Ethnic communication: A comparative analysis of satisfying communication

Infmmtionol Journal ~Jlntercuhurd Relatiom. Vol. 8, pp. 136151, IV64 Printed In the USA. All rlghlr reserved.

0147-1767/M U.66 + .66 CopyrIght 0 1984 Pcrgamon Press Ltd.

ETHNIC COMMUNICATION: A COMPARATIVE OF SATISFYING COMMUNICATION

MICHAEL Arizona

California

State

L. HECHT

State

SIDNEY

ANALYSIS

University

RIBEA

University,

U Los Angeles

ABSTRACT. Ethnic communication is a signtjicant area for interpersonal communication research. Although previous research has shown differences in patterns of typical communication behavior, no systematic study has demonstrated distinctive patterns in satisfying interpersonal communication. In this study, the intra-ethnic communication of three ethnic groups (blacks. Hispanics and whites) was compared. Self-report measures of satisfying communication were derived from the conversational descriptions of members of each group. These measures were used to dvferentiate intra-ethnic social conversations (blacks talking to blacks, Hispanics talking to Hispanics. whites talking to whites). Analvses indicated significant between group dlyferences. These dfferences were interpreted in terms of ethnic group membership.

By the thousands they have come- Rosaries and Liens and Sus. And rhey are still coming. Blacks from rhe South, Latinos from Equador, Chinese from Hong Kong-they are coming to Los Angeles in waves, bringing new cultural richness, ethnic pride and civic compkxity. To a city accused of aimless sprawl, ethnics are bringing neighborhoods-indeed, cohesive communities.

Los Angeles Times, 1980 The ethnic make-up of Los Angeles and other American cities has changed drastically over the past twenty years. Many are now multi-ethnic communities with large numbers of non-white groups (Dolbeare & Edelman, 1979). The social structure separates these groups so that their ethnic experiences are somewhat unique. As Hall and Freedle (1975) note, even Requests for reprints should be sent to M. L. Hecht. Department State University, Tempe. AZ 85287.

of Communication.

Arizona

Michael

136

L. Hechi and Sidney Ribeau

when pressures toward homogeneity exist, cultural patterns remain consistent across many generations and cultural differences form a coherent organized pattern with consequences for interaction, communication, problem-solving, self-identity and self concept. For the communication scholar, America’s changing demographic profile represents a unique challenge: to make interpersonal communication theory and definitions of communicative effectiveness reflect ethnic diversity. In response to this challenge we investigated communication patterns among members of ethnic groups. ETHNICITY

AND INTERPERSONAL

COMMUNICATION

Ethnic groups consist of racially and linguistically distinct cultural groups (Hoopes, 1979; Jeffres & Hur, 1981). lsajiw (1974) describes ethnicity as “the socialization process by which individuals in involuntary groups inherit and share the common culture of their groups” (p. 120). Jeffres and Hur (198 1) state that ethnicity is concerned with the relational aspects of group life or the social and communicative bonds. Based on these definitions it is clear that communication is shaped by group membership, with communication systems emerging from an ethnic heritage. The attitude, value and general cultural uniqueness of ethnicity make ethnic groups a major component of the community from which communication is learned. At the same time, communication is the vehicle for the transmission and reinforcement of ethnic group identities; ethnic identities are expressed and transmitted through communication. Cultural differences are reflected in styles of social interaction and meanings ascribed 1976; Sarbaugh, 1979). The work of to messages (Porter & Samovar, Laumann (1973) Kutner (1976) and Jeffres and Hur (1981) reflect the importance of interpersonal communication in the analysis of ethnicity. Within the United States, ethnic groups have established and maintained communication systems. Black groups, characterized by black ethos, share a unique set of experiences that produce a distinctive communication system (Young, 1972). Young maintains that blacks have been excluded from white society and institutions and as a result have developed institutions, such as the church, family. mutual aid societies, peer relations, language and customs, that distinguish them from the majority of society and serve their specific needs. (p. 3)

A black communication system is also evident in research describing verbal and nonverbal messages. Kochman (1981a, 1981 b) and Smitherman (1977) identified a black dialect that differentiates blacks from other ethnic groups. According to Smitherman, Black Dialect is an Africanized form of English reflecting Black America’s linguisticcultural African heritage and the conditions of servitude, oppression, and life in America. (p. 2)

Ethnic Communication

137

This style is also reflected in a number of specific nonverbal patterns. Johnson (1971) identified a black nonverbal communication style (e.g., rolling the eyes, rapping stance, walk). Other nonverbal differences have been noted in the use of distance (Baxter, 1970; Jones & Aiello, 1973; Rosegrant & McCroskey, 1975) time (Horton, 1976) and eye gaze (LaFrance & Mayo, 1976). Similarly, a Hispanic communication style is evident. By virtue of their Spanish language background and accent, Hispanics constitute a distinct language community (Flores & Hopper, 1975; Miller, 1975). Ortega (1971) and Sedeno ( 1980) defined Chicanismo as a Chicano worldview from which emerges a unique communication style. In response to oppression and alienation Chicanos manifest a hybrid language system, “Spanglish,” which combines English and barrio Spanish. While not as well documented in the empirical literature as the black communication style, evidence of this Hispanic style exists. Asuncion-Lande (1979) for example, describes role prescriptions unique to Hispanic males and females. Communication and ethnic identity are, therefore, bonded together in a mutually causal framework. It is surprising, then, that more is not known about the relationship between interpersonal communication and ethnic identity. As Jeffres and Hur (1981) note, “While there is increasing evidence that ethnicity persists into many generations relatively little attention is paid to the role of communication in the maintenance of ethnic identity” (p. I 15). Further, what little is known about this relationship describes the channels of communization or the styles (especially fanguage and nonverbal styles) of typical communication, neglecting the important area of interpersonal communication effectiveness and, in particular, interpersonal communication satisfaction. Satisfaction is a particularly salient outcome of effective communication. It is experienced when people establish effective interpersonal relationships (Cupach & Spitzberg, 198 1; Garrison, Sullivan, & Pate, 1976; McLaughlin (Vause & Cody, 1982), function successfully in a new environment Wiemann, 1981), and in general lead healthy and successful lives (Maslow, 1954; Rogers, 1961; Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). Satisfaction is an emotion experienced when events meet or fail to meet expectations (Hecht, 1978a; March & Simon, 1958; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). These expectations emerge, in part, out of a cultural heritage. As March and Simon noted, “Individuals adjust their criteria to the achieved levels of other individuals with whom they compare themselves and to the levels established as norms by relevant reference groups” (p. 183). We are interested in learning how ethnicity shapes communication acts so that members of a group derive satisfaction from their relationships with other members of their culture. We hypothesized that members of various ethnic groups differ in the kind of communication they find satisfying. We limited our study to blacks, Hispanics, and whites. Blacks and

138

Michael L. Hechr and Sidney Ribeau

Hispanics were selected because they represent the two largest minority ethnic groups in America (Dolbeare & Edelman, 1979). Whites, who constitute the nucleus of the mainstream, were selected because of the influence they exert on all non-white minority groups in America. This exploratory study posed the following research question: How do blacks, Hispanics and whites differ in their experiences of satisfying communication?

METHODS Respondents Respondents were 589 black, Hispanic, and white volunteers from the introductory speech communication class at California State University, Los Angeles. This population was chosen for its multi-ethnic makeup. A total of 168 blacks, 244 whites, and 177 Hispanics participated. Sex was evenly distributed among the groups. These numbers reflect the relative sizes of these ethnic groups in the school population. At no stage in this study were specific respondents recruited for their ethnic group membership. Rather, participants represent the naturally existing ethnic variety of the classes. Approximately 1% refused to participate and 5% failed to participate completely. (The sample size reported does not include nonparticipants.) For the general school population, 75% of the families of black and Mexican-American students earn $14,999 or less, while 75% of the families of white students earn $30,000 or less. This income disparity is an accurate reflection of the composition of a large, urban, multi-ethnic state university and is generally reflective of the income disparity within American society (Dolbeare & Edelman, 1979). Procedure We sampled conversations involving blacks talking to blacks, Hispanics talking to Hispanics, and whites talking to whites. We limited our investigation to dyadic, social conversations among friends. Relationship level and conversational intent or purpose were specified to control extraneous factors. Although individual differences obviate any attempt to tightly control these definitions, considerable research control can be exercised by placing respondents within a range of definitions, thereby facilitating comparison to similar interactions. Previous research demonstrated that the level of relationship intimacy influences communication satisfaction (Hecht, 1978b). Since relationship level was beyond the scope of the present study, one level-friendship, was chosen to insure that conversations among intimates were sampled. While individuals vary somewhat in their definitions of friendship, this label does place respondents within a range of high intimacy. Knapp, Ellis, and Williams

Ethnic Communication

139

(1980) found that more intimate terms such as friend are distinguished from less intimate terms such as pal, colleague, and acquaintance. They concluded that people perceive differences among the more intimate terms, but these differences were less distinct than those for less intimate relationships. This implies that our use of the term “friend” restricts the range of intimacy and provides the intended control over relationship level. The concept of “social conversation” was utilized to further control the situation by establishing conversational intent or purpose. It was defined for respondents as a conversation in which they interacted for the enjoyment of the conversation. Gaining information for later use, job functions, and classroom-related interaction were specifically excluded. The study was conducted in three stages. Because our research question was predicated on the possible existence of ethnic group differences, it was imperative that the measurement of communication satisfaction be specific to the ethnic groups. Any other procedure would violate the study’s rationale. Therefore, items were generated (stage one) and tested (stage two) separately within each ethnic group. The items created by these procedures were used to compare group differences (stage three). A self-report method was chosen for this exploratory study due to the nature of satisfying communication as a variable. Satisfying communication denotes an emotional response to an interaction, linking an internal state with the external behaviors. Internal emotions cannot be directly observed and previous research shows that satisfaction is more strongly associated with self-reported, perceptual variables than with observed variables (Heslin & Dunphy, 1964):For example, Shaw (1954) showed that group members’ satisfaction is related to perceptions of task progress rather than actual progress. Once self-reports are available for identifying satisfying communication, it will be possible for future studies to combine self-report data with qualitative, observational methods. This next step, however, was beyond the scope of the present study. In all stages, respondents received a questionnaire and were asked to recall and describe a recent social conversation with a friend of the same ethnic group. Questionnaires were administered in class groups by black, Hispanic, and white research assistants who briefly explained the purpose of the study and asked students to complete voluntarily the questionnaire. All students present on the day of administration were asked to participate. Ethnic group membership was established by a checklist. Respondents within each ethnic group were relatively homogeneous with regard to geographic location and language system. In stage one, items were generated from two sources. As a starting point, we used a previous measure of communication satisfaction (Hecht, 1978c), developed and tested on a white, midwestern population. We sought additional, Likert-style items for use with this sample. These items were created from a content analysis of responses to an open-ended survey

140

Mi~haeI I_. Herht and Sidne>> Ribeau

questionnaire. Respondents recalled either a satisfying or dissatisfying recent conversation. Here, as in other stages, assignment to satisfying or dissatisfying conditions was random. The questionnaire asked for a general description of the physical location and topic of the conversation. Next, respondents described their own communication and explained why it was satisfying or dissatisfying to them. They also described the other person’s communication and explained why it was satisfying or dissatisfying to the respondent. Finally, they described and explained any other factors contributing to their own satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Likert-style items (statements followed by an agree/disagree continuum) were written to describe the respondents’ perceptions of the conversations. Descriptive items produce more valid satisfaction measures (Wanous & Lawler, 1972). Individual items describe an aspect of satisfying and dissatisfying communication. For example, items tapped eye contact, persuasive intent, intent, trust, and misunderstanding. When considered individually, then, each item measures an aspect of satisfying communication. When considered as a group, the items provide a measure of overall satisfaction with the entire conversation. A total of 79 respondents participated in this stage of data collection. Of these, 31 were black, 25 were white, and 23 were Mexican-American. Each questionnaire response was placed on an index card. Redundant or idiosyncratic responses were eliminated. Sixty-nine items were created by these procedures. The second stage consisted of item analyses. Items from stage one were added to Hecht’s original items. A separate sample of 140 respondents (49 blacks, 50 whites, and 41 Mexican-American) used these items to rate either a satisfying or dissatisfying social conversation they had had recently with a friend of the same ethnic group. Administration procedures were identical to stage one. Respondents indicated on an agree/disagree scale the degree to which each item described the conversation. This type of item, when utilized in a survey methodology, casts the respondent in the role of naive observer; that is, he uses the items to describe his conversation. Because most interactants operate on “automatic pilot” and are unaware of the bases for their impressions (Berger & Douglas, I98 I), the items are needed to focus respondents on the most salient aspects of their conversations. I tests were computed for each item in each group to determine if the items could differentiate satisfying and dissatisfying conversations. Three separate analyses were conducted, one for each ethnic group. ltems were retained if they met two criteria. The first was a significant t score @ < .05). The second was a mean below neutral for dissatisfying conversations and above neutral for satisfying conversations. The procedures insured that items could differentiate levels of satisfaction and provide an argument for the construct

I41

Ethnic Communication

validity of the measure. if an item met both criteria for one or more groups, it was retained. Forty items were retained. In the final stage of data collection, a third sample of 360 respondents (78 blacks, I69 whites, 113 Hispanics) used the items to rate recent satisfying and disatisfying social conversations with friends. Stage one administration procedures were utilized. Data from this stage were subject to multiple discriminant anlysis.

RESULTS The stage three means and variance were calculated and are presented in Table 1. These items can be examined for preliminary interpretation of cultural similarities. Cross-ethnic commonalities of means and variances were observed for items 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20,26,29,35,39, and 40. Analysis of these items revealed that all groups were dissatisfied with arguing (8, IO, l&26,29,34, 39,40), particularly when the other person was closedminded or stereotyped them. Similarly, all groups were dissatisfied with a lack of openness and trust (11, 20). Another area of commonality was satisfaction with helping behavior (14, 16, 18, 35).’

TABLE 1 Means and Variances of Stage Ill Items Group t.

2.

3.

x

Nothing-was accomplished. X S2

5.

Hispanic

White

I was communicating effectively.

3.62 6.05

2.75 2.79

3.14 4.09

3.19 4.81

5.18

2.87 4.79

3.59 6.42

3.68 4.02

3.14 4.12

4.64 4.41

4.69 4.66

2.98

I would like to have another conversation like this one. x S2

4.

Black

The other person let me know that 2.81 S’ 3.33

3.59 5.88

The other person genuinely wanted to get to know me x 3.53 S’ 4.54

1had something else to do. x S

4.68 4.53 (Table

I continues on page 142)

142

Michael L. Hecht and Sidney Ribeau

Table I (conrinued) Group 6

7.

6.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Black

The other person showed X S*

Hispanic what I said. 2.65 3.89

me that he/she understood 2.72 2.85

The other person expressed X S’

a lot of interest in what 2.85 3.92

The other person did not provide support X 3.32 S 4.51

White 2.79 3.90

I had to say. 2.49 3.32

for what she/he was saying. 3.33 4.11

2.86 4.25

3.08 4.17

I felt I could talk about anything with the other person. X 3.35 S 5.73

3.17 4.74

3.32 5.19

The conjersation X S2

3.28 3.95

3.34 4.81

flowed smoothly. 3.63 4.44

The other person changed the conversation. si S2

the topic when his/her feelings were brought into

We talked about something x S’

I was not interested in.

3.09 4.50

3.19 4.85

3.09 4.08

2.33 2.94

2.21 3.15

He/she w_astrying to change how I felt about the subject. X 3.46 3.86 S2 4.93 4.98

3.41 4.66

I hurt theother X S2

2.55 3.94

person’s feelings. 2.74 3.96

2.73 4.24

2.57 3.95

I felt like I was talking to a wall. x 2.95 S” 5.09

2.75 4.79

2.85 5.19

What I did made the other person look happy. X 4.15 S2 3.92

4.17 3.89

3.92 4.19

We used intimate x S2

4.27 3.74

4.40 4.49

words. 4.49 4.93

Ethnic Communication

Group 18.

Black

20.

21.

22.

23.

2.70 3.35

2.69 3.93

I was ab& to release bottled-up feelings. X 2.79 SZ 4.09

3.11 3.72

3.39 3.63

The other person refused to answer my questions. X 2.55 S2 3.91

2.82 3.29

2.42 3.09

I felt I helped the other person feel better, as much as I could. si 3.73 3.49 S 4.61 3.29

3.35 3.27

The other person misunderstood my intentions. X 3.38 S2 4.71

29.

30.

4.09 4.41

I was ab$ to trust the other person. X 2.96 S’ 4.06

25.

28.

4.05 4.07

The look in the other person’s eye told me that we wanted similar things. x 3.40 4.12 3.77 S 3.85 3.79 4..27

The other person’s tone of voice indicated x 2.38 SZ 3.45

27.

White

4.13 4.45

24.

26.

Hispanic

I felt he_or she was trying to help me. X S?

19.

143

I thought

they were talking down to me. 3.02 2.46 4.03 3.58

3.46 4.95

2.87 4.45

there was a problem but the other person didn’t. x 3.35 3.26 S* 4.67 4.44

3.12 4.14

I got what I wanted. X S2

3.78 3.39

3.55 3.32

I didn’t have to repeat myself to make myself clear. x 3.29 S? 4.42

3.85 5.18

3.34 4.48

I disapproved 57 SZ

3.45 4.54

3.27 4.60

4.66 4.13

4.08 4.71

I had toiustify X S’

3.99 4.12

of what the other person was saying. 3.35 4.93 and defend my position. 4.09 5.21 (Table

I continues on page 144)

I44 Tabie

Michael L. Hecht and Sidney Ribeau

I (continued) Group

31.

32.

33.

The other person behaved x S2 We talked about something x S?

35.

37.

38.

39.

40.

White

for the situation. 2.92 4.47

2.61 3.61

that goes against my principles. 2.58 2.96 3.44 4.1 1

2.82 4.29

3.93 4.09

3.87 2.35

The other person’s tone of voice told me that we wanted similar things. 3.61 X 3.36 3.85 SZ 4.47

3.90 3.05

3.46 4.06

I was pushy! 2.99 3.88

‘2.88 4.19

Being wiJh the other person was enough. X 4.29 3.64 S

3.90 2.57

3.82 3.18

The other person smiled a lot. x 3.78 SL 4.12

3.57 4.23

3.40 4.50

si S’ 36.

inappropriately 2.82 4.38

Hispanic

t was able to take a risk with her/him and it worked out. x S2

34.

Black

2.85 4.34

The other person made up their mind before they talked with me. 4.11 x 4.41 3.62 S 3.59

4.36 4.56

The other person put a stereotype label on me. x 3.03 S2 4.55

3.33 4.79

3.10 3.86

The other person allowed x S

4.30 3.34

4.42 3.26

me to control 4.44 3.93

the conversation.

A stepwise multiple discriminant analysis was then computed. Discriminant analysis is a regression technique that provides three types of information. First, it tests for the existence of statistically significant group differences. In the present study, the test determined whether the ethnic groups differ on the set of satisfying communication items. Second, discriminant analysis quantifies the extent to which the set of satisfaction variables differentiate among the groups producing a percentage figure

Ethnic Communication

145

reflecting the portion of variance in satisfying communication that is attributable to ethnic group membership. This method is superior to itemby-item analysis because it considers the items as a group, thereby minimizing error and providing a holistic analysis. Third, discriminant analysis facilitates an interpretation of the nature of group differences, identifying the salient features of satisfying communication for each group in comparison to other groups. To accomplish these goals, individual satisfaction items were entered into the analysis. Discriminant analysis will empirically weight and combine the items to produce an overall satisfaction score. Rather than summing across items to derive an overall score, this method provides for a more precise empirically weighted combination. This combination is then used to test for the existence and degree of group difference (first two types of information). Examining the weightings of the individual items suggests an interpretation of the nature of group differences (information type three). The present sample size was adequate to insure the validity of the test statistic (Tatsuoka, 1970). The stepwise multiple discriminant analysis derived two significant linear combinations of 18 communication satisfaction variables that produced significant between-group differences. For the first discriminant function Wilks’ Lambda was .749, Chi Square was 100.975 @ < .OOl). The eigenvalue associated with this function was .185; the canonical correlation was .395. For the second discriminant function Wilks’ Lambda was .887, Chi Square was 41.959, 0) < .002). The eigenvalue associated with this discriminant function was .128; the canonical correlation was .337. Taken together, the two discriminant functions accounted for 25% of the variance (discriminatory power) and correctly classified 54.17% of the respondents. Only 33% of the respondents would be correctly classified by chance, an improvement of over 20% in predictive accuracy. Overall this is a moderate effect size. Table 2 presents the standardized discriminant function coefficients. The first discriminant function differented Hispanic respondents from white and black respondents, with the latter two groups having higher group centroids.2 Satisfying communication for Mexican-American respondents was more strongly influenced by the following variables? 4. The other person genuinely wanted to know me. 13. He/she was trying to change how I felt about the subject. 19. The look in the other person’s eye told me that we wanted similar things. 24. The other person’s tone of voice indicated they were talking down to me. Items 19 and 24 were particularly important for this’group. In contrast, satisfying communication for white and black respondents focused on: 3. I would like to have another conversation like this one. 7. The other person expressed a lot of interest in what I had to say.

146

Michael L. Hechr and Sidney Ribeau TABLE 2 Multiple Discriminant Analysis Standardized Discrlminant Function Coefficients Variable

Function 1

Function 2

1’ 3 4 7 8 12 13 15 17 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 32 36

.18 .79 --.33 .36 --.29 .05 -.31 .33 .23 -.64 .21 -.21 .06 -.48 --.16 -.I1 -.lO .07

-.26 -.31 .39 -.09 .06 .32 -.04 .07 .05 -.55 .27 -.55 .31 -.24 .48 .30 -.25 .34

15. I felt like 1 was talking to the wall. Item 3 was particularly important for these groups. The second discriminant function differentiated white and black groups, with the latter having a higher group centroid on the function. Satisfying communication for black groups was described by the following variables: 4. The other person genuinely wanted to get to know me. 12. We talked about something 1 was not interested in. 20. I was able to trust the other person. 23. 1 felt 1 helped the other person feel better, as much as 1 could. 25. The other person misunderstood my intentions. 27. 1 got what I wanted. 36. Being with the other person was enough. Item 25 was particularly important for this group. Conversely, satisfying communication for white respondents focused on the following variables: 3. 1 would like to have another conversation like this one. 19. The look in the other person’s eye told me that we wanted similar things. 21. 1 was able to release bottled up feelings. Item 19 and 21 were particularly important for this group.

Ethnic Communication

147

DISCUSSION As hypothesized, black, Hispanic and white respondents differed significantly in the type of communication they found satisfying. This confirmed the research hypothesis. Ethnic differences accounted for 25% of the variance in satisfying communication, a moderate yet important effect4 Due to their cultural experiences and heritages, blacks, Hispanics, and whites do not share many basic life experiences. As a result, they develop very separate communication systems. Under these circumstances, accounting for 25% of the variance is a substantial finding, particularly when examining only one outcome (satisfaction). Given the nature of any research enterprise it is necessary to limit the scope of investigation. We examined satisfying communication because we felt it would explicate one dimension of ethnic group differences. Our empirical results support this decision. Satisfying communication did play a significant role in differentiating the ethnic groups. The multiple discriminant analysis lead us to a number of conclusions regarding the nature of the communication system within each ethnic group. When considering one sanction, satisfaction, our findings indicate that the groups may be aligned along two continua. The first continuum (first discriminant function) is anchored at one end by a perspective that assumes a bonded relationship with an internal source of rewards (bonded in the sense that the dyadic unit is seen as joined, with self interests subsumed in relational interests). The bonding is implicit. It is also internal in the sense that rewards are seen as coming from within the bonded unit. Hispanics are closest to this anchor. The opposite perspective is more self-oriented and rewards are more external. The other is viewed as an external source of reward for self. Whites are closest to this perspective. The first perspective (Hispanic) would be typitied by the statement, “We’re doing something together” while the second perspective (white) would be typified by, “I’m doing something with you.” Black respondents fall between the extremes, although closer to the whites’ end of the continuum. Analyses also identified differing repertoires of satisfying communication. Satisfying communication among Hispanic friends having social conversations seems to revolve around nonverbal communication and acceptance of self. This is in contrast to white and black groups that stress the future of the relationship and confirmation that the message and possible the relationship is accepted. Black and white groups require explicit confirmation that they are going in the same direction as well as the feeling that similar conversations will repeat in the future. These groups, however, may be contrasted to each other (second discriminant function). The second continuum is anchored on one end by black respondents who seem to require deeper, more intimate topical involvement than white

148

Michael L. Hecht and Sidney Ribeou

respondents. This intimacy must be seen as intrinsic to the relationship, therapeutic, and involving trust. In addition, there also seems to be more “other orientation” with the possible implication that satisfaction for black interactants revolves around having their own goals fulfilled by the actions of others. Consistent with their middle position on the first continuum, blacks establish a conditional bonding dependent upon goal attainment and reciprocity. In contrast to black respondents, white respondents are at the other end of the second continuum and seem to place more stress on emotional aspects as well as being more future oriented. This is consistent with previous findings for this group, which revealed communication satisfaction for friends to be most strongly influenced by signs of intimacy, confirming the future of the relationship. and a relaxed atmosphere, setting the emotional tone of conversation (Hecht, 1978b). The findings of this study provide the basis for an understanding of intra-ethnic communication. While satisfaction provides a useful starting point, future research can broaden our explanatory power. This can be accomplished through an examination of a variety of other communication outcomes and situations and by examining the patterns in communication between members of different ethnic groups (e.g., a black talking to a Hispanic}. In summary, then, this study examined a neglected but vital aspect of interpersonal communication: ethnic group membership. Empirical results demonstrate ethnic group variations in satisfying communication. Given the multi-ethnic reality of everyday life, this study provides a useful starting point in constructing an interpersonal communication theory which encompasses ethnic group differences,

NOTES 1. Examination

of the means for purposes of describing group differences can sometimes be misleading. The groups may exhibit similar means and variances on a variable and still differ in their scores for a segment ofthe variable’s distribution. For example, two groups with means of 4.0 may differ in the occasions on which they score high on that variable. In addition, groups may also differ in the way they associate or group variables together. As a result, discriminant analysis, which considers all variables at one time. is a more powerful technique for observing group differences. For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see Tatsuoka (1970), or Page and McLaughlin (1972). 2. The first function of the discriminant analysis identifies the largest difference or greatest variance in the data set. In this study, the greatest differences were between Hispanic respondents on the one hand, and black and white respondents on the other hand. The second function identifies the variance which is left unexplained by the first function. Here, that unexplained variance is between white and black respondents. The statistic, therefore, determines the order and nature of the comparisons based on the degree of differences among the groups.

Ethnic Communication

149

3. The items with the higest positive standardized discriminant function coefficients are considered a group which anchor one end of a continuum. This group is defined in contrast to the grouping of the highest negative coefficients anchoring the opposite end. While similar items may appear across sets (e.g., items 4 and 7). these items can only be interpreted in terms of their relationship to other items in their group and in contrast to the other group. Item 4, therefore, must be interpreted along with items 13, 19, and 24 as a group. Further. these items are not viewed as causally related to satisfaction, rather they are seen as correlated or mutually casual. 4. Chase and Simpson report that the median effect sizes for 1977 issues of Human Communication Research, Communication Monographs, and Journal of eummuni~ation were .32. .27, and . I8 respectively. These authors describe the first two effects as accounting “for relatively large amounts of variance” (Chase & Simpson, 1979).

REFERENCES ASUNCION-LANDE, N. C. Problems and strategies for sexual identity and cultural integration. International Journalfor Intercultural Relations, 1979, 3. 497-505. BAXTER, J. C. Interpersonal spacing in natural settings. Sociometry, 1970, 33. 444-456. BERGER, C. R.. & DOUGLAS, W. Studies in interpersonal epistomology: Ill. Anticipated interaction, self-monitoring and observational contact selection. ~omnluni~ation Monographs, I98 I, 48. i 8%196. CHASE, L. G., & SIMPSON, J. Significance and substance in examination of experimental effects. Human communization Research. 1979, 5, 351-354. CUPACH, W. R., & SPITZBERG, B. H. Refationat competence: Measurement and validation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, San Jose. California, 198 I. DOLBEARE, K. H.. & EDELMAN, M. J. Americanpolitics. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co,, 1979. FLORES, N. D.. & HOOPER, R. Mexican-Americans’ evaluations of spoken Spanish and English. Speech Monographs, 1975. 42,9l-98. GARRISON, J.P., SULLIVAN, D.L., & PATE, L.E. Interpersonal valence dimensions as discriminators of communication context: An empirical assessment of dyadic linkages. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, 1976. HALL, W.S.. & FREEDLE. R. Culture and language: The btack American experience. New York: Halsted Press. 1975. HECHT, M.L. Toward a conceptualization of communication satisfaction. Quarter& Journal of Speech, 1978, 64.47-62. (a) HECHT, M.L. Contextual correlates of communication satisfaction. A paper presented at the meeting ofthe Speech Communication Association, Washington. D. C., 1978. (b) HECHT, M.L. The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 1978. 4. 253-264. (c) HESLIN. R., & DUNPHY, D. Three dimensions of member satisfaction in small groups. Human Relations. 1964, 17. 99-l 12.

150

Michael L. Hecht and Sidney Ribeau

HINKLE, D.F., WIERSMA, W.. & JURS, S.G. Appliedstatisticsfor the behavioral sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1979. HOOPES, D.S. Intercultural communication concepts and the psychology of intercultural experience. In M. Pusch (Ed.), Multicultural education: A cross cultural training approach. LaGrange, IL: Intercultural Network, Inc., 1979. HORTON, J. Time and Cool People. In L.A. Samovar and R.E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1976. ISAJIW, W.W. Definitions of ethnicity. Ethnicity, 1974, 1. II I-124. JEFFRES, L.W., & HUR, K.K. Communication channels within ethnic groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. I98 1, 5, I I5- 132. JOHNSON, K.R. Black Kinesics: Some nonverbal patterns in the black culture. Florida Foreign Language Reporter, I97 I, Spring-Fall, 17-20. JONES, SE.. & AIELLO, J.R. Proxemic behavior of black and white first-, third-, and fifth-grade children, Journal of Personality and Social Ps_rchology, 1973,25,21-27. KNAPP, M.L., ELLIS, D.G., & WILLIAMS, B.A. Perceptions of communication behavior associated with relationship terms. Communicarion Monographs, 1980. 47, 262-278. KOCHMAN, T. (Ed.), Rappin’and stylin’out: Communication in urban America. Urbana, IL: The University of Chicago Press, I98 I. (a) KOCHMAN, T. Black and white: Styles in confi’ict. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 198 I. (b) KUTNER, N.G. Low income, ethnicity and voluntary association involvement. Journal of Sociologv and Social Welfare, 1976. 3, 3 I l-32 1. LaFRANCE, M., & MAYO, C. Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: Two systematic observation studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 547-552. LAUMANN, E.O. Bonds of pluralism: The form and substance of urban social networks. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973. Los Angeles Times, Exploding ethnic population: Change face of Los Angeles, Sunday, April 13, 1980. Metro Section, ccpart II. MARCH, J.G., & SIMON, H.A. Organizations. New York: John Wiley&Sons, 1958. MASLOW, A.H. Motivation andpersonality. New York: Harper, 1954. MCLAUGHLIN, M.L., & CODY, M.J. Awkward silences: Behavioral antecedents and consequences of the conversational lapse. Human Communication Research, 1982, 8, 229-3 16. MILLER, D.T. The effect of dialect and ethnicity on communication effectiveness. Speech Monographs, I975,42, 69-74. ORTEGO, P.D. Chicano renaissance. Social Casework, 1971, 53, 294-307. PAGE, W.T., & MCLAUGHLIN, M. Multiple discriminant analysis: A neglected technique in speech communication research. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, 1972. PORTER, R.E., 8~ SAMOVAR, L.A. Communicating interculturally. In L.A. Samovar & R.E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1976. ROGERS, C.R. On becoming aperson. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1961. ROSEGRANT, T.J., & McCROSKEY, J.C. Theeffects of raceand sex on proxemic behavior in the interview setting. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 1975, 40,408-420.

Ethnic Communication

151

SARBAUGH, L.E. lnterculturalcommunication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book co.. 1979. SEDENO. M.V. Chicanismo in selected poetry from the Chicano movement 19691972: A rhetorical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1980. SHAW, M.E. Some effects of problem complexity upon problem solution efficiency in different communication nets. JournalqfExperimental Ps.rcho/ogr. 1954, 48, 21 I-217. SMITHERMAN, G. Talkin’ and test(f) The language of black Americans. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1977. TATSUOKA. M.M. Discriminant analysis: The studs of group differences. Champaign. IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1970. THIBAUT, J.W. & KELLEY. H.H. Thesocialps~~chology ofgroups. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959. VAUSE, C.J. 8~ WIEMANN, J.M. Communication strategies for role invention. Western Journal qf Speech Communication. I98 I. 45, 24 I-25 I. WANOUS, J. P. & LAWLER. E.E. Measurement and meaning ofjob satisfaction. Journal qf Applied Psycholog,*, 1972. 56. 95- 105. YOUNG, C. (Ed,), Black experience: Analjtsis and gnthesis. San Rafael, CA: Leswing Press, 1972.

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS La communication ethnique est un sujet significatif de recherche sur la communication interpersonnel. Bien que des recherches autkieures ont signale des diffgrences dans les dessins de la conduite typique de communication, aucun ktude systematique n'a d&iontr& des dessins distinctives satisfactories dans la communication interpersonnel. Dans cet e'tude las communications intra-ethniquesde trois groupes ethniques (noirs, hispani ques et blancs) furent comp%s. Des mesures de communications satisfactories furent deriv& des descriptions des conversations entre membres de chaque groupe. Ces mesures furent utilisks pour diffkencier conversations sociales intra-ethniques (noirs parlant aux noirs, hispaniques parlant aux hispaniques, blancs parlan au blancs). Les analyses ont in diquk qu'ilja des diff&ences significactives entre les groupes. Ces differences furent interpret& se1011 les appartenances aux groupes ethniques.

La comunicaci& 6tnica es un /area de investigaci& interpersonal. Aunque investigaciones previas han demostrado patrones distintivos referentes a comunicaci& interpersonal satisfactoria. En kte estudio se compard la connmicaci6n inter-btnica de tres grupos (negros, hispinkos y blancos). Las mediciones de comunicaci& satisfactoria fueron derivadas de las descripciones de 10s miembros de cada grupo. Estas mediciones fueron usadas para diferenciar conversaciones sociales interQtnicas (negros hablando con negros, hisp&icos hablando con hispdnicos, blancos hablando con blancos). Los anksis indicaron ser significativos entre diferencias de grupos. Estas diferencias fueron interpretadas en tkminos de pertenencia 6tnica a cada grupo.