- Email: [email protected]
A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness
InfemotionoIJournalofInlerculrurolRelalionr,
0147.1767/83/010053-lSSO3.00/0
Vol. 7, pp. 53-67, 1983
Copyright ‘c 1983 Pergamon Prev Ltd
Printed in the I’SA. All rights reserved.
A CROSS-CULTURAL CONFIRMATION OF THE DIMENSIONS OF INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS
HIROKO
ABE
Tokai University Shonan, Kanagawa Japan
RICHA RD L. WISEMA
N
California State University Fullerton ABSTRACT TFris stud-v attempted to further our understanding of the construct of “intercultural effectiveness. ” Specifically, the study compared the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness found in Hammer, Gudykunst. and Wiseman (1978) using American sojourners with the dimensions ,found using Japanese sojourners. The results revealed five dimensions for the Japanese sample: (I) the abi1it.v to communicate interpersonall_v, (2) the ability to adjust to dtfferent cultures, (3) the ability to deal with different societal systems, (4) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships, and (5) the ability to understand another. Both similarities and differences were found between the American perceptions and the Japanese perceptions of intercultural effectiveness. The implications of these results were then discussed.
As intercultural researchers, trainers, and/or practitioners, one of our central concerns is with increasing the effectiveness of the communication between members of different cultures. One important question then arises: What is effective intercultural communication? Even though this question seems to be an important one to answer, Ruben (1976) suggests that “systematic attempts to define ‘effective,’ ‘successful,’ or ‘competent’ communication behavior are relatively scarce” (p. 335). The present study is an attempt to advance our understanding of the construct “intercultural communication effectiveness.” Requests California
for reprints should be sent to Richard State University, Fullerton. CA 92634.
53
L. Wise-man,
Speech
Communication,
54
H. Abe and R. L. Wiseman
One approach toward defining intercultural communication effectiveness focuses on the personality of the individuals in the intercultural encounter. In their analysis of personnel destined for international work, Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams (1960) posit that people working in other cultures should possess four personality characteristics: (1) they should be “resourceful and buoyant,” (2) they should have “environmental mobility” in their background, (3) they should possess “intellectual curiosity,” and (4) they should have a talent for “building institutions” (Cleveland et al., 1960, pp. 172-173). Kleinjans (1972) on the other hand, emphasized the value orientations of the intercultural communicators in his list of personality characteristics. According to Kleinjans (1972), the effective intercultural communicator: (1) sees people first, representatives of culture second; (2) knows people are basically good; (3) knows the value of other cultures; and (4) has inner security and is able to feel comfortable being different from other people. Although it may indeed be important to understand the personality of the effective intercultural communicator, two interrelated problems plague such an approach. First, there is reason to doubt that a personality of one of the communicators would necessarily make the intercultural encounter effective. In fact, Stein (1966) found that there was generally no significant relationship between personality type and the effectiveness of Peace Corps volunteers. A second and related problem with the personality approach is that it lacks behavioral prescriptions for intercultural effectiveness. For example, even though a person may value another culture, how is that person to manifest the value in intercultural communication? This problem becomes especially significant when we attempt to train individuals for intercultural encounters. A second approach to defining intercultural communication effectiveness attempts to overcome these problems by focusing on the behaviors needed to be interculturally effective. Drawing from the literature on communication competence in the United States, Ruben (1976) identified seven behavioral dimensions related to intercultural effectiveness: (1) display of respect, (2) interaction posture, (3) orientation to knowledge, (4) empathy, (5) role behavior, (6) interaction management, and (7) tolerance for ambiguity. Ruben has prescribed effective behaviors for each of these dimensions and developed an inventory for the assessment of intercultural communicators. Extending upon their earlier work on a third-culture perspective (Gudykunst, Wiseman, & Hammer, 1977) Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) attempted to empirically determine the behavior dimensions of intercultural communication effectiveness. Hammer et al. (1978) surveyed 53 American students who had lived in another culture and asked them to rate the importance of 24 behaviors in terms of their intercultural effectiveness. A factor analysis of these ratings revealed three
Intercultural
Ejfectiveness
55
dimensions: (1) the ability to deal with psychological stress, (2) the ability to communicate effectively, and (3) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships. The problem with this study and other studies based solely upon American subjects is that the generalizability of the results to other cultures is questionable (Hwang, Chase, & Kelly, 1980) i.e., do the members of other cultures perceive the same behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness? Considerable research on the Japanese culture sheds doubt on our ability to generalize the results based upon American subjects. First, Nakane (1972, 1973) suggested that the nature of societal contacts in the Japanese culture are different from those in the American culture. Specifically, in Japanese culture, social contacts are based more on relationships; whereas in American culture, they are based more upon the shared achievement of mutual objectives. Second, as opposed to American culture, Japanese value orientations predispose Japanese to be brief in their communication, to be reserved in their communication, and to be 1975). Finally, Barnlund (1975) respectful of social norms (Kindaichi, suggested that the self-disclosure of Japanese differed from Americans in terms of their topical preferences, target preferences, and depth of discussion. Although the above cultural differences are by no means exhaustive, they do give evidence that the uses and functions of communication differ between American and Japanese cultures. The present study will attempt to determine whether the dimensions of intercultural communication effectiveness found in the Hammer et al. (1978) study using American subjects can be replicated in this study with Japanese subjects. If indeed the dimensions are similar in the two studies, we have preliminary evidence for a culture-general interpretation of intercultural communication effectiveness. However, if the dimensions of intercultural communication effectiveness in the present study with Japanese subjects differ from those reported in the Hammer et al. (1978) study with American subjects, we would have evidence that perceptions of intercultural communication effectiveness are culture-specific.
METHODS Sample The sample was comprised of 57 students from various Japanese universities, who were sojourning in America for their first time. At the time the questionnaire was administered, their length of stay in America was approximately two weeks. For the most part, the subjects resided with American families during their stay. Some of the relevant demographic information: 39 (68.4%) were females; the average age was 20.8 years (standard deviation = 1.21); 29 were from Tokyo; and the subjects
H. Abe and R. L. Wiseman
56
had an average of 8.2 years (standard English language.
deviation
= 1.30) of study in the
Questionnaire Since one of the primary purposes of the present study was to discover whether the Hammer et al. (1978) study could be replicated with a Japanese sample, we extracted many of our questionnaire items from their study. The main part of their questionnaire consisted of 24 items assessing the importance of various abilities instrumental to intercultural effectiveness. Each of the 24 personal abilities items were suggested by a review of the literature as being facilitating of intercultural effectiveness (Hammer et al., 1978). The 24 abilities items are presented in Table 1. For the most part, the items were concerned with the abilities to deal with the host culture’s members, institutions, customs, and communication style. For each of these items, the subjects were asked to rate the degree of importance each of the items were for intercultural effectiveness. The ratings of importance were made on a six-point scale, where one equals “very important” and six equals “very unimportant.” TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for Abilities Items Abilities
Items
Mean
SD.
1.
To effectively
deal with frustration
2.47
1.12
2. 3. 4. 5.
To To To To
deal deal deal deal
1.93 1.63 2.12 2.02
1.05 .96 1.12 1.17
6. 7. 8.
To effectively To effectively To effectively
deal with the pressure to conform deal with financial difficulties deal with social alienation
2.04 2.65 2.60
1.12 1.32 1.28
9. 10.
To effectively To effectively
deal with different political systems communicate in the language of the host culture
1.17 1 .Ol
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
To To To To To To To To To To To To To To
3.74 1.84 1.97 2.07 2.16 2.30 1.70 1.67 2.40 1.79 2.33 3.67 1.79 1.50 1.58 1.35
effectively effectively effectively effectively
with with with with
interpersonal conflict unfamiliar situations changes in life-style stress
effectively deal with different social customs effectively deal with unforeseen problems initiate interaction with a stranger enter meaningful dialogue with others effectively deal with communication misunderstandings develop satisfying interpersonal relationships with others effectively deal with anxiety accurately understand another’s point of view deal with different communication systems deal with different educational systems maintain interpersonal relationships with others accurately understand the feelings of others empathize with another person effectively work with other people
.89 1.10 1.15 1 .Ol .82 .74 1.08 .88 1.20 1.20 .73 .7l .91 .55
Inlercullural
lTfyec,livene.ss
57
Besides the 24 personal abilities items, the questionnaire had two items asking the subjects to evaluate their stay in America and two open-ended questions asking the subjects their likes and dislikes of Americans. The first evaluative question asked the subjects how satisfied they were with their stay (scaled on six points, where one equals “very satisfied” and six equals “very dissatisfied”). The second evaluative question asked the subjects how well they were getting along with Americans (scaled on six points, where one equals “getting along well” and six equals “not getting along at all”). The purpose of the two evaluative questions was to ascertain the subjects’ level of effectiveness in their sojourn through America. The 24 personal abilities items, the two evaluative questions, and two likes and dislikes questions, and some demographic questions comprised the questionnaire. Although our Japanese subjects had a working knowledge of English, it was decided that an understanding of the meaning of the items would be facilitated by translating the questionnaire into Japanese. The senior author accomplished this translation task. The Japanese translations of each of the English items were surveyed by ten bilingual (Japanese and English) speakers. All of the bilingual speakers’ Japanese-to-English translations were isomorphic with Hammer et al.‘s (1978) questionnaire items. (Reprints of the Japanese version of the questionnaire can be obtained from the senior author.) Furthermore, the clarity of the Japanese translations is attested to by the fact that none of our subjects expressed any difficulty in responding to the questionnaire. Data Analysis As mentioned above, one of the primary purposes of the present study was to discover whether Japanese subjects perceived the abilities necessary for intercultural effectiveness as similar to the American subjects’ perceptions as found in the Hammer et al. study. This research purpose can be divided into three empirical questions: (1) Were the Japanese subjects competent in making judgments about intercultural effectiveness, i.e., were the Japanese subjects interculturally effective in the American culture? (2) What were the Japanese subjects’ perceptions of intercultural effectiveness? (3) Were the Japanese subjects’ perceptions of intercultural effectiveness similar to the perceptions of American subjects? Corresponding to the above three empirical questions are three data analyses. First, the intercultural effectiveness of the Japanese subjects can be assessed through their responses to the two evaluative questions, viz., their satisfaction with their stay and their assessment of how well they got along with Americans. Second, the Japanese subjects’ perceptions of intercultural effectiveness can be ascertained through their responses to the 24 abilities items. Since many of the abilities items are interrelated, it
58
H. Abe and R. L. Wisemarl
should be possible to discover a more parsimonious representation of the abilities thought to be important to intercultural effectiveness. Factor analysis was chosen for this data reduction task because factor analysis will reveal the underlying dimensions of intercultural effectiveness and the abilities corresponding to these dimensions. Third, the similarity of the Japanese subjects’ and American subjects’ perceptions of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness will be accomplished by comparing the factor matrices produced by the present study and the Hammer et al. study.
RESULTS Satisfaction
with Stay in America
Based upon the subjects’ evaluations of their stay in America, it can be concluded that the Japanese subjects perceived themselves as being highly satisfied with their sojourn in America. Specifically, 88% of the subjects reported that they were satisfied with their stay in America. Furthermore, only eight subjects (14%) stated that they were not able to get along with members of the host culture. From these data we can infer that our subjects perceived themselves as effective in their intercultural encounters in America.
Descriptive
Statistics for Abilities
Items
The means and standard deviations for the personal abilities are presented in Table 1. The five abilities rated most important for intercultural effectiveness were (in descending order of importance): to work with others (x = 1.39, to empathize with another (1.58) to understand the feelings of another (1.58) to deal with unfamiliar situations (1.63), and to develop interpersonal relationships (1.67). Given the high ratings of importance for these items, it would seem that our Japanese subjects found it important to understand and get along with members of the host culture. In contrast, the five abilities rated least important for intercultural effectiveness were (in ascending order of importance): to deal with different political systems (average = 3.74) to deal with different educational systems (3.67), to deal with financial difficulties (2.65) to deal with social alienation (2.60) and to deal with frustration (2.47). Since these items are mostly concerned with the interaction between sojourner and societal systems, we could conclude that it was less important to have proficiency in these abilities than abilities more directed toward interpersonal encounters.
Test of the Correlation
Matrixfor
the Abilities
Items
One of the first steps in a factor analytic study should be a test of the adequacy of the correlation matrix, i.e., are the correlations significant or
Intercultural
Effectiveness
59
meaningful (Maxwell, 1959). Two tests of the adequacy of the correlation matrix were computed. First, the Measure of Sampling Adequacy (Kaiser, 1970) for our correlation matrix was .72, suggesting a satisfactory correlation matrix (Kaiser and Rice, 1974; Shirkey and Dziuban, 1976). Second, Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1950), which takes sample size, the number of variables, and the determinant of the correlation matrix into consideration, was highly significant (63 1.6, p < .OO1, 276 d.f.). These results suggest that the correlation matrix is suitable for factor analysis.
Factor Analysis
of the Abilities
Items
One of the initial decisions in a factor analysis concerns the determination of the number of significant factors. In the present study, the number of significant factors was determined with the use of Cattell’s (1966) Scree Test. Basically, the procedure entailed plotting the eigenvalues of the factors and then isolating an “elbow” in the plot. The Scree Test suggested either a four-factor or a five-factor solution. After applying Thurstone’s (1947) criteria for a simple solution to the four- and five-factor solutions, we concluded that the five-factor solution was the better solution. Furthermore, the five-factor solution appeared more interpretable. The adequacy of the five-factor solution is attested to by the fact that it accounted for 61% of the total variation in the abilities items. These five factors were then orthogonally rotated according to a Varimax criterion. The loadings (correlations) of each of the 24 abilities items on each of the five factors are presented in Table 2. The interpretations of each of the five factors were based upon the factor loadings of the abilities items. As can be seen in Table 2, a clear pattern emerged from the loadings of the abilities on the five factors.
Factor I. The first factor accounted for 50% of the common variance in the abilities items. The abilities having high loadings (i.e., over .50) on this factor were: to deal with different communication systems (loading = .69), to deal with different educational systems (.68), to deal with communication misunderstandings (.65), to enter meaningful dialogue (.56), and to deal with unforeseen problems (.54). For the most part, these abilities are concerned with the ability to effectively communicate with others in the host culture. This is even more evident when you consider that the differences in the American and Japanese educational systems are communication in nature, e.g., manners of address, classroom participation. On the bases of these data, Factor 1 was labeled the Ability to Communicate Interpersonally. Factor 2. The second factor accounted for 18% of the common variance. The abilities that had high loadings on this factor were: to deal with
H.Abe
60
and
R. L. ~~;se~?7un
TABLE 2 Factor Loadings for Personal Ability Items
Personal Ability items 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
Frustration Interpersonal conflict Unfamiliar situations Life-styles Stress Pressure to conform Financial difficulties Social alienation Political systems Host language Social customs Unforeseen problems Interaction with stranger Meaningful dialogue Misunderstandings Develop relationships Anxiety Other’s point of view Communication styles Educational systems Maintain relationships Understand others Empathize with others Work with other people
Dim 1
Dim 2
Dim 3
Dim 4
Dim 5
.31 .04 .02 .03 .30 .04 .22 .19 .45 .05 .25 54’ .09 .56’ .65’ .14 .49 .43 .69’ .68 .09 .12 -.12 .12
.42 .49 .73* .83* .5.5* 58’ .05 .Ol .I7 .06 .38 .03 .oQ -.06 -.lO -.18 .20 -.09 .18 .30 .28 .06 .38 .06
.35 .48 .Ol .12 .39 -.03 .83 .52’ 55’ .05 -.02 .20 .I6 .lO .02 SKI .30 .18 .15 .45 .05 -.05 .26 -.15
.09 .38 .06 -.08 .08 .OQ .05 -.Ol -.07 .07 -.13 -.17 .I2 .30 .22 53’ .28 .19 -.01 .08 .QQ .44 .21 -.05
.2a .37 .05 -.08 .15 .12 -.09 .oo -.05 .08 .07 .06 .ll .I4 -.07 .26 -.02 .47 .l? .08 .03 .54’ .56 .62’
-
‘Items used to help define factors.
changes in life-styles (loading = .83), to deal with interpersonal conflict (.73), to deal with the pressure to conform (.58), and to deal with anxiety (.55). The first three abilities seem to suggest the ability to adjust to different, and sometimes hostile, social settings. If we recognize that the confrontation of different cultural orientations can be anxiety-producing, the high loading of the ability to deal with anxiety is consistent with the above interpretation. Factor 2, therefore, was labeled the Ability to Adjust to Dlyferent Cultures. Factor 3. The third factor accounted for 15% of the common variance in the abilities items. The three abifities having high loadings (i.e., over .50) on this factor were: to deal with financial difficulties (loading = .83), to deai with different political systems (.55), and to deal with social alienation (.52). Since these items are concerned with interaction on a more societal level, Factor 3 was labeled the Ability to Deal with Different Societal Systems.
Inrercultural Effectiveness
61
Factor 4. The fourth factor accounted for 10% of the common variance in the abilities items. Only two abilities items had high loadings on this factor: to maintain interpersonal relations with others (loading = .90) and to develop interpersonal relations with others (.53). As can be seen, this factor refers to the Ability to Establish Interpersonal Relationships. Factor 5. The last factor accounted for 7% of the common variation in the abilities items. The three high-loading abilities suggest a fairly clear pattern for this factor: to work with other people (loading = .62), to empathize with another (.56), and to understand the feelings of another (.54). This factor appears to be capturing the Ability to Understand Others. In summary, five factors were found for the personal abilities items as perceived by the Japanese subjects visiting America. The five factors focused on the abilities to communicate interpersonally, to adjust to different cultures, to deal with different societal systems, to establish interpersonal relationships, and to understand others. These factors from the Japanese subjects were then compared with the perceptions of the American subjects from the Hammer et al. (1978) study. Comparison
of Japanese and American
Perceptions
The comparisons of the factors from the present study with the factors from the Hammer et al. study were accomplished through the use of Cattell et al.% (1969) s index. Basically, the s index is the ratio of the same salient factor loading pairs, e.g., a positive salient loading in the Hammer et al. study and the present study, divided by all salient factor loading pairs. Two factors would be maximally similar when there is agreement among the significant, positive loading pairs and the significant, negative loading pairs (p. 784). Cattell et al. have investigated the distributions of the s index with various factorial solutions and have developed tables giving the probability levels for particular s values. The results from the calculations of the s indices are presented in Table 3. Correspondence for each of the three dimensions found in the Hammer TABLE 3 S-Values for Comparisons of Factor Solutions from Hammer et al. Study
Study
No. 1 2 3 4 5
‘0 < .OOl
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
.25 .59 .72’ 0 0
.77’ 0 0 .25 .20
0 0 0 30’ .60
62
H. Abe and R. L. Wiseman
et al. study can be found in the five-factor solution in the present study. First, Factor 1 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to deal with psychological stress, was most similar to our Factor 3, i.e., the ability to deal with different societal systems (s = .72, p < .OOl). Abilities having high loadings on both of these factors were: to deal with social alienation, to deal with different political systems, and to deal with financial difficulties. Although these factors were similar, Hammer et al’s Factor 1 seemed to have a stronger emphasis on the abilities to handle stress, anxiety, and frustration (see differences between items 1, 5, and 17). A second correspondence was between Factor 2 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to communicate effectively, and our Factor 1, i.e., the ability to communicate interpersonally (s = .77, p < .OOl). Abilities having high loadings on the two factors were: to enter meaningful dialogue with another, to deal with different communication systems, and to deal with communication misunderstandings. The main difference between these two factors was that our Factor 1 tended to have more anxiety-related abilities associated with it; this was not true for Hammer et al.‘s Factor 2 (see items 12 and 17). Lastly, Factor 3 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to develop interpersonal relationships, was similar to our Factor 4, i.e., the ability to establish interpersonal relationships (s = .80, p < .OOl). Besides sharing common labels, these two factors shared the following high-loading abilities: to maintain interpersonal relationships with others and to develop interpersonal relationships with others. Besides these three correspondences noted here, there were no other significant correspondences which would account for Factors 2 and 5 in the present study (i.e., the abilities to deal with cultural differences and to understand another, respectively). DISCUSSION The present study has provided evidence for both the culture-general and the culture-specific interpretations of intercultural communication effectiveness. The similarities and differences between Japanese and American perceptions of intercultural effectiveness can be analyzed in terms of both the number and the nature of the dimensions extracted in the present study and in the Hammer et al. (1978) study. Evidence for a culture-specific interpretation can be found in the fact that there were more dimensions of intercultural effectiveness found in the Japanese sample than the American sample. There may be several reasons for this result. First, Japanese may be more sensitive to different characteristics of communication, i.e., Japanese are more contextual than Americans (Hall, 1977). Second, our Japanese subjects seemed to have a better grasp of the host language (i.e. English) than did the Americans of
Intercultural
EJfectiveness
63
the host languages of the cultures they visited. The Japanese subjects had eight years, on the average, of English instruction, and had to use English with the host families they visited. This linguistic competency may have allowed the Japanese subjects to be more aware of the American way of communication. Given their strong motivations to learn the English language and American culture, the Japanese subjects had both a positive attitude toward the host culture and some linguistic competency in the host culture. Gudykunst et al. (1977) argue that this positive attitude is an important factor in effective intercultural communication. Lastly, this difference in dimensions may be methodological in basis: the Hammer et al. study (1978) was based upon the recall of the subjects’ experiences in a variety of cultures, while the data in the present study were based on the immediate recall of experiences in one culture. The immediacy of the assessments may have resulted in a larger number of factors. In terms of the nature of the above dimensions, there seem to be some interesting comparisons between the Japanese and American perceptions of intercultural communication effectiveness. The dimensions of intercultural effectiveness found in the Hammer et al. study (1978) were: (1) the ability to deal with psychological stress, (2) the ability to communicate effectively, and (3) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships. Similarities and differences can be found between these dimensions and the dimensions extracted from the present study: (1) the ability to communicate interpersonally, (2) the ability to adjust to different cultures, (3) the ability to deal with different societal systems, (4) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships, and (5) the ability to understand others. Comparison of the two studies seems to manifest characteristics of each cultural communication style. One significant correspondence is between Factor 3 of the present study-the ability to deal with societal systemsand Factor 1 of the Hammer et al. (1978) study-the ability to deal with psychological stress. The explanation of this similarity may be due to the fact that the idea of “psychological stress” in the Hammer et al. study is related to the Japanese idea of “dealing with societal systems,” especially since two important items defining Factor 3 were 7, “to deal with financial In other words, our difficulties,” and 8, “to deal with social alienation.” Japanese subjects perceived the ability to deal with psychological stress to be related to the ability to deal with differing societal systems. It could be that the concept of differing societal systems is considered to be part of the basis for psychological stress with our Japanese subjects. A contrary explanation of the above correspondence should be noted. It could be that the Japanese subjects’ perception of a relationship between psychological stress and the ability to deal with societal systems may have been a result of the nature of their stay, viz., a month-long educational sojourn. This difference in the nature of stays of the subjects
in the two studies could have resulted in different forms of communication (Gudykunst, 1983). Such an item as 7, “financial difficulties,” might have meant to the Japanese to get used to American currency and its exchange rate, while it could have meant a lack of money for longer sojourners. Also, the Japanese stay was shorter than the Americans. For the above reasons, the noted similarity between Factor 3 of the present study and Factor I of the Hammer et al. study remains equivocal at this stage. Another correspondence was between Factor 1 of the present studythe ability to communicate interpersonally-and Factor 2 of the Hammer et al. study-the ability to communicate effectively. Both Japanese and Americans seem to find it an important communication skill to be able to enter into meaningful dialogue with other people, to effectively deal with communication misunderstandings, and to effectively deal with different communication styles (Items 14, 15, and 19, respectively). The subjects’ consensus on the importance of these abilities is consistent with another similarity, viz., the similarity between Factor 4 of the present study, i.e, the ability to establish interpersonal relationships, and Factor 3 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to establish interpersonal relationships. It would ‘seem that both the Japanese and American subjects believe that it is important to establish personal relationships that facilitate interpersonal communication. However, as mentioned earlier in results section, our Factor 1 tended to have more anxiety-related abilities associated with it. Since nearly twothirds of the Japanese subjects were female (68.4%), one might say that anxiety-related abilities were thought important because of a disproportionately large percentage of female subjects. In addition to this possibility, the high-contextual characteristics of Japanese might have induced them to associate anxiety-related abilities with communication abilities. The Japanese seek good interpersonal communication; therefore, they try to understand others. Instead of paying attention only to their own performances in presenting themselves, they expand their communication networks; that is, they become highly contextual in order to catch the other’s cues. This more or less “altruistic” attitude in communication is also seen in Factor 2-the ability to adjust to different culture. Here, the Japanese react to culture as they do to people. Americans seem to work on their own performances to make their communication effective. While both Japanese and Americans work hard at better communication, their focuses on their performances are different due to contrasting social and cultural backgrounds. Further analysis of the two sets of dimensions in the two studies indicates a difference in the perceptions of intercultural effectiveness by the Japanese and American subjects. As discussed above, both the Japanese and American subjects suffered from psychological stress.
Intercultural
Effectiveness
65
However, the cause of the stress seems to be derived from different sources. A contrast can be found between Factors 2 and 3 of the present study, i.e., the abilities to adjust to different cultures and deal with different societal systems, respectively, and Factor 1 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to deal with psychological stress. These concerns for social systems and adjustment to a different culture may be examples of the Japanese strong emphasis on conformity (Cathcart & Cathcart, 1976). The Japanese seem to seek their psychological security in conformity. They feel uncomfortable and suffer from psychological stress when they are not conforming to other cultures’ social norms. This is further illustrated by the fact that the Japanese subjects emphasized the abilities to deal with social customs and to deal with pressures to conform (Items 11 and 6, respectively). Americans, on the other hand, brought up on individualism instead of groupism, seem to take it for granted that they are different from members of other cultures. Therefore, they seem to spend more energy on fighting back the uncomfortable feelings of violating the host culture social norms. They may feel more psychological stress this way and might have thought the ability to handle stress very important. Instead of perceiving communication as a means of conforming to the social norms of the host cultures, Americans seem to perceive communication as a means of solving or ameliorating a problematic situation. Another interesting difference seems to exist between Factors 1 and 5 of the present study, i.e., the ability to communicate interpersonally and to understand others, respectively, and Factor 2 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to communicate effectively. Although both Japanese and Americans find it important to communicate, they may be relying on different communication styles and techniques. As mentioned in the review of the literature, while Americans value explicit communication (Kunihiro, 1976), Japanese place more importance on emotional communication (Nakane, 1972). This difference in cultural perceptions of communication may be the reason why Americans are perceived as open and frank, while the Japanese are perceived as more empathic and reflective (Abe, 1980). Future research should be directed at a larger number of subjects representing a variety of cultures. Such studies would be better tests of the generalizability of dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. Furthermore, research needs to determine what effects the purpose of stay and length of stay have on perceptions of intercultural effectiveness. This research could ascertain the generalizability of intercultural communication skills across a variety of situations and circumstances. Finally, to be able to apply these results to intercultural training, it would be necessary to specify those communication skills that are necessary for effective functioning in other cultures.
66
H. Abe and R. L. Wisernan
REFERENCES ABE, H. Cross-cultural cognitive conflict and its resolution between Japanese. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980. BARNLUND, D. C. Public andprivate selfin Japan and the United States. Tokyo, Japan: The Simul Press, Inc., 1975. CATHCART, D., & CATHCART, R. Japanese social experience and concept of groups. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), interculturalcommunication: A reader. Balmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1976, 58-66. CATTELL, R. The Scree Test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, 1, 245-276. CATTELL, R., BALEAR, K., HORN, J., & NESSELROADE, J. Factor matching procedures: An improvement of the s index; with tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 78 I-792. CLEVELAND, H., MANGONE, G. J., & ADAMS, J. C. l?zeoverseas Americans. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. GUDYKUNST, W. B. Toward a t?>pology of stranger-host relationships. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Dallas, 1983. GUDYKUNST, W. B.. WISEMAN, R. L.,&HAMMER, M. R. Determinantsofa sojourner’s attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Jsearbook 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1977. HALL, E. 7. BeJ*ond culture. New York: Anchor Press, 1977. HAMMER. M.R., GUDYKUNST, W. B., & WISEMAN. R. L. Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal qf Intercultural Relations, 1978, 2, 382-393. HWANG, J., CHASE, L. J., & KELLY. C. W. An intercultural examination of communication competence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Acapulco, Mexico, 1980. KINDAICHI, H. Nihorzjin no gengoh.vogen. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha. 197.5. KLEINJANS. E. Opening remarks at a conference on world communication held at the East-West Center, Honolulu. Hawaii, 1972. KUNIHIRO, M. The Japanese language and intercultural communication. 7’he Japan interpreter. 1976, 10, 268-283. NAKANE. C. Human relations in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of f'oreign Affairs, 1972. NAKANE,
C. Japanese .societF. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1973. RUBEN, B. D. Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organization Studies, 1976, I, 335-354. STEIN, M. I. Volunteers,for peac,e. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1966.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
ABSTRAIT: Dans cette e'tude on a tent6 d'avancer notre comp&hension de la notion de "l'efficacite' de communication interculturelle". En effet, on a cornpar les caracteristiques des voyageurs akricains prCsent6es dans l'gtude de Hammer, Gudykunst et Wiseman (1978) avec celles d'un groupe
Intercultural
Ej‘ectiveness
de voyageurs japonais. Or, cinq facteurs spgcifiques ont e'te'investigu&: (1) la capacite' de comnuniquer en t?te 'a t?te, (2) la capacite' de s'adapter a une culture diffkrente, (3) la capacite' de se d6brouiller dans un systsme social diffgrent, (4) la capacite' d'6tablir des rapports interpersonnels, et (5) la capacit; de comprendre une autre personne. On a constat des similarit& et des diff6rences entre les perceptions ame'ricaines et japonaises de ce qui constitue l'efficacite' de communication interculturelle. On a ensuite discutd les conclusions que l'on peut tirer de ces regultats.
ABSTRACTO: Esta ponencia trata de mejorar nuestra compresio'n sobre 10s componentes de la "efectividad intercultural." Especqficamente, este estudio comoara las dimensiones de la efectividad intercultural estudiadas bar Hammer, Gudykunst y Wiseman (1078), usando residentes temporales americanos con las dimensiones averiguadas al usar residentes temporales japoneses. Los resultados sefialan cinco (1) la habilidad de comunicars e dimensiones para la muestra japonesa: entre varias personas, (2) la habilidad de ajustarse a diferentes culturas, (3)'la habiiidad de adaptarse a diferentes sistemas de sociedad, (4) la habilidad de establecer relaciones con otras Encontramos demds. personas. y (5) la habilidad de comprender a 10s tanto seme;anzas coma diferencias entre ias percepciones americanas y las percepciones japonesas cuando se trata de efectividad Las implicaciones conllevadas por estos resultados intercultural. son tambie'n discutidas en la ponencia.
67
0147.1767/83/010053-lSSO3.00/0
Vol. 7, pp. 53-67, 1983
Copyright ‘c 1983 Pergamon Prev Ltd
Printed in the I’SA. All rights reserved.
A CROSS-CULTURAL CONFIRMATION OF THE DIMENSIONS OF INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS
HIROKO
ABE
Tokai University Shonan, Kanagawa Japan
RICHA RD L. WISEMA
N
California State University Fullerton ABSTRACT TFris stud-v attempted to further our understanding of the construct of “intercultural effectiveness. ” Specifically, the study compared the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness found in Hammer, Gudykunst. and Wiseman (1978) using American sojourners with the dimensions ,found using Japanese sojourners. The results revealed five dimensions for the Japanese sample: (I) the abi1it.v to communicate interpersonall_v, (2) the ability to adjust to dtfferent cultures, (3) the ability to deal with different societal systems, (4) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships, and (5) the ability to understand another. Both similarities and differences were found between the American perceptions and the Japanese perceptions of intercultural effectiveness. The implications of these results were then discussed.
As intercultural researchers, trainers, and/or practitioners, one of our central concerns is with increasing the effectiveness of the communication between members of different cultures. One important question then arises: What is effective intercultural communication? Even though this question seems to be an important one to answer, Ruben (1976) suggests that “systematic attempts to define ‘effective,’ ‘successful,’ or ‘competent’ communication behavior are relatively scarce” (p. 335). The present study is an attempt to advance our understanding of the construct “intercultural communication effectiveness.” Requests California
for reprints should be sent to Richard State University, Fullerton. CA 92634.
53
L. Wise-man,
Speech
Communication,
54
H. Abe and R. L. Wiseman
One approach toward defining intercultural communication effectiveness focuses on the personality of the individuals in the intercultural encounter. In their analysis of personnel destined for international work, Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams (1960) posit that people working in other cultures should possess four personality characteristics: (1) they should be “resourceful and buoyant,” (2) they should have “environmental mobility” in their background, (3) they should possess “intellectual curiosity,” and (4) they should have a talent for “building institutions” (Cleveland et al., 1960, pp. 172-173). Kleinjans (1972) on the other hand, emphasized the value orientations of the intercultural communicators in his list of personality characteristics. According to Kleinjans (1972), the effective intercultural communicator: (1) sees people first, representatives of culture second; (2) knows people are basically good; (3) knows the value of other cultures; and (4) has inner security and is able to feel comfortable being different from other people. Although it may indeed be important to understand the personality of the effective intercultural communicator, two interrelated problems plague such an approach. First, there is reason to doubt that a personality of one of the communicators would necessarily make the intercultural encounter effective. In fact, Stein (1966) found that there was generally no significant relationship between personality type and the effectiveness of Peace Corps volunteers. A second and related problem with the personality approach is that it lacks behavioral prescriptions for intercultural effectiveness. For example, even though a person may value another culture, how is that person to manifest the value in intercultural communication? This problem becomes especially significant when we attempt to train individuals for intercultural encounters. A second approach to defining intercultural communication effectiveness attempts to overcome these problems by focusing on the behaviors needed to be interculturally effective. Drawing from the literature on communication competence in the United States, Ruben (1976) identified seven behavioral dimensions related to intercultural effectiveness: (1) display of respect, (2) interaction posture, (3) orientation to knowledge, (4) empathy, (5) role behavior, (6) interaction management, and (7) tolerance for ambiguity. Ruben has prescribed effective behaviors for each of these dimensions and developed an inventory for the assessment of intercultural communicators. Extending upon their earlier work on a third-culture perspective (Gudykunst, Wiseman, & Hammer, 1977) Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) attempted to empirically determine the behavior dimensions of intercultural communication effectiveness. Hammer et al. (1978) surveyed 53 American students who had lived in another culture and asked them to rate the importance of 24 behaviors in terms of their intercultural effectiveness. A factor analysis of these ratings revealed three
Intercultural
Ejfectiveness
55
dimensions: (1) the ability to deal with psychological stress, (2) the ability to communicate effectively, and (3) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships. The problem with this study and other studies based solely upon American subjects is that the generalizability of the results to other cultures is questionable (Hwang, Chase, & Kelly, 1980) i.e., do the members of other cultures perceive the same behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness? Considerable research on the Japanese culture sheds doubt on our ability to generalize the results based upon American subjects. First, Nakane (1972, 1973) suggested that the nature of societal contacts in the Japanese culture are different from those in the American culture. Specifically, in Japanese culture, social contacts are based more on relationships; whereas in American culture, they are based more upon the shared achievement of mutual objectives. Second, as opposed to American culture, Japanese value orientations predispose Japanese to be brief in their communication, to be reserved in their communication, and to be 1975). Finally, Barnlund (1975) respectful of social norms (Kindaichi, suggested that the self-disclosure of Japanese differed from Americans in terms of their topical preferences, target preferences, and depth of discussion. Although the above cultural differences are by no means exhaustive, they do give evidence that the uses and functions of communication differ between American and Japanese cultures. The present study will attempt to determine whether the dimensions of intercultural communication effectiveness found in the Hammer et al. (1978) study using American subjects can be replicated in this study with Japanese subjects. If indeed the dimensions are similar in the two studies, we have preliminary evidence for a culture-general interpretation of intercultural communication effectiveness. However, if the dimensions of intercultural communication effectiveness in the present study with Japanese subjects differ from those reported in the Hammer et al. (1978) study with American subjects, we would have evidence that perceptions of intercultural communication effectiveness are culture-specific.
METHODS Sample The sample was comprised of 57 students from various Japanese universities, who were sojourning in America for their first time. At the time the questionnaire was administered, their length of stay in America was approximately two weeks. For the most part, the subjects resided with American families during their stay. Some of the relevant demographic information: 39 (68.4%) were females; the average age was 20.8 years (standard deviation = 1.21); 29 were from Tokyo; and the subjects
H. Abe and R. L. Wiseman
56
had an average of 8.2 years (standard English language.
deviation
= 1.30) of study in the
Questionnaire Since one of the primary purposes of the present study was to discover whether the Hammer et al. (1978) study could be replicated with a Japanese sample, we extracted many of our questionnaire items from their study. The main part of their questionnaire consisted of 24 items assessing the importance of various abilities instrumental to intercultural effectiveness. Each of the 24 personal abilities items were suggested by a review of the literature as being facilitating of intercultural effectiveness (Hammer et al., 1978). The 24 abilities items are presented in Table 1. For the most part, the items were concerned with the abilities to deal with the host culture’s members, institutions, customs, and communication style. For each of these items, the subjects were asked to rate the degree of importance each of the items were for intercultural effectiveness. The ratings of importance were made on a six-point scale, where one equals “very important” and six equals “very unimportant.” TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for Abilities Items Abilities
Items
Mean
SD.
1.
To effectively
deal with frustration
2.47
1.12
2. 3. 4. 5.
To To To To
deal deal deal deal
1.93 1.63 2.12 2.02
1.05 .96 1.12 1.17
6. 7. 8.
To effectively To effectively To effectively
deal with the pressure to conform deal with financial difficulties deal with social alienation
2.04 2.65 2.60
1.12 1.32 1.28
9. 10.
To effectively To effectively
deal with different political systems communicate in the language of the host culture
1.17 1 .Ol
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
To To To To To To To To To To To To To To
3.74 1.84 1.97 2.07 2.16 2.30 1.70 1.67 2.40 1.79 2.33 3.67 1.79 1.50 1.58 1.35
effectively effectively effectively effectively
with with with with
interpersonal conflict unfamiliar situations changes in life-style stress
effectively deal with different social customs effectively deal with unforeseen problems initiate interaction with a stranger enter meaningful dialogue with others effectively deal with communication misunderstandings develop satisfying interpersonal relationships with others effectively deal with anxiety accurately understand another’s point of view deal with different communication systems deal with different educational systems maintain interpersonal relationships with others accurately understand the feelings of others empathize with another person effectively work with other people
.89 1.10 1.15 1 .Ol .82 .74 1.08 .88 1.20 1.20 .73 .7l .91 .55
Inlercullural
lTfyec,livene.ss
57
Besides the 24 personal abilities items, the questionnaire had two items asking the subjects to evaluate their stay in America and two open-ended questions asking the subjects their likes and dislikes of Americans. The first evaluative question asked the subjects how satisfied they were with their stay (scaled on six points, where one equals “very satisfied” and six equals “very dissatisfied”). The second evaluative question asked the subjects how well they were getting along with Americans (scaled on six points, where one equals “getting along well” and six equals “not getting along at all”). The purpose of the two evaluative questions was to ascertain the subjects’ level of effectiveness in their sojourn through America. The 24 personal abilities items, the two evaluative questions, and two likes and dislikes questions, and some demographic questions comprised the questionnaire. Although our Japanese subjects had a working knowledge of English, it was decided that an understanding of the meaning of the items would be facilitated by translating the questionnaire into Japanese. The senior author accomplished this translation task. The Japanese translations of each of the English items were surveyed by ten bilingual (Japanese and English) speakers. All of the bilingual speakers’ Japanese-to-English translations were isomorphic with Hammer et al.‘s (1978) questionnaire items. (Reprints of the Japanese version of the questionnaire can be obtained from the senior author.) Furthermore, the clarity of the Japanese translations is attested to by the fact that none of our subjects expressed any difficulty in responding to the questionnaire. Data Analysis As mentioned above, one of the primary purposes of the present study was to discover whether Japanese subjects perceived the abilities necessary for intercultural effectiveness as similar to the American subjects’ perceptions as found in the Hammer et al. study. This research purpose can be divided into three empirical questions: (1) Were the Japanese subjects competent in making judgments about intercultural effectiveness, i.e., were the Japanese subjects interculturally effective in the American culture? (2) What were the Japanese subjects’ perceptions of intercultural effectiveness? (3) Were the Japanese subjects’ perceptions of intercultural effectiveness similar to the perceptions of American subjects? Corresponding to the above three empirical questions are three data analyses. First, the intercultural effectiveness of the Japanese subjects can be assessed through their responses to the two evaluative questions, viz., their satisfaction with their stay and their assessment of how well they got along with Americans. Second, the Japanese subjects’ perceptions of intercultural effectiveness can be ascertained through their responses to the 24 abilities items. Since many of the abilities items are interrelated, it
58
H. Abe and R. L. Wisemarl
should be possible to discover a more parsimonious representation of the abilities thought to be important to intercultural effectiveness. Factor analysis was chosen for this data reduction task because factor analysis will reveal the underlying dimensions of intercultural effectiveness and the abilities corresponding to these dimensions. Third, the similarity of the Japanese subjects’ and American subjects’ perceptions of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness will be accomplished by comparing the factor matrices produced by the present study and the Hammer et al. study.
RESULTS Satisfaction
with Stay in America
Based upon the subjects’ evaluations of their stay in America, it can be concluded that the Japanese subjects perceived themselves as being highly satisfied with their sojourn in America. Specifically, 88% of the subjects reported that they were satisfied with their stay in America. Furthermore, only eight subjects (14%) stated that they were not able to get along with members of the host culture. From these data we can infer that our subjects perceived themselves as effective in their intercultural encounters in America.
Descriptive
Statistics for Abilities
Items
The means and standard deviations for the personal abilities are presented in Table 1. The five abilities rated most important for intercultural effectiveness were (in descending order of importance): to work with others (x = 1.39, to empathize with another (1.58) to understand the feelings of another (1.58) to deal with unfamiliar situations (1.63), and to develop interpersonal relationships (1.67). Given the high ratings of importance for these items, it would seem that our Japanese subjects found it important to understand and get along with members of the host culture. In contrast, the five abilities rated least important for intercultural effectiveness were (in ascending order of importance): to deal with different political systems (average = 3.74) to deal with different educational systems (3.67), to deal with financial difficulties (2.65) to deal with social alienation (2.60) and to deal with frustration (2.47). Since these items are mostly concerned with the interaction between sojourner and societal systems, we could conclude that it was less important to have proficiency in these abilities than abilities more directed toward interpersonal encounters.
Test of the Correlation
Matrixfor
the Abilities
Items
One of the first steps in a factor analytic study should be a test of the adequacy of the correlation matrix, i.e., are the correlations significant or
Intercultural
Effectiveness
59
meaningful (Maxwell, 1959). Two tests of the adequacy of the correlation matrix were computed. First, the Measure of Sampling Adequacy (Kaiser, 1970) for our correlation matrix was .72, suggesting a satisfactory correlation matrix (Kaiser and Rice, 1974; Shirkey and Dziuban, 1976). Second, Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1950), which takes sample size, the number of variables, and the determinant of the correlation matrix into consideration, was highly significant (63 1.6, p < .OO1, 276 d.f.). These results suggest that the correlation matrix is suitable for factor analysis.
Factor Analysis
of the Abilities
Items
One of the initial decisions in a factor analysis concerns the determination of the number of significant factors. In the present study, the number of significant factors was determined with the use of Cattell’s (1966) Scree Test. Basically, the procedure entailed plotting the eigenvalues of the factors and then isolating an “elbow” in the plot. The Scree Test suggested either a four-factor or a five-factor solution. After applying Thurstone’s (1947) criteria for a simple solution to the four- and five-factor solutions, we concluded that the five-factor solution was the better solution. Furthermore, the five-factor solution appeared more interpretable. The adequacy of the five-factor solution is attested to by the fact that it accounted for 61% of the total variation in the abilities items. These five factors were then orthogonally rotated according to a Varimax criterion. The loadings (correlations) of each of the 24 abilities items on each of the five factors are presented in Table 2. The interpretations of each of the five factors were based upon the factor loadings of the abilities items. As can be seen in Table 2, a clear pattern emerged from the loadings of the abilities on the five factors.
Factor I. The first factor accounted for 50% of the common variance in the abilities items. The abilities having high loadings (i.e., over .50) on this factor were: to deal with different communication systems (loading = .69), to deal with different educational systems (.68), to deal with communication misunderstandings (.65), to enter meaningful dialogue (.56), and to deal with unforeseen problems (.54). For the most part, these abilities are concerned with the ability to effectively communicate with others in the host culture. This is even more evident when you consider that the differences in the American and Japanese educational systems are communication in nature, e.g., manners of address, classroom participation. On the bases of these data, Factor 1 was labeled the Ability to Communicate Interpersonally. Factor 2. The second factor accounted for 18% of the common variance. The abilities that had high loadings on this factor were: to deal with
H.Abe
60
and
R. L. ~~;se~?7un
TABLE 2 Factor Loadings for Personal Ability Items
Personal Ability items 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
Frustration Interpersonal conflict Unfamiliar situations Life-styles Stress Pressure to conform Financial difficulties Social alienation Political systems Host language Social customs Unforeseen problems Interaction with stranger Meaningful dialogue Misunderstandings Develop relationships Anxiety Other’s point of view Communication styles Educational systems Maintain relationships Understand others Empathize with others Work with other people
Dim 1
Dim 2
Dim 3
Dim 4
Dim 5
.31 .04 .02 .03 .30 .04 .22 .19 .45 .05 .25 54’ .09 .56’ .65’ .14 .49 .43 .69’ .68 .09 .12 -.12 .12
.42 .49 .73* .83* .5.5* 58’ .05 .Ol .I7 .06 .38 .03 .oQ -.06 -.lO -.18 .20 -.09 .18 .30 .28 .06 .38 .06
.35 .48 .Ol .12 .39 -.03 .83 .52’ 55’ .05 -.02 .20 .I6 .lO .02 SKI .30 .18 .15 .45 .05 -.05 .26 -.15
.09 .38 .06 -.08 .08 .OQ .05 -.Ol -.07 .07 -.13 -.17 .I2 .30 .22 53’ .28 .19 -.01 .08 .QQ .44 .21 -.05
.2a .37 .05 -.08 .15 .12 -.09 .oo -.05 .08 .07 .06 .ll .I4 -.07 .26 -.02 .47 .l? .08 .03 .54’ .56 .62’
-
‘Items used to help define factors.
changes in life-styles (loading = .83), to deal with interpersonal conflict (.73), to deal with the pressure to conform (.58), and to deal with anxiety (.55). The first three abilities seem to suggest the ability to adjust to different, and sometimes hostile, social settings. If we recognize that the confrontation of different cultural orientations can be anxiety-producing, the high loading of the ability to deal with anxiety is consistent with the above interpretation. Factor 2, therefore, was labeled the Ability to Adjust to Dlyferent Cultures. Factor 3. The third factor accounted for 15% of the common variance in the abilities items. The three abifities having high loadings (i.e., over .50) on this factor were: to deal with financial difficulties (loading = .83), to deai with different political systems (.55), and to deal with social alienation (.52). Since these items are concerned with interaction on a more societal level, Factor 3 was labeled the Ability to Deal with Different Societal Systems.
Inrercultural Effectiveness
61
Factor 4. The fourth factor accounted for 10% of the common variance in the abilities items. Only two abilities items had high loadings on this factor: to maintain interpersonal relations with others (loading = .90) and to develop interpersonal relations with others (.53). As can be seen, this factor refers to the Ability to Establish Interpersonal Relationships. Factor 5. The last factor accounted for 7% of the common variation in the abilities items. The three high-loading abilities suggest a fairly clear pattern for this factor: to work with other people (loading = .62), to empathize with another (.56), and to understand the feelings of another (.54). This factor appears to be capturing the Ability to Understand Others. In summary, five factors were found for the personal abilities items as perceived by the Japanese subjects visiting America. The five factors focused on the abilities to communicate interpersonally, to adjust to different cultures, to deal with different societal systems, to establish interpersonal relationships, and to understand others. These factors from the Japanese subjects were then compared with the perceptions of the American subjects from the Hammer et al. (1978) study. Comparison
of Japanese and American
Perceptions
The comparisons of the factors from the present study with the factors from the Hammer et al. study were accomplished through the use of Cattell et al.% (1969) s index. Basically, the s index is the ratio of the same salient factor loading pairs, e.g., a positive salient loading in the Hammer et al. study and the present study, divided by all salient factor loading pairs. Two factors would be maximally similar when there is agreement among the significant, positive loading pairs and the significant, negative loading pairs (p. 784). Cattell et al. have investigated the distributions of the s index with various factorial solutions and have developed tables giving the probability levels for particular s values. The results from the calculations of the s indices are presented in Table 3. Correspondence for each of the three dimensions found in the Hammer TABLE 3 S-Values for Comparisons of Factor Solutions from Hammer et al. Study
Study
No. 1 2 3 4 5
‘0 < .OOl
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
.25 .59 .72’ 0 0
.77’ 0 0 .25 .20
0 0 0 30’ .60
62
H. Abe and R. L. Wiseman
et al. study can be found in the five-factor solution in the present study. First, Factor 1 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to deal with psychological stress, was most similar to our Factor 3, i.e., the ability to deal with different societal systems (s = .72, p < .OOl). Abilities having high loadings on both of these factors were: to deal with social alienation, to deal with different political systems, and to deal with financial difficulties. Although these factors were similar, Hammer et al’s Factor 1 seemed to have a stronger emphasis on the abilities to handle stress, anxiety, and frustration (see differences between items 1, 5, and 17). A second correspondence was between Factor 2 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to communicate effectively, and our Factor 1, i.e., the ability to communicate interpersonally (s = .77, p < .OOl). Abilities having high loadings on the two factors were: to enter meaningful dialogue with another, to deal with different communication systems, and to deal with communication misunderstandings. The main difference between these two factors was that our Factor 1 tended to have more anxiety-related abilities associated with it; this was not true for Hammer et al.‘s Factor 2 (see items 12 and 17). Lastly, Factor 3 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to develop interpersonal relationships, was similar to our Factor 4, i.e., the ability to establish interpersonal relationships (s = .80, p < .OOl). Besides sharing common labels, these two factors shared the following high-loading abilities: to maintain interpersonal relationships with others and to develop interpersonal relationships with others. Besides these three correspondences noted here, there were no other significant correspondences which would account for Factors 2 and 5 in the present study (i.e., the abilities to deal with cultural differences and to understand another, respectively). DISCUSSION The present study has provided evidence for both the culture-general and the culture-specific interpretations of intercultural communication effectiveness. The similarities and differences between Japanese and American perceptions of intercultural effectiveness can be analyzed in terms of both the number and the nature of the dimensions extracted in the present study and in the Hammer et al. (1978) study. Evidence for a culture-specific interpretation can be found in the fact that there were more dimensions of intercultural effectiveness found in the Japanese sample than the American sample. There may be several reasons for this result. First, Japanese may be more sensitive to different characteristics of communication, i.e., Japanese are more contextual than Americans (Hall, 1977). Second, our Japanese subjects seemed to have a better grasp of the host language (i.e. English) than did the Americans of
Intercultural
EJfectiveness
63
the host languages of the cultures they visited. The Japanese subjects had eight years, on the average, of English instruction, and had to use English with the host families they visited. This linguistic competency may have allowed the Japanese subjects to be more aware of the American way of communication. Given their strong motivations to learn the English language and American culture, the Japanese subjects had both a positive attitude toward the host culture and some linguistic competency in the host culture. Gudykunst et al. (1977) argue that this positive attitude is an important factor in effective intercultural communication. Lastly, this difference in dimensions may be methodological in basis: the Hammer et al. study (1978) was based upon the recall of the subjects’ experiences in a variety of cultures, while the data in the present study were based on the immediate recall of experiences in one culture. The immediacy of the assessments may have resulted in a larger number of factors. In terms of the nature of the above dimensions, there seem to be some interesting comparisons between the Japanese and American perceptions of intercultural communication effectiveness. The dimensions of intercultural effectiveness found in the Hammer et al. study (1978) were: (1) the ability to deal with psychological stress, (2) the ability to communicate effectively, and (3) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships. Similarities and differences can be found between these dimensions and the dimensions extracted from the present study: (1) the ability to communicate interpersonally, (2) the ability to adjust to different cultures, (3) the ability to deal with different societal systems, (4) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships, and (5) the ability to understand others. Comparison of the two studies seems to manifest characteristics of each cultural communication style. One significant correspondence is between Factor 3 of the present study-the ability to deal with societal systemsand Factor 1 of the Hammer et al. (1978) study-the ability to deal with psychological stress. The explanation of this similarity may be due to the fact that the idea of “psychological stress” in the Hammer et al. study is related to the Japanese idea of “dealing with societal systems,” especially since two important items defining Factor 3 were 7, “to deal with financial In other words, our difficulties,” and 8, “to deal with social alienation.” Japanese subjects perceived the ability to deal with psychological stress to be related to the ability to deal with differing societal systems. It could be that the concept of differing societal systems is considered to be part of the basis for psychological stress with our Japanese subjects. A contrary explanation of the above correspondence should be noted. It could be that the Japanese subjects’ perception of a relationship between psychological stress and the ability to deal with societal systems may have been a result of the nature of their stay, viz., a month-long educational sojourn. This difference in the nature of stays of the subjects
in the two studies could have resulted in different forms of communication (Gudykunst, 1983). Such an item as 7, “financial difficulties,” might have meant to the Japanese to get used to American currency and its exchange rate, while it could have meant a lack of money for longer sojourners. Also, the Japanese stay was shorter than the Americans. For the above reasons, the noted similarity between Factor 3 of the present study and Factor I of the Hammer et al. study remains equivocal at this stage. Another correspondence was between Factor 1 of the present studythe ability to communicate interpersonally-and Factor 2 of the Hammer et al. study-the ability to communicate effectively. Both Japanese and Americans seem to find it an important communication skill to be able to enter into meaningful dialogue with other people, to effectively deal with communication misunderstandings, and to effectively deal with different communication styles (Items 14, 15, and 19, respectively). The subjects’ consensus on the importance of these abilities is consistent with another similarity, viz., the similarity between Factor 4 of the present study, i.e, the ability to establish interpersonal relationships, and Factor 3 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to establish interpersonal relationships. It would ‘seem that both the Japanese and American subjects believe that it is important to establish personal relationships that facilitate interpersonal communication. However, as mentioned earlier in results section, our Factor 1 tended to have more anxiety-related abilities associated with it. Since nearly twothirds of the Japanese subjects were female (68.4%), one might say that anxiety-related abilities were thought important because of a disproportionately large percentage of female subjects. In addition to this possibility, the high-contextual characteristics of Japanese might have induced them to associate anxiety-related abilities with communication abilities. The Japanese seek good interpersonal communication; therefore, they try to understand others. Instead of paying attention only to their own performances in presenting themselves, they expand their communication networks; that is, they become highly contextual in order to catch the other’s cues. This more or less “altruistic” attitude in communication is also seen in Factor 2-the ability to adjust to different culture. Here, the Japanese react to culture as they do to people. Americans seem to work on their own performances to make their communication effective. While both Japanese and Americans work hard at better communication, their focuses on their performances are different due to contrasting social and cultural backgrounds. Further analysis of the two sets of dimensions in the two studies indicates a difference in the perceptions of intercultural effectiveness by the Japanese and American subjects. As discussed above, both the Japanese and American subjects suffered from psychological stress.
Intercultural
Effectiveness
65
However, the cause of the stress seems to be derived from different sources. A contrast can be found between Factors 2 and 3 of the present study, i.e., the abilities to adjust to different cultures and deal with different societal systems, respectively, and Factor 1 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to deal with psychological stress. These concerns for social systems and adjustment to a different culture may be examples of the Japanese strong emphasis on conformity (Cathcart & Cathcart, 1976). The Japanese seem to seek their psychological security in conformity. They feel uncomfortable and suffer from psychological stress when they are not conforming to other cultures’ social norms. This is further illustrated by the fact that the Japanese subjects emphasized the abilities to deal with social customs and to deal with pressures to conform (Items 11 and 6, respectively). Americans, on the other hand, brought up on individualism instead of groupism, seem to take it for granted that they are different from members of other cultures. Therefore, they seem to spend more energy on fighting back the uncomfortable feelings of violating the host culture social norms. They may feel more psychological stress this way and might have thought the ability to handle stress very important. Instead of perceiving communication as a means of conforming to the social norms of the host cultures, Americans seem to perceive communication as a means of solving or ameliorating a problematic situation. Another interesting difference seems to exist between Factors 1 and 5 of the present study, i.e., the ability to communicate interpersonally and to understand others, respectively, and Factor 2 of the Hammer et al. study, i.e., the ability to communicate effectively. Although both Japanese and Americans find it important to communicate, they may be relying on different communication styles and techniques. As mentioned in the review of the literature, while Americans value explicit communication (Kunihiro, 1976), Japanese place more importance on emotional communication (Nakane, 1972). This difference in cultural perceptions of communication may be the reason why Americans are perceived as open and frank, while the Japanese are perceived as more empathic and reflective (Abe, 1980). Future research should be directed at a larger number of subjects representing a variety of cultures. Such studies would be better tests of the generalizability of dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. Furthermore, research needs to determine what effects the purpose of stay and length of stay have on perceptions of intercultural effectiveness. This research could ascertain the generalizability of intercultural communication skills across a variety of situations and circumstances. Finally, to be able to apply these results to intercultural training, it would be necessary to specify those communication skills that are necessary for effective functioning in other cultures.
66
H. Abe and R. L. Wisernan
REFERENCES ABE, H. Cross-cultural cognitive conflict and its resolution between Japanese. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980. BARNLUND, D. C. Public andprivate selfin Japan and the United States. Tokyo, Japan: The Simul Press, Inc., 1975. CATHCART, D., & CATHCART, R. Japanese social experience and concept of groups. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), interculturalcommunication: A reader. Balmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1976, 58-66. CATTELL, R. The Scree Test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, 1, 245-276. CATTELL, R., BALEAR, K., HORN, J., & NESSELROADE, J. Factor matching procedures: An improvement of the s index; with tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 78 I-792. CLEVELAND, H., MANGONE, G. J., & ADAMS, J. C. l?zeoverseas Americans. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. GUDYKUNST, W. B. Toward a t?>pology of stranger-host relationships. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Dallas, 1983. GUDYKUNST, W. B.. WISEMAN, R. L.,&HAMMER, M. R. Determinantsofa sojourner’s attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Jsearbook 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1977. HALL, E. 7. BeJ*ond culture. New York: Anchor Press, 1977. HAMMER. M.R., GUDYKUNST, W. B., & WISEMAN. R. L. Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal qf Intercultural Relations, 1978, 2, 382-393. HWANG, J., CHASE, L. J., & KELLY. C. W. An intercultural examination of communication competence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Acapulco, Mexico, 1980. KINDAICHI, H. Nihorzjin no gengoh.vogen. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha. 197.5. KLEINJANS. E. Opening remarks at a conference on world communication held at the East-West Center, Honolulu. Hawaii, 1972. KUNIHIRO, M. The Japanese language and intercultural communication. 7’he Japan interpreter. 1976, 10, 268-283. NAKANE. C. Human relations in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of f'oreign Affairs, 1972. NAKANE,
C. Japanese .societF. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1973. RUBEN, B. D. Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organization Studies, 1976, I, 335-354. STEIN, M. I. Volunteers,for peac,e. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1966.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
ABSTRAIT: Dans cette e'tude on a tent6 d'avancer notre comp&hension de la notion de "l'efficacite' de communication interculturelle". En effet, on a cornpar les caracteristiques des voyageurs akricains prCsent6es dans l'gtude de Hammer, Gudykunst et Wiseman (1978) avec celles d'un groupe
Intercultural
Ej‘ectiveness
de voyageurs japonais. Or, cinq facteurs spgcifiques ont e'te'investigu&: (1) la capacite' de comnuniquer en t?te 'a t?te, (2) la capacite' de s'adapter a une culture diffkrente, (3) la capacite' de se d6brouiller dans un systsme social diffgrent, (4) la capacite' d'6tablir des rapports interpersonnels, et (5) la capacit; de comprendre une autre personne. On a constat des similarit& et des diff6rences entre les perceptions ame'ricaines et japonaises de ce qui constitue l'efficacite' de communication interculturelle. On a ensuite discutd les conclusions que l'on peut tirer de ces regultats.
ABSTRACTO: Esta ponencia trata de mejorar nuestra compresio'n sobre 10s componentes de la "efectividad intercultural." Especqficamente, este estudio comoara las dimensiones de la efectividad intercultural estudiadas bar Hammer, Gudykunst y Wiseman (1078), usando residentes temporales americanos con las dimensiones averiguadas al usar residentes temporales japoneses. Los resultados sefialan cinco (1) la habilidad de comunicars e dimensiones para la muestra japonesa: entre varias personas, (2) la habilidad de ajustarse a diferentes culturas, (3)'la habiiidad de adaptarse a diferentes sistemas de sociedad, (4) la habilidad de establecer relaciones con otras Encontramos demds. personas. y (5) la habilidad de comprender a 10s tanto seme;anzas coma diferencias entre ias percepciones americanas y las percepciones japonesas cuando se trata de efectividad Las implicaciones conllevadas por estos resultados intercultural. son tambie'n discutidas en la ponencia.
67