New York: Pergamon. LANDIS, D., & BRISLIN, R. W. (Eds.). (1983c). Handbook of intercultural training, volume III: Area studies in intercultural training. New York: Pergamon . LEVINE, R., & CAMPBELL, D. (1972). Ethnocentrism. New York: Wiley. LEVINSON, D. J., & SANFORD, R. N. (1944). A scale for the measurement of anti-Semitism. Journal of Psychology, 17, 339-370. LITTLEJOHN, S. W., & JABUSCH, D. M. (1982). Communication compe-

368

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer, and H. Nishida

tence: A model and application. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 10,29-37. MCCROSKEY, J. E. (1984). Communication competence: The elusive construct. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication (pp. 259-268). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. MCGUIRE, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & A. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of socialpsychology volume III (2nd ed.). Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley. MILLER, G. R., & STEINBERG, M. (1975). Between people. Chicago: Science Research Associates. MISCHEL, W. (1979). On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 34, 740-754. MISCHEL, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283. MOTTRAM, R. (Ed.). (1963). The selection of personnel for international service. New York: World Federation for Mental Health. NISHIDA, H., & GUDYKUNST, W. B. (1983). American communication patterns. Tokyo, Japan: Kinseido. O’DRISCOLL, M., & FEATHER, N. (1983). Perception of value congruence and interethnic behavioral intentions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 239-252. PETERSON, J. A., & NEUMEYER, M. H. (1948). Problems of foreign students. Sociology and Social Research, 32, 787-792. PORTER, R. E., & SAMOVAR, L. A. (1985). Approaching intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Interculturalcommunication: A reader (4th ed.) (pp. 15-30). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. POWERS, W. G., & LOWERY, D. N. (1984). Basic communication fidelity: A fundamental approach. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication (pp. 57-74). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. REMMERS, H. H. (1960). Manual for the Purdue master attitude scales. Lafayette: Purdue Research Foundation. ROGERS, E. M. (1983). Diffusing of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. ROKEACH, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press. ROKEACH, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. RUBEN, B. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Groups and Organization Studies, 1, 334-354. RUBEN, B. D., & KEALEY, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-48. RUBOVITZ, P., & MAEHR, M. (1973). Pygmalian in black and white. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 210-218. SAMOVAR, L. A., & PORTER, R. E. (1985). Epilogue. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (4th ed.) (pp. 430432). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. SAMPSON, D. L., & SMITH, H. P. (1957). A scale to measure world-minded attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 99-106. SELLTIZ, C., CHRIST, J. R., HAVEL, J., &COOK, S. W. (1963). Attitudesand

Predictors of ICC Competence

369

social relations of foreign students in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. SPITZBERG, B. H., & CUPACH, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. STENING, S. W. (1979). Problems in cross-cultural contact: A literature review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 269-3 13. SUMNER, W. G. (1940). Folkways. Boston: Ginn. WARNER, L., & DEFLEUR, M. (1969). Attitude as an interactional concept: Social constraint and social distance as intervening variables between attitudes and actions. American Sociological Review, 34, 153-169. WICKER, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus action: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 41-78.

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS Cette etudz examine la relation entre la aplcite b axunuxicaticn interculturelle et la perspective d’ine cuLtwe La opldte de ammnmication interculturelle tri-dimensicmnelle. est u1 axxzpt multidimensionnel qui inclus la axn~staensian d’me culture spedfique, differente & la sienmz, la axnpehensian dz plusieurs cultures en general, l’acoegation ue axn~rtewnts different& tn regard positif eruers les autres. BnmpLnt.c35.modele dz Gudykunst, W&man, & Hanner, nous considerons qus la perspective d’Lne arlture tri-dimensionnelle pesente cks caracteristiqws a@tives, affectives et de Crm&YOStanentS. 887 sujets (dent 206 du Japan et 681 des EtatsUnis) ont plrticip a u1e eqwte. Il leur a ete &man& ae reagir wntarrment face a 44 situ&ions interculturelles differentes, d’evalwx 29 tests staruwds, me e&Ale sodale, et c% repxdre a trois quxticns pxtant sur leurs a3nw&xanss &s autres cultures. Le reawrs au logiciel d’armlyse LSRIL V mx.6 a pennis de lloter qu2 les differentes caprcites dz amxnticaticns interculturelles ont &s interferenaes variees avec les trois caracteristiqwa dz la pxvctive d’u?e culture tri-dimensicmnelle et ck la axnaissana? dOme autre o*lture. Les resultats 8 cette erquete Iy)us ont oon&it a axtaines hyptheses, UI travail & recfierche p3intu portant sur oes aspects est so&iitaUe. (author-supplied abstract).

Este estudio exami.no la relacicn entre la anwnicacicm intercultural (CIC) axnptente y la perspzctiva c+z m tercera ailtura. La UC mnptente fuz o3ncepttiizada asno LM axxtwxicn multidimensional qw inclyro UI entendimiento culturalmente espxifia, de otro, UI entendimiento culturalmente general. La toleranda &l axnp3rtzrniento cle otrosy la ~nsidxacian quz hqa hacia otros. Rlnari& f&l mod510 de Gwkunst, Wisanan, y Hmer , enantranos qm la perspectiva ds la teroxa cultura psse axnponentes axgitivos, afectivos y axIativos. Un total b 887 sujetos (206 de1 Japan, 681 de 10s E.E.U.U.) partidplran en UL estudio qle les pidio quz respondieran ax IM reaction ahiera a 44 situaciows interculturales y qw caLifio3ran 29 articulos 8 tn examen estanderd, = escala clp distancia social y tres weguntas

370

R. L. Wiseman, M. R. Hammer. and H. Nishida

psrtenxientes al amximi~o ck otra adtura. Ebr medo del use de ma via aralitica rutimria 1321pcgrana 0 axnptacbras LJsBEt y, enamtrmos que las distintas dimncimes umrerniente a la CIC axrptente tenian ma relacian variable ax 10s tres ampnentes de la prspediva c% la teroera a&bra y Implia3cicne.s & 10s resultacb.5 amocimiento de la otra cultura. fuerm sac&as y se hiciercn reamndziam pra futtzos (author-sqplisd abstract). estudios enfocacbs.