1. Intercultural communication and training
Lecture 6
Intercultural communication and training

2. Intercultural communication and training
Content:
Intercultural communication
Verbal
Non-verbal
Theories of IC
Intercultural negotiation
Sojourners (Expatriates)
Intercultural training

3. Intercultural communication

4. Intercultural communication
Basic question: Which elements of communication are the sources of communication problems during intercultural encounters?
Similar undelying psychological processes (social, cognitive, linguistic) across cultures:
→ People from different cultures can communicate with each other.
Manifestations of these processes differ across cultures.
→ Failures of communication occur.
Some are obvious.
Some go unnoticed

5. Verbal communication

6. Language 2 aspects of language: Prosodic (acoustic aspect)
Emphasis (pitch, loudness)
Intonation
Pragmatic (the use of language)
Both aspect are sources of communication problems between cultures.

7. Prosodic aspects
Gumperz (1982): Indian and Pakistani women working in cafeteria in Britain.
Seen as unpleasant and uncooperative.
Some words they said could be interpreted negatively.
Example: Question „Gravy?“ when serving food.
With rising intonation: Question „Is everything fine?“
With falling intonation: Statement of fact (redundant/rude)

8. Pragmatic aspects Common across cultures: Taking turns in conversation
Exchange of compliments
Politeness
Indirect vs. direct style of communication
Direct: meaning of the message is communicated via words
Indirect: Meaning is not only in words but also in the context of conversation (non-verbal, status of communicating people…)

9. Pragmatic aspects Cross-cultural differences: Meaning of words:
Most words have multiple meanings.
Denotative meaning:
As written in dictionary.
Home = „a place where one lives; a residence“
Connotative meaning:
Associations that word brings to mind.
Home = a place of security, comfort, family
Differs across cultures

10. Non-verbal communication

11. Non-verbal communication
Facial expressions (see L5)
Posture
Gestures
Proxemics
Kinesics
Haptics

12. Gestures
Ekman (2004): Emotional and conversational non-verbal signals.
5 categories of gestures:
Regulators
Manipulators
Illustrators
Emblems
Emotional expressions (in L5)

13. Gestures Emblems: Body language
Set of precise meanings for all members of culture
Socially learned → culturally variable (different meaning in 2 cultures)
Some are multicultural („Come to me“)
Have words equivalent, accompany words
Mostly hand movements, shrugging, head movements…

14. Emblems - examples
Military hand signals: Counting

15. Emblems - examples Military hand signals: tactical signals
Our interpretation?

16. Emblems - examples Counting: Number one: Canada vs. Europe
Other examples:

17. Gestures Illustrators: Tied to the speach Augment words
Help to recieve the message
Increase with involvement
Examples:
Pointing
Spatial movements (sp. relationships)
„That much higher“
Kinetographs (body action)
Walking like a zombie.
Pictographs (drawing a picture)
„Love U“
Rhytmic movements (pace of action)

18. Gestures Manipulators (adaptors)
One part of the body (or face) manipulates other part of the body.
No instrumental goal
Reflect nervousness, habitual activity
Some evolved from taboo activities (scratching nose instead of picking)
Examples: stroking, pressing, scratching, biting, licking, sucking…
Exercise: Do not use manipulators for 5 minutes!!!!

19. Gestures Regulators: Video:
Regulate back-and-forth nature of speaking and listening.
Listener responses:
Nodding, agreement smiles, raising brows (surprise), call for information (brows lowered)….
Floor holders:
Made by speaker to prevent interruptions
Turn takers:
Made by listener to gain the floor
Moving the lips for speaking word
Video:

20. Personal space and body position

21. Personal space and body position
Arabs, Southern Europeans, Latin americans – stand close together.
USA, Northern Europe – need for greater physical distance.

22. Theories of intercultural communication

23. Theories of Intercultural communication
Try to provide explanations for communication difficulties.
Theories:
Face-negotiation theory
Anxiety/uncertainity management (AUM)
Direct and indirect communication styles

24. Theories of Intercultural communication
Face-negotiation theory (S. Ting-Toomey)
Focused on 2 main problems:
Conflict-handling
Identity management (of individual and culture)
Face: various components of identities
Definition: „Image of an individual (group), that society sees and evaluates based on cultural norms and values.“
Source of self-worth and other-worth in social situations
Can be lost/saved/protected
Conflicts threaten the face
Locus of face
Degree of concern for self-face and others-faces

25. Theories of Intercultural communication
Thomas-Killman conflict management theory:
Source:

26. Theories of Intercultural communication
F-N theory – cultural differences:
Individualistic cultures (Western):
Individual face more important than group face
Face of individual independent on face of the group
Conflict style: Competing
Collectivistic cultures (Asia):
Group face is more important than individual face
Face of individual dependent on face of the group
Conflict style: Accomodating

27. Theories of Intercultural communication
Anxiety/Uncertainity management (W. B. Gudykunst)
In order to to enable effective communication, both anxiety and uncertainity need to be managed at a certain level. (not too high, not too low)
Stranger comes to host culture → interactions with locals percieved as a series of crises → cause A and U (stress) → need for AM and UM → adjust to the culture + communicate effectively

28. Theories of Intercultural communication
Source:
Self-concepts
Axioms one through five all relate to our views of ourselves, or self-concepts. Gudykunst includes personal identities, social identities, and collective self-esteem in this category. Social identities are employed when we try to predict intergroup behavior and personal identities are naturally employed for interpersonal behavior. They both act in such a way as to help us manage uncertainty and anxiety by sufficiently predicting behavior. If either of these identities feels threatened, Gudykunst believes that we will attempt to raise collective self-esteem and hence fostering a more positive outcome. The greater our self-esteem, the better we are able to manage our anxiety (Becker 1971).
Axiom 1: An increase in the degree to which our social identities guide our interactions with strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our confidence in predicting their behavior. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when we are secure in our social identities, we are not mindful, if strangers are perceived to by typical outgroup members, and when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 294) Axiom 2: An increase in the degree to which our personal identities guide our interactions with strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only in individualistic cultures, when we are not mindful, we are secure in our personal identities, and our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 294) Axiom 3: An increase in our self-esteem when interacting with strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately.Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 294) Axiom 4: An increase in our ingroup-specific collective self-esteem when interacting with strangers from outgroups based on the specific ingroup will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only for the ingroups on which the collective self-esteem is based, when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and when we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 294) Axiom 5: An increase in perceived threats to our social identities when interacting with strangers will produce an increase in our anxiety and a decrease in our confidence in predicting their behavior. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 294)
[edit]Motivation to Interact
Gudykunst's next set of axioms suggest that our motivation to interact with strangers is directly related to the fulfillment of needs. First, we have a need to trust others to behave favorably or at least in an expected manner. Second, and only in the context of intergroup relations, we need to feel inclusion with the group or anxiety will surely develop. Paradoxically, the third need that Gudykunst points out is our need for self-concept confirmation. We want to be included in the group, but not to the extent that our identity is lost in the crowd.
Axiom 6: An increase in our need for group inclusion when interacting with strangers will produce an increase in our anxiety. Boundary Condition: This axiom holds only when we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 295) Axiom 7: An increase in our need to sustain our self-conceptions when interacting with strangers will produce an increase in our anxiety: Boundary Condition: This axiom holds only when we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 295) Axiom 8: An increase in the degree to which strangers confirm our self-conceptions will produce a decrease in our anxiety. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and when we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 296) Axiom 9: An increase in our confidence in our ability to predict strangers' behavior will produce a decrease in our anxiety; a decrease in our anxiety will produce an increase in our confidence in predicting strangers' behavior. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and when we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 296)
[edit]Reactions to Strangers
We tend to act more favorably toward strangers whose mannerisms and beliefs converge with our own. In this case, we have a greater propensity to exhibit empathy, tolerate more ambiguity, and have a less rigid social posture when seeking closure. A rigid attitude, or close-minded thinking, leads us to seek closure to an interaction in the most direct way possible. If we were to exhibit empathy and attempt to think more objectively about the perspective of the stranger, we should in turn be postured to accept more ambiguity and seek the most appropriate solution instead of the most direct.
Axiom 10: An increase in our ability to process information complexly about strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 297) Axiom 11: An increase in the rigidity of our attitudes toward strangers will produce an increase in our anxiety and a decrease in our ability to predict their behavior accurately.Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 297) Axiom 12: An increase in our uncertainty orientation will produce an increase in our ability to predict strangers' behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our uncertainty is between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 298) Axiom 13: An increase in our tolerance for ambiguity will produce a decrease in our anxiety. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 298) Axiom 14: An increase in our ability to empathize with strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when we respect strangers and when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 298) Axiom 15: An increase in the degree to which strangers converge toward us will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our confidence in predicting their behavior.Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only in individualistic cultures when we are secure in our social identities and we do not perceive threats from strangers, when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 298)
[edit]Social Categorization of Strangers
The next seven axioms of this theory focus on how people order their social environments into categories. When people categorize themselves, they become aware of being members of ingroups and outgroups, which generates anxiety and uncertainty. People tend to have more categories for their ingroup than they do for an outgroup, but the more familiar they are with an outgroup, the more categories they see. The categories that people create for outgroups will lead to expectations about the behavior of a member of that group, which can be either positive or negative. Expectations then help people predict, accurately or inaccurately, a stranger's behavior.
Axiom 16: An increase in our understanding of similarities and differences between our groups and strangers' groups will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to accurately predict their behavior. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, we are not mindful, and only for strangers who strongly identify with their groups. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 299) Axiom 17: An increase in the personal similarities we perceive between ourselves and strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 299) Axiom 18: An increase in our ability to categorize strangers in the same categories they categorize themselves will produce an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 300) Axiom 19: An increase in the variability we perceive in strangers' groups will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately.Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 300) Axiom 20: An increase in perceiving that we share superordinate ingroup identities with strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 300) Axiom 21: An increase in our positive expectations for strangers' behavior will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our confidence in predicting their behavior.Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and a maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 300) Axiom 22: An increase in our ability to suspend our negative expectations for strangers' behavior when they are activated will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when we are mindful of the process of communication, and our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 300)
[edit]Situational Processes
The next four axioms are based on the situations in which communication occurs. People have different scripts they expect to follow for a given situation, much like actors may follow a movie script. Miscommunication occurs when people follow a script they assume the stranger with whom they are communicating to be familiar. People also react to strangers differently based on the conditions in which they interact. For example, cooperation was found to lead to positive feelings towards those one is working with (Argyle, 1991). People also tend to have less anxiety when there are other members of their ingroups present. Power also affects communication, and a person who feels they have less power than the stranger in an interaction will feel more anxiety towards that interaction.
Axiom 23: An increase in the cooperative structure of the tasks on which we work with strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our confidence in predicting their behavior. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 301) Axiom 24: An increase in the normative and institutional support for communicating with strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our confidence in predicting their behavior. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 301) Axiom 25: An increase in the percentage of our ingroup members present in a situation will produce a decrease in our anxiety. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 301) Axiom 26: An increase in the power we perceive that we have over strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in the accuracy of our predictions of their behavior. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 301)
[edit]Connections with Strangers
The next five axioms are based on connections between people. What the axioms come to is the more connected people feel to strangers, the less anxiety and uncertainty they feel in communicating with them. These connections come from attraction, interdependence, levels of intimacy, and number of the same people both communicators know.
Axiom 27: An increase in our attraction to strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our confidence in predicting their behavior. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 302) Axiom 28: An increase in the quantity and quality of our contact with strangers and members of their groups will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 302) Axiom 29: An increase in our interdependence with strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 302) Axiom 30: An increase in the intimacy of our relationships will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom applies only to broad trends across stages of relationship development. Within any stage of relationship development or within specific conversations, anxiety and uncertainty fluctuate (i.e. act as dialectics). The axiom holds only when we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 302–303) Axiom 31: An increase in the networks we share with strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to accurately predict their behavior. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 303)
[edit]Ethical Interactions
The next three axioms are based on dignity and respect. Both dignity and respect are assumed to be returned when given to a stranger. This leads to moral inclusiveness, which is good for interactions with strangers because both sides expect the rules of fair play to apply to them. When strangers are considered morally excluded, they are treated almost as nonexistent, or as not deserving of respect or dignity (Optow, 1990). Moral inclusiveness applies not only to communication, but also to bystanders not actively involved in communication with strangers. For example, if a person makes an anti-prejudice statement, the people he or she is with are less likely to make a prejudiced statement towards a stranger.
Axiom 32: An increase in our ability to maintain our own and strangers' dignity in our interactions with them will produce a decrease in our anxiety. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety is between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 304) Axiom 33: An increase in our respect for strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety is between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 304) Axiom 34: An increase in our moral inclusiveness toward strangers will produce a decrease in our anxiety. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety is between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 304)
Gudykunst (2005) notes that maintaining dignity, respect, and moral inclusiveness requires being mindful, especially when anxiety is above a person's maximum level.
[edit]Anxiety, uncertainty, mindfulness, and effective communication
Langer (1989) states that mindfulness involves creating new categories, an openness to new information, and being aware of strangers' perspectives. Mindfulness is essential for effective communication and one needs to develop mindful ways of learning about strangers. Langer (1997) concludes that this should involve: openness to "novelty", awareness of distinctions, being sensitive to different contexts, an awareness of multiple perspectives, and an orientation to the present. For example, strangers are usually more mindful and able to "negotiate potentially problematic social interactions more effectively" than ingroup members (Devine et al. 1996). Therefore, ingroup members should be mindful of the process of communicating as opposed to being mindful of the outcome of the interaction (Gudykunst, 2005, p.&nbsp305).
The following five axioms are essential for effective communication because they focus on the basic causes and processes of effective communication whereas the previous 34 axioms focused on managing our anxiety and uncertainty when communicating with strangers
Axiom 35: An increase in our ability to describe strangers' behavior will produce an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when we are mindful of the process of communication, we are not overly vigilant, and our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 306) Axiom 36: An increase in our knowledge of strangers languages and/or dialects will produce a decrease in our anxiety and an increase in our ability to predict their behavior accurately. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds, and when we are not mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 306) Axiom 37: An increase in our mindfulness of the process of our communication with the strangers will produce an increase in our ability to manage our anxiety and an increase in our ability to manage our uncertainty. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when we are not overly vigilant. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 306) Axiom 38: An increase in mindfully recognizing and correcting pragmatic errors that occur in our conversations with strangers facilitates negotiating with strangers which will produce an increase in the effectiveness of our communication. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when we are mindful of the process of communication and we are not overly vigilant, and our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 306) Axiom 39: An increase in our ability to manage our anxiety about interacting with strangers and an increase in the accuracy of our predictions and explanations regarding their behavior will produce an increase in the effectiveness of our communication. Boundary Conditions: This axiom holds only when we are mindful of the process of communication and we are not overly vigilant, and our anxiety and uncertainty are between our minimum and maximum thresholds. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 307)
[edit]Cross-cultural variability in AUM processes
Gudykunst believes that for the theory to be complete there must be a cultural level of analysis included and that the axioms regarding cultural variability should only be tested on the cultural level. It is necessary to address cross-cultural variability in the major components of the theory because different types of anxiety are emphasized more in some cultures than in others. This is because there are differences in the dynamics of stranger-ingroup relationships across cultures. For example, Triandis (1995) offers that collectivist cultures tend to make a stronger distinction between ingroup and outgroup members whereas members of individualistic cultures usually only draw as sharp of distinctions among differing ethnic groups. (Gudykunst, 2005, p.&nbsp307)
Axiom 40: An increase in cultural collectivism will produce an increase in the sharpness with which the stranger-ingroup distinction is drawn. Boundary Conditions: This axiom does not apply to stranger-ingroup relationships based on ethnicity, and when we are mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 308)
There is another factor of cultural variability that affects our anxiety and uncertainty when communicating with strangers. Hofstede (2001) proposes that xenophobia in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance is stronger than in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. For instance, when there is an increase in cultural uncertainty avoidance there will be an increase in anxiety and uncertainty when interacting with strangers from other cultures, races, or ethnic groups. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 308)
Axiom 41: An increase in cultural uncertainty avoidance will produce an increase in ingroup members' xenophobia about interacting with strangers. Boundary Condition: This axiom does not hold when we are mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 308)
Hofstede (2001) suggests that gender composition between ingroup and outgroup members will also affect anxiety and uncertainty depending on whether it is a masculine orfeminine culture. He notes that the effect of status/power on ingroup members and strangers in regard to anxiety and uncertainty will be affected by cultural variability in power distance as well as generational attitudes to cultural uncertainty avoidance.
Axiom 42: An increase in cultural masculinity will produce an increase in the sharpness of the stranger-ingroup distinction drawn for opposite-sex relationships. Boundary Conditions: This axiom does not hold when we are mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 309) Axiom 43: An increase in cultural power distance will produce an increase in the sharpness of the stranger-ingroup distinction drawn for relationships involving unequal statuses.Boundary Conditions: This axiom does not hold when we are mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 309) Axiom 44: An increase in cultural uncertainty avoidance will produce an increase in the sharpness of the stranger-ingroup distinction drawn based on age. Boundary Conditions: This axiom does not hold for intergenerational communication within families or when we are mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 309)
Belonging to an individualist/collectivist is an important component of how a member of that culture will manage their uncertainty.
Axiom 45: An increase in cultural individualism will produce an increase in ingroup members' use of person-based information to manage uncertainty with strangers; an increase in cultural collectivism will produce an increase in ingroup members' use of group-based and situation-based information to manage uncertainty with strangers. Boundary Conditions: This axiom does not hold when we are mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 309)
Hofstede (2001) proposes that members of high uncertainty avoidance cultures try to avoid uncertainty more because of higher levels of anxiety with uncertainty and therefore tend to have more established cultural rules and norms for intergroup dynamics than low uncertainty avoidance cultures to minimize uncertainty. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 310)
Axiom 46: When there are clear rules for stranger-ingroup interactions, an increase in cultural uncertainty avoidance will produce a decrease in the anxiety and uncertainty experienced communicating with strangers. When there are not clear rules for stranger-ingroup interactions, an increase in cultural uncertainty avoidance will produce an increase in the anxiety and uncertainty experienced interacting with strangers. Boundary Conditions: This axiom does not hold when we are mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 310)
The perception of effective communication differs in individualistic cultures and collectivist cultures.
Axiom 47: An increase in cultural individualism will produce an increase in the focus on cognitive understanding to communicate effectively with strangers. An increase in cultural collectivism will produce an increase in the focus on maintaining good relations between communicators to communicate effectively. Boundary Conditions: This axiom does not hold when we are mindful. (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 311)

29. Theories of Intercultural communication
Direct and indirect communication
Relationship attunement
Attention to relationship issues and emotions of others
Based on peoples comprehension of subtle and indirect cues in communication
Speakers POV
Intention to transmit more than sentence meaning
Listeners POV
Sensitivity to discrepancies between sentence and speaker meaning
Speaker meaning = what speaker wants to accomplish with a remark

30. Theories of Intercultural communication
Example: Criticism of a colleagues work
Cues:
Avoiding an eye contact (nonverbal)
Faint praise (verbal indirect)
Critical tone (verbal emotional)
Sarcasms

31. Adaptation to a foreign culture

32. Acculturation Berrys acculturation model:
4 acculturation strategies depending on how individuals deal with 2 fundamental issues.
Strategies can change depending on situational factors.
Examples:
Gypsies? (Marginalization – lost their culture + dont participate)
Ukrainians? (Separation – keep their culture + dont participate)
Vietnamese? (Integration/Assimilation?)

33. Expatriates (Sojourners)
= reside in a different country or culture for a limited amount of time (duration of contract/course of study)
Have institutional support (university/company)
Dont have to change their identity and behaviors → need to acquire sociocultural skills

34. Expatriates

35. Expatriates Adjustment process:

36. Stages of adjustment process
Honeymoon (4-6 weeks)
Excitation abour being in new country
Fascination with sights and sounds
Rise in status and standards of living (business expats in Asia)
Culture shock (6-8 months)
Realisation of the cultural barriers
Ineffectivity in social interaction
Emotional distress
Traumatization of families
Frustration, anger, confusion, distrust

37. Stages of adjustment process
Gradual adjustment (1-2 years)
Trial and error
Contacts with locals, other expats
→ Adaptation to local culture
→ Apprecciation of local cuisine, language, business practices…
Basic competence (2-4 years)
Functional proficiency
Mastery (5-7 years)
Deep knowledge of the culture

38. Readjustment Similar process happens after coming back:
Thrill of being back (family, friends, known places, etc.) → disappointment (lost positive aspects of life abroad) → readjustment

39. Cultural adaptation models
More models, same principle

40. Expatriates: Intercultural personality
What personal characteristics influence (accelerate) adaptation process?
What types of people are suitable for becoming expats?
How to predict individual performance in other culture?
→ identification of „overseas type“

41. Expatriates: Intercultural personality
Personality traits:
Extraversion
Emotional stability
Ability to cooperate
Self-discipline
Cultural-fit hypothesis:
„Fit“ between personal characteristics and norms of the host culture helps adaptation
Example: US expats in Singapore are more extraverted → feel frustrated and rejected

42. Expatriates: Intercultural personality
Cultural intelligence:
Capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts.
WORK: CQS (Cultural intelligence scale)

43. CQS – reflection
1. Do your scores follow the same general pattern? Are they generally low, generally moderate, or generally high?
2. Do you have any low scores?
3. Do you have any high scores?

44. Intercultural training
Some IT programs take weeks/months
Types of training programs:
Language courses
T-groups
Simulation games
Bicultural contacts
Intercultural workshops
Culture assimilators

45. T-Groups = sensitivity training groups 8-15 participants
No strict agenda
Participants share their emotional reactions (under guidance of facilitator)
Try to understand their emotions, emotions they trigger in other people
Anger, fear, envy…

46. Simulation games Imaginery cultures
Groups familiarize with the culture
Interaction between cultures
Debriefing
Examples: BAFA- BAFA, NaZa

47. Culture assimilators
Short epizodes decribing interactions between people of 2 cultures → something goes wrong → 4/5 possible reasons for communication failure (1 right/rest are distractors) → feedback with culturally relevant information

48. Culture assimilators: Example I
One day a Thai administrator of middle academic rank kept two of his assistants waiting about an hour from an appointment. The assistants, although very angry, did not show it while they waited. When the administrator walked in at last, he acted as if he were not late. He made no apology or explanation. After he was settled in his office, he called his assistants in and they all began working on the business for which the administrator had set the meeting.

49. If you happened to observe the incident exactly as it is reported in this passage, which one of the following would you say describes the chief significance of the behavior of the people involved?
The Thai assistants were extremely skillful at concealing their true feelings
The Thai administrator obviously was unaware of the fact that he was an hour late for the appointment
In Thailand, subordinates are required to be polite to their superiors, no matter what happens, nor what their rank may be.
Clearly, since no one commented on it, the behavior indicated nothing of any unusual significance to any of the Thais

50. You selected 1: The Thai assistants were extremely skillful at concealing their true feelings
This is not entirely correct.
It is quite characteristic of Thais to try to appear reserved under any circumstances. If the assistants were extremely skillful at concealing their true feelings, would you know that you were not seeing their true feelings? Also, does the reference to the chief significance of the behavior of “the people involved” limit it to the assistants?
Please return to questions and try again.

51. You selected 2: The Thai administrator obviously was unaware of the fact that he was an hour late for the appointment
A very poor choice. While the administrator acted as if he were unaware of his tardiness after observing the hour’s wait, don’t you suspect that perhaps he was acting? Please return to questions and try again.

52. You selected 3: In Thailand, subordinates are required to be polite to their superiors, no matter what happens, nor what their rank may be.
Very good.
You are utilizing the information in the episodes to its fullest extent. Continue. This is the correct response.

53. You selected 4: Clearly, since no one commented on it, the behavior indicated nothing of any unusual significance to any of the Thais
This is completely wrong.
While the behavior reported in the passage does not seem so significant for the Thais in this relationship as it might be to Americans, why was nothing said about the tardiness? And why were the assistants “very angry” although they “did not show it?” Isn’t there a more significant level of meaning for this behavior?
Please return to questions and try again.

54. Further reading and sources
Obligatory:
Berry: 15-Communication and training ( )