Communication 372 – Theory and Research in Intercultural
Communication
Updated 6/06/11
Communication
in Intercultural Relationships
NOTE: These notes are
an abbreviation of more extensive notes—focused only on what is most important
for exam. If you would like to see the longer version, with notes on several
specific studies and sources, contact me.
Key Questions?
1. What do partners in a relationship bring with them culturally and personally?
2. What are the key processes that explain how relationships develop, especially from "stranger" to "friendship" or "romantic relationship"?
3. Once people are in relationships, what strategies do they use to negotiate those relationships, maintain them, resolve issues?
4. How are issues in “interracial” dating/romance/marriage the same or different from issues in “intercultural” dating/romance/marriage?
This
website will contain my own notes, with readings from this lecture integrated
as we go.
A Systems Approach to Understanding Intercultural/Intergroup
Relationships
In some of my conference writing, I have
tried to frame the literature on intercultural romance and marriage in terms of
systems theory. Here are some summary notes. The main point with this approach
is that in a relationship (family, romantic, partners sharing a house or dorm
room, small group in a company), all of the parts are interrelated. What happens to or with
one affects all of the others.
A good way to think of this is to think about
two individuals in a family: We often think that little Suzy is misbehaving
because she is upset or is just a rebel. But Suzy sees her behavior as an act
of trying to establish independence or control in a situation with very
authoritarian parents. So—who is to blame for the behavior. In this particular
case, the parents impose control because (to them) Suzy seems out of control.
Suzy rebels because (to her) the parents are too strict. In this case, neither
behavior is distinct, but the behaviors interact, “causing” each other with a sort
of mutual or reciprocal causality.
The problem, a family systems counselor would say, is neither in Suzy nor in
her parents, but in how the system works.
There are two main types of systems theory.
The main details are beyond the scope of our discussion. But briefly, General Systems Theory uses concepts such as input
(what a system brings into it—from communication to knowledge, to electricity
and labor, depending on the system), throughput or process (what the system
does with the “input”), and output (what the system produces—for a
relationship, this might be stability or satisfaction or both). In a cybernetic
system, there is an agency (person or organization) with a goal. The agency
is constantly comparing the goal, maybe even at a subconscious level, with the
outcome. (Ex: You want a desired level of romantic attention from your partner;
you are at some level comparing whether you are getting enough romantic
attention). The agency gives the system messages to either keep the goal in
line with a desired state or to bring the system into a desired state (feedback
messages). However, in some cases, the system gets “stuck” and keeps applying
the same rules for change, even when those don’t work. (Ex: You nag your
partner to get more romantic attention, but the nagging makes your partner feel
become less romantic. So you nag your partner, who becomes less romantic, so
you nag your partner…)
With this brief overview, the main things you
should learn in this lengthy website are in bold. Mostly, the systems framework
is a way to understand intercultural and interethnic relationships. This
especially holds true since systems
always work within an environment, from which they receive input! I hold
that one of the key differences between intergroup and intercultural romantic
relationships is that for intercultural messages, one of the key
factors is the input—“real cultural differences” that the partners bring
to the relationship (see model in Baldwin
& Hecht, 2003, a chapter we read a long time ago for class!). These
“real differences” may also occur in intergroup relationships (e.g.,
“interracial”), but only if and to the
extent that partners exhibit the cultures of their ethnic or racial groups.
The greater concern for these relationships is the environment. That is,
pressure from the outside—family opposition, societal doubts about the motives
for such relationships and expectations for failure, and so on. The same
principle may apply to other stigmatized relationships, such as gay and lesbian
relationships. As the
A Systems Model:
Know general notions of General System Theory (GST):
System: a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and
between their attributes (Broderick & Smith, p. 112).
Open/Closed Systems: This
refers to the ability for input from the environment (people, things outside the
system) to cross over the boundaries of the system. Central to openness of a
system is its relationship to the environment
Hierarchy and Environment. Each system exists in an environment—the climate
from which it takes “input”—be that input “information,” “energy” or other
resources, etc. Hierarchy suggests each system is composed of smaller systems (subsystems)
and makes up a part of some larger system (suprasystem).
A dyad (or couple) is made up of two individuals with their own goals,
strategies, inputs, outputs. Each individual would be a subsystem. The couple
itself makes up part of a larger system (a family, an organization, a society).
Boundary: A
barrier (real or conceptual) that "delineates the elements belonging to
the system and those belonging to its environment" (p. 112).
Input/Throughput/Output: elements
which enter into the system (Input) or exit the system (output). Throughput is
another name for Process, which is what the system does with the various
elements
Equifinality: One can reach the same end-point (or goal) from many
starting points.
Homeostasis/(Dynamic) Equilibrium: Systems
seek a state of "stability" or a "steady state" (Becvar & Becvar, 1982, p.
16). "One of the tasks of a system, if it is to remain 'alive,' is to stay
in balance, or hold its own. It must do this by sensing deviations from the
norm and correcting those 'faults'" (Littlejohn, 1989, p. 37). It is the
failure to correct faults that leads to entropy and disintegration of the
system. However, the state is not usually constant, but is constantly going through minor
changes within an acceptable range. People in the system use
“feedback” to either keep system within the homeostasis, or range of acceptable
behaviors (negative feedback), to bring it back
into range (positive feedback), or to actually change what is acceptable (2nd-order change).
Change/Adaptability: Since systems (especially open ones) are always receiving new
information, they must continue to adapt, to change, to regulate themselves.
Change and stability are constantly balanced (to meet the goal of the system).
Behaviors which encourage balance are called morphostasis,
and those which encourage change, morphogenesis.
Feedback: Messages
intended to keep or bring the system into balance.
Positive
Feedback: Seeks to increase a change
in the system
Negative
feedback:
Seeks to decrease or prevent a change in the system
NOTE: If your mom stops sending you spending money because your grades have dropped from their usual
standing (that is, she seeks to keep the system from changing), this is
negative feedback. But if your grades have never been great (the current system
state is you partying and slacking and her complaining) and she wants to change the system, then stopping your funding becomes positive feedback! This is not the way we use the words in general
discussion!
Purpose or Goal: "Systems are described as purposive, or goal
oriented. The organization or structure, the network of relationships, and the
nature of relationships within a system are relative to the purpose of the
system. The interrelationships of parts qualify the joint behavior of members
of a system in accordance with the purpose of the system" (B&B, p.
20). Thus, the difference between a mound of ants and a pile of sand is that
one has a purpose and works towards that purpose.
Relationship:
"The patterns of interaction between two or more individuals."
Wholeness:
"In a system, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"
(B&B, p. 24).
Cycle: Since
the units of a system are a whole, the parts feed back
on one another.
First- and Second-Order Change: According to Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson (1967), usually people in a system
seek to use the traditional rules of the system to incorporate change. This is 1st-order change (simply following
the system’s rules for feedback). Sometimes, someone (such as a
counselor) has to “recalibrate” the system, help it to find a new
set of rules for feedback because the old rules are not working—in
fact, they might be creating the problem.
Applying
the Systems Approach to Intercultural/Intergroup Romance & Relationship [recognizing
that all of the following occurs within an Environment!]
|
Input (what partners bring to
relationship with them) |
Throughput/Transformation/Process (what partners do with “stuff”) |
Output (what partners “produce” with “stuff”) |
|
o
Motives o
Cultural
orientations/values—real issues, perceived issues o
Definitions of
the relationship (friendship, romance, marriage, etc.) |
o
Relational
development themes: ·
Reducing
uncertainty (URT) ·
Reducing anxiety
(AUM) ·
Finding
similarity (sim-attraction) ·
Self-disclosure
(SPT) ·
Dialectical
processes o
Negotiating
power o
Conflict issues
and styles (Graham, Moeiai, & Shizuru, 1985) o
Patterns to
resolve difference (Tseng, others) |
o
Stability o
Satisfaction o
Family/children
adjustment o
Change in “environment”
(e.g., more tolerant society) o
Development of
“third culture” (Dodd & Baldwin) |
The first part, input, looks at what partners bring with them into the relationship. The second level, transformation one, looks at what happens when relationships begin to form (from stranger through acquaintance, on to the development of a relationship)--this would be the development stage. The second level of transformation assumes relationships are formed or forming and problems of some sort arise. What does/can the couple or the friends do to resolve the differences? This would be related to the maintenance stage. "Output" variables might include things like a "third culture," relational satisfaction, the ethnicity of children, effects on society, etc. I will not consider those here. NOTE: This is intended to be practical. The reason I am providing it is so that you can have some insight into what might be done to counsel friends in intercultural relationships (or better understand your own).
Defining Some Terms:
· Intercultural romance/dating/marriage: What does it mean to date or marry interculturally? This depends on how you define culture! If
one things of culture only in national terms, “intercultural” dating would be
dating between people from two different nations. If we take a wider view of 
culture, intercultural dating could occur
between any two people with group-based
differences in values, norms, beliefs, role expectations, and so on, even
if these are between regions, urban-rural, between social classes, religions,
or even families. One writer says that everyone who dates interculturally,
even if you date the boy (or girl) next door. Others object to this “micro”
approach. “If the whole world is blue, blue ceases to exist.” So also, if
any relationship can be intercultural, than “intercultural” ceases to be a
worthwhile term to discuss relationships. Still, it is good to notice that even
if we are dating someone who seems to look and sound the same as us, she or he
still might have cultural influences; even “families” seem to develop their own
cultures (with a small “c”; Dodd & Baldwin, 2002). Perhaps the relationship
is intercultural when the “cultural” differences are strong enough to influence
the relationship in some way (Samovar & Porter, 1991). Sometimes, cultural
differences may come to play even when we do not expect as many, such as in the
Website on dating Finns from which the comic above was taken (http://www.helsinki.fi/~jshermun/dating.htm).
· Intergroup dating/romance/marriage: As you have seen in previous units, I
differentiate between intercultural
and intergroup behavior. In
the first, real value, communication, behavior, and other differences exist
between the partners. In the second, the differences are more perceived—that is, intergroup dating
occurs when the perception of in-groups and out-groups (along with prejudice
and stereotypes) is a primary issue, whether or not real differences in values, communication, or behavior exist. I
suspect, for example, tha t in many interracial marriages in the
· Probably,
all “inter” relationships have some
balance of both of the above issues; but relationships perceived on “intercultural”
terms may have more of the first issue and those seen as “interracial” may be
seen more in terms of the latter.
· How
about interfaith dating and marriages? How one sees an interfaith marriage probably
depends on several things, such as the importance of the faith to the
individuals in the relationship, the distance between the partners (would Sunni
and Shi’ite Muslims have fewer problems than, say, a Shi’ite Muslim marrying an Evangelical Christian?), and
society’s social construction of the groups. If the two religious groups are
prominent in- and out-groups, such as the way Protestant and Catholic Irish see
each other, then an interfaith marriage might be as much intergroup as intercultural, especially if actual doctrine is not really that important
to either partner.
Brief Summary of Some of the Literature
Many years ago in a conference paper, I used a systems metaphor for intercultural marriage (with application to other forms of dating and romance, as well as friendship) that suggested that in intimate relationship, partners bring certain aspects with them (input). Within the relationship, the partners (lovers, friends, etc.) use communication to negotiate differences, power, and other issues, with the results being the stability and satisfaction of the relationship, as well as many other possible outcomes (impact on children, if any are involved in the relationship, impact on society as increased intercultural/interracial relationships help build a more tolerant society, etc.). Here I will summarize only a few key findings [often supplemented with overheads of findings from specific studies, in a live class!]
ANALYZING RELATIONSHIPS:
I. The Environment: If we are going to use a “systems” metaphor, we should begin by noting that all systems work within an environment, which influences partners in IR/IE dating/marriage in different ways. Briefly:
· Social characteristics: Much of the work on dating and marital choice looks at sociological characteristics. One that has received the greatest focus is propinquity—the physical difference between partners. It makes common sense that we form friendships or romance with people we work with or who live near to us, as we see these people more often. But, related to this, several factors such as segregation, hardness of boundaries between social groups (e.g., prejudice towards IR dating or marriage), and social class differences between groups could all be a factor that might help or hinder the very possibility of IR dating or marriage.
· The role of the family: The family is something else that intercultural and interethnic partners bring to a relationship. Input (or pressure) from the family can come in the form of open opposition (more likely in relationships perceived to be “interracial” than “intercultural.” This may be due to the false idea that there are significant biological differences between the so-called “races”). But family input can also come in the form of pressure to enforce cultural norms of the families (cleanliness, modesty, courtesy, discipline, etc.). The important role of the family has led one writer to suggest that the likelihood of success of an intercultural marriage is directly proportional to the distance from both sets of parents! [The greater the distance from parents, the greater the likelihood of success]. Some churches, for example, if a missionary finds a spouse on the mission field, will move the couple to a new culture that is not the first culture of either partner.
· Societal acceptance: Finally, to move beyond the traditional intercultural perspective, which sees so much of relationships and communication in individual, psychological terms, we must take a sociological glance and see relationships and families existing in larger social contexts. Sometimes, society as a whole (or specific communities) do not accept certain types of relationships. For example, an interracial romance my receive ready acceptance in some circles, but be totally rejected and even persecuted in other communities.
II. Input: What Partners Bring With Them:
· Motives: In a couple of studies, Lampe (1981, 1982) discovered, even at that time (in San Antonio), about 60% of the people had dated interethnically, with the greatest number of interethnic dating occurring between Latinos/Latinas and Whites (the study included perceptions of dating of Whites, Blacks, and Latinas/Latinos). The closed-ended questionnaire asked about reasons for dating (e.g., curiosity, sexual reasons, liking) and for not dating (parents’ disapproval, no opportunity, not interested).
o The #1 reason for dating interethnically (surprise!) is that they liked the other partner. While this sounds like a “no-duh” statement, it is important, as some prior work (e.g., a 1977 essay by Char in the above-mentioned edited book) claimed that many marry interethnically to raise their status, to get back at their parents, or to “own” a White woman. The point—while prior essays and thought sought to pathologize interethnic dating (make it look like people dated for some reason besides love, even sexual curiosity, as suggested in Spike Lee’s Jungle Fever), this study helps to normalize it (let people see that IR and IC dating may be just like other dating.
o The top reasons for not dating interethnically are no opportunity, no desire, and parents’ opposition. The author explores that racism might be a reason for avoiding IR dating, but does not explore this possibility in depth. As a sociologist, he focuses more on propinquity (physical closeness) and segregation, arguing that segregation in our cities is a primary reason people do not date more interethnically.
o The continued role of motives. While we see that motives for IR dating may be the same for same-culture/same-race dating, writers like Dugan Romano (who writes Intercultural Press’s handy book, in everyday language, on IC dating from a counselor’s perspective) still says people who want to date or marry interethnically or interculturally should still consider their motives to make sure they are, indeed, for love. I suppose that is advice that would be good for everyone!
o Question for ongoing research: Are the motives for IR/IE dating the same as motives for IR/IE marriage? For example, one study in Brazil found that when asked whom they would want to date (racially), the majority of Brazilian men said they would want to date a mulatto (Black/White mixture); but when asked whom they would want to marry, they said a White woman. Perhaps the men were looking for something different in their dating than in their marriage in a partner…
· Cultural differences in values, norms, etc. The exact make-up of cultural values that impact marriage can be varied. Here are lists provided by two authors—both counselors who work with people in IC relationships
Romano, 1988 Markoff, 1977
Values In-laws Problems
in communication (verbal, NV differences)
Food and drink Sex Difference in values
(e.g., Yum, Javidi's)
Male/females roles Time The concept of marriage (e.g.,
Char, Collier)
Place of residence Politics Individual
behavior and practices (not cultural)
Dealing w/stress Friends Prejudices
and stereotypes (yes, even in marriage!)
Illness/suffering Religion The
surrounding family (distance --> greater success!)
Food & drink Social
class
Language/Comm Raising children
Ethnocentrism
Any
one of the problems may be more important for specific relationships. Several
authors suggest that raising children is
one of the greatest difficulties (for those partners 
who choose to have children). Often those
differences that may have seemed unimportant (such as religious differences)
early on in a relationship suddenly come to the surface when children are born,
with these problems increasing with the extent that the families of the
partners are involved. Often, partners will encourage children (maybe even
without knowing) to enact the values of their original culture. So, while one
partner encourages a child to “blend in” and “conform,” the other might be
encouraging the child to “be unique.”
·
Definitions of the Relationship: While a “cultural
difference,” relationship definitions merit their own treatment. Differences in
meaning of relational terms could be important for any form of relationship.
Much work by Mary Jane Collier finds that different ethnic groups in the
The
same principle applies to dating. In
many cultures, the date constitutes a serious commitment. (We were told several
years ago when we went to Chile not to go out one-on-one with someone of the
other sex, as the person might interpret that to mean that we were serious
enough to begin thinking about marriage. “Getting-to-know-you” dates or
“just-for-fun” dates—both types very common in the
III.
Process/Throughput: What Happens in the Relationship
Writers
in various fields (cross-cultural psychology, sociology, communication) have
tried to theorize and research about what happens within the relationship
itself (our required reading fits into this area). We might break the research
down (just to be simple) into three subcategories: relational development,
perceived problems, and solutions. [Here is where Gudykunst
(2004) comes in!]
· Relational development theories: Time will not allow us to look in detail at the theories of relational development this year, due to on-line format and summer course! Here are a couple that have received the most attention.
o The Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis: Not covered in our readings here, but central to many explanations of intercultural and intergroup relationship development, the similarity-attractin hypothesis simply states that we are drawn to those whom we perceive to be similar to ourselves. We might think that this is what explains the tendency for homogamous relationships (same culture, same ethnic group mating/dating/marrying relationships), but some research suggests that similarities in values, hobbies, and beliefs is more important in the development of relationships than ethnic similarity. Neuliep (2006) adds to the discussion of similarity, empathy, which he defines as “the degree to which we can accurately infer another’s thoughts or feelings” (p. 352). Total empathy may not be possible, but we can use communication skills (p. 354) to better understand others, and, if we develop an ongoing relationship, we will develop a third culture, unique to our relationship (See Dodd & Baldwin notes, below).
o Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) and Uncertainty/Anxiety Management theory (AUM): The main statement of URT was that as we are better able to predict and explain other communicators, our relationships with them will grow more intimate (for example, from stranger to friend). Researchers have posed several variables, such as nonverbal warmth, the amount and intimacy of verbal communication, liking, and shared networks (do we know the same people)? As these increase, we feel we are better able to predict the other person’s behavior, and thus our relationship grows. AUM adds a very important factor: emotion (something that had been missing from our relational theories for so long). Basically, both uncertainty (a thought/cognition—our ability to predict or explain the other’s behavior) and anxiety (a feeling/affect—a sense of apprehension or fear in a situation) may get in the way of relationship forming. Thus it is our ability to manage both uncertainty and anxiety that predicts whether our relationships will grow. (key authors: Charles Berger, William Gudykunst). Gudykunst (2004) lists some specifics to this theory, which, as you have probably noticed, permeates his 2004 text from beginning to end. In the relationship chapter, he notes:
1.
People from individualistic
and collectivistic cultures seek different types of information to reduce
uncertainty (and, thus, for relationships to grow beyond acquaintanceship).
2.
People from I and C cultures
differ in the importance of context in explaining the behavior of others.
3.
MORE NOTES just below!
o Social Penetration Theory (SPT): The main prediction of this theory is that as self-disclosure increases in depth (degree of intimacy on any given topic) and breadth (the number of topics about which one self-discloses to another person), our relationships will grow more intimate. The deepest relationships, the theory suggests, have a high degree of both depth and breadth of self-disclosure. While some topics seem more “deep” than others (say, political attitudes as opposed to hobbies), we can share with varying depth on any topic (I can share only my political party—shallow—or the deep background of my past and why languages and culture interest me—deep!)
Self-disclosure relates to our friendship formation. Over time, as we weigh the costs and rewards of telling our opinions, facts of our lives, and so on, we share more with one person than another—possibly about a specific topic (our hobbies, our family problems, our goals and dreams) or possibly on an increasing number of topics. In this theory, self-disclosure can include sharing on any topic—not just personal secrets, but political views, hobbies, dreams about the future, and so on.
The theory suggests that relationships grow in stage, with increased depth and breadth of self-disclosure. At a certain point, we make predictions and judgments of others based on personal, rather than group (cultural) factors. Thus, the theory suggests, culture, ethnicity, and roles become much less important as the relationship gets deeper. Again, we see how relationships could grow differently based on this theory.
1.
What constitutes appropriate
topics for self-disclosure differ between cultures. This deals with what some
have called the “public self” and the “private self.”
2.
Rules for what is shared
“in-group” and “out-group” differ between cultures
3.
There are differences in ethnic
cultures (African American/Caucasian American) in self-disclosure. If we consider
self-disclosure to be not only aspects of one’s self, but one’s views on
societal and political issues (a valid definition
Theorists who use this theory (including Gudykunst) frequently state that as relationships grow, we move away from culture and ethnic differences and see each other mostly in terms of individual characteristics. While this is probably true, there are some authors (e.g., Celia Falicov) who state that even in intimate romantic relationships and marriage, in times of trouble, race- or culture-based attributions can come to the front.
o Relational Dialectics: Some authors argue that too much openness is not good, as sometimes in relationships we need a little privacy of information; and so also, too much predictability is not good. Rather, each partner in a relationship (friendship, romance, family) has different competing, yet contradictory needs. These are fluid and often contextual. For example, a partner might feel more of a need for “space” (autonomy) today, but tomorrow might need more “togetherness.” So also, tensions can exist both within the couple and between the couple and surrounding community (should we just spend time with ourselves [seclusion] or have a get together with a bunch of friends [inclusion], etc.). For a quick summary of this theory, click here. While this approach makes good sense for IC/IG/stigmatized relationships, few have applied it in this way to my knowledge! This approach might apply more to ongoing relationships rather than how relationships grow, the focus of the earlier theories.
THEORETICAL INTERLUDE (♫): Extended
NOTES: Uncertainty-Anxiety Management
A couple of these have been very well developed in the intercultural communication literature, and receive extra attention by many authors (including Neuliep, 2006). In live classes, we often spend an entire day just on these, with video application!
Uncertainty Reduction Theory says that our ability to predict and explain (Gudykunst's model of URT) suggests that as intimacy ("interpersonal salience") goes up, uncertainty goes down. But this is just one “axiom” (Axiom 7) of a much larger theory. This theory is *very* well known in the field of communication, and Gudykunst alone has done some 22 studies regarding the theory as it pertains to intercultural communication. (If you are interested in my own statistical analysis of the 22 studies, with citation, please contact me). The theory uses “axioms,” which many summarizers of the theory accidentally cite like mathematical axioms as statements that need no further proof. In fact, the whole point of research in these studies is to test the axioms. In essence, theorists have added several components to the theory:
· Uncertainty can be:
o Predictive (can we anticipate what the
person will do or think) or explanatory (do we think we know why
the person did or thought something already “done or thought”?)
o Behavioral (about the other persons’
actions) or cognitive (about the other person’s thoughts/perspectives).
Note here the total absence of affect or emotion. In essence, this
theory models the notion of the social scientist, who seeks to “predict and
explain” the world onto humans, arguing that we are all, in essence, naïve
scientists.
· We don’t try to reduce our uncertainty about everyone! (It would be impossible). So when do we?
o When we perceive some cost
or reward for doing so: The person is a teacher who gives us grades, or an
attractive person who may give us attention, etc.
o When we anticipate future
interaction: We don’t always try to understand the stranger on the bus, but we will
try to reduce our uncertainty about that new roommate we’re stuck with for a
year.
o When the person acts in a
“deviant” or unexpected fashion. Even the stranger on the bus, if standing on her
head and pulling the bus cord with her bare toes, would lead us to want to try
to predict or explain her behavior. Of course this might apply in an
intercultural situation where someone does something we don’t expect!
· People tend to try to reduce uncertainty using different means
o Active: by manipulating the environment,
talking to someone besides the person
they want to know more about
o Passive: by simply observing the
person in the natural environment. I’m not sure, but I suspect that looking up
someone’s Facebook or webpage might now fit in this area. The theory was
drafted in the 1970s, long before Facebook.
o Interactive: by talking with the person we want to know. Note presence of this type
of strategy in the axioms.
· The seven axioms themselves (see summary in various theory books). Basically, as verbal communication, nonverbal affiliative (warmth) communication (not all NV comm.!), and perceived similarity increase, uncertainty—one’s ability to predict and explain the behavior of the other person, decreases. As uncertainty increases, so do “interactive” strategies, such as self-disclosure (to get the other person also to self-disclose), information seeking (asking questions). But also, people will be less intimate in their communication. Later theorists also added the notion of shared networks—as people know others in the network of the person they are trying to predict, their uncertainty goes down. For our quiz, you should know the main relationships (+/-) of the variables in the 7 axioms as stated. Beware—a couple seem counterintuitive (3 & 5), and one chapter by Berger and Gudykunst admits that support for these axioms has been mixed. The idea with these two is that people seek information (via asking questions, “active, passive, and interactive strategies) if uncertainty is high. Reciprocity (the “I-tell-you-something-about-msyelf-so-you-tell-me-something-about-yourself” phenomenon) might get people to talk about themselves, and so reduce your uncertainty about them. But research actually suggests that if I am not certain about someone, I may NOT ask questions, and I certainly won’t self-disclose!
Baldwin’s visualization of URT axioms:
NOTE: You do not need to know direction of causality for quiz!. Some axioms state “mutual causality” (one causes the other, which influences the first), some flow from variable to uncertainty and some from uncertainty to the variable. The relationship may be positive (+), meaning as one increases, so does the other (and as it decreases, so does the other), or negative (-), meaning that as one increases, the other decreases.
In graduate classes, we often look more closely at the direction of the arrows, the content of the variables, and so on, to critique the model.
For the exact wording of the axioms (or, as I would call them, propositions) and a student’s personal application of them, go to:
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~pc406097/unc.htm
· Theorems: Berger and Calabrese developed a series of “theorems”—second-level statements of prediction, combining every possible variable in the original model. The main axioms all regard uncertainty, but the theorems involve its predictors. It is all done mathematically: If nonverbal warmth and uncertainty have a negative relationship (-) and uncertainty uncertainty and liking have a negative relationship (-), then as nonverbal warmth increases, so will liking (+). This is one example of the 21 theorems.
· Uncertainty and relationship development. URT was originally about initial interaction, but scholars soon saw its relevance also to developing relationships, especially because of Axiom 7 (as uncertainty increases, liking will increase). This is the main statement of the theory as it relates to (intercultural) relationship development.
Anxiety & Uncertainty Management Theory (AUM): William Gudykunst adds to uncertainty the role of emotion or apprehension (anxiety), a very important addition, because, as Gudykunst argues, our reactions to interacting with “strangers” (people from other cultures—both near to us in presence, but “far” from us in culture) is not just thought, it is also feeling!. Specifically, he contends that as we are better able to control (manage--M) our (emotional) apprehension (A) and our (cognitive) ability to predict and explain the other (U), our relationships will more likely develop.
The late William Gudykunst, himself, is one of the most prolific modern writers in the field of intercultural communication, especially in the “social scientific” area (other writers are now gaining ground in the fields of humanistic and critical inquiry). One of his main contributions to the field was focusing on the development of theory in a series of edited volumes (1983, 1988, 2005) and handbooks.
Anxiety-uncertainty management theory began with Gudykunst’s studies of URT in intercultural communication so is strongly based on URT. However, several critiques of his URT work (including Kellerman, Sunnafrank, and others), he began to modify his original theory. If you get a chance to read one of the original writings by Gudykunst, you will note that the theory has blossomed from a mere 13 axioms in 1988 to 94 axioms in the 1995 version (47 axioms, but then an addition of a Hofstede dimension to show how each might change from one type of culture to another. In 2005, Gudykunst narrowed the axioms back down to only 47. You must know these 47 axioms for Quiz. (just kidding!). Gudykunst has tried to group the massive number of variables in different ways. In 1993, he grouped them by “knowledge, motivation, and skills” (a grouping we will come back to in our discussion of competence). In 2005, he clustered the axioms around ideas of self, motivation, cognitive capacity, and so on (the middle column in the figure below). One author tries to visualize AUM in this fashion:
[from http://www.hotelmule.com/management/html/06/n-3106-7.html, adapted from Gudykunst, 2005. If I am able, I will replace this with Gudykunst’s own image, which better illustrates the points below].
For now, we are concerned only about how the theory has changed to differ from URT.
· It brings back to communication—a field that for so long had turned very “cognitive,” leaving out emotional and spiritual elements—the notion of emotion: anxiety, the affective reaction to strangers
· With the burgeoning growth of axioms and Gudykunst’s unimaginable breadth of reading in the social scientific literature of identity, transitions, and intercultural communication in general, he has had to try different ways to organize his 94..um, 47 axioms. Neuliep’s Figure 9.2 (p. 345) shows the framework he has used for the last several years. Each area (e.g., reaction to strangers), contain several variables, each representing an Axiom, that in turn predicts the outcome variables. These are groups of variables, with each of the variable in the group being the “superficial” cause.
· Gudykunst believes that the ultimate predictors of communication effectiveness are uncertainty and anxiety. He calls these the “basic causes” or the “proximal (near) factors.” All other variables influence effectiveness, according to Gudykunst, as they influence anxiety and uncertainty. Gudykunst calls them “distal (distant)” factors; Neuliep (2006) chooses the clearer “superficial causes.”
· Communication effectiveness, for Gudykunst, is shared meaning between interactants (not the same thing as in CTI, where it is the match between avowed and ascribed identities).
· Gudykunst uses the notion of mindfulness as a “mediating variable,” suggesting that if we are going on auto-pilot (mindlessly), then the variables will not come into play. We must be in some way aware of or thinking about our interaction. (Okay, there is more to mindfulness than that, but that is enough for our Webpage!)
· As some (e.g., Baldwin, 1995) suggested, there is lack of clarity as to whether it is “attributional confidence” (how certain we are that we can predict the behavior of the other—the inverse of uncertainty) or “attributional accuracy” (how accurate we are in predicting the behavior of the other) that really predicts our effectiveness. In later version, though without any citation to Baldwin, 1995, Gudykunst adds the notion of attributional accuracy to his theory.
· As some (Kellerman, 1989) argued that there are times when uncertainty can be good, Gudykunst added the notion of thresholds to his theory. That is, we need some level of uncertainty and anxiety to even be interested or involved in an interaction, but not so much as to bail out. It is not, he concludes, how much U or A someone has, but one’s ability to “manage” it, or keep it within appropriate thresholds, that leads to effective communication and to eventual relationship development.
· Finally, in the longer versions of the theory (e.g., Gudykunst, 1995), part of the length is from Gudykunst’s incorporation of Hofstede’s axes. That is, he notes that for each axiom, the relationship between the variables might change depending on whether one is from a collectivist or individualist culture (or based on one of the other dimensions, whichever is most important to the axiom).
Certainly, aside from some of the criticisms Gudykunst has used to modify his theory, others have claimed that the theory, whether it has 94 or 47 axioms, is not heuristic (imagine that!). However, Gudykunst (1995) defends the theory against this charge, noting that there is a balance between heurism and practical utility. A theory with few axioms that are broadly stated is harder to apply in training and research. But a theory that is very specific, while losing in heurism, is easier to apply. AUM tends to still be one of the most cited theories in intercultural communication today.
|
Thought Box: Have you ever been in an intercultural or intergroup marriage or romance? Compare and contrast the different explanations presented on the webpage. Which of the following (or which combination) do you feel best reflects the growth OR process of your relationship? Compare a couple, or simply apply one! (Want to know more about one that receives little attention? Ask the prof… OR—give a fuller application of anxiety-uncertainty management to an interaction or relationship that you have had. Remember, this theory can apply to any intercultural interaction. One aspect of the theory is how relationships grow over time (our ability to negotiate our own anxiety and uncertainty). Please do not address all 47 variables! But you might pick some from some of the boxes (clusters or groups of variables) in the AUM Figure (Fig. 9.2, Neuliep, 2006, p. 345). |
· Problems in IC/IR relationships: I have already listed above some of the problem areas that some authors have listed for IC/IR relationships. I feel that some of these may be more important in interethnic than in intercultural relationships. Specifically, it is my feeling from observation (and an interview study I did with partners in IR marriage) that interethnic partners are more likely to experience trouble from family, friends, and surrounding community (prejudice, stereotypes, expectations of failure), and intercultural partners are more likely to experience difficulty from real differences in values, norms, behaviors, and so on. That is, while both prejudice and cultural difference may be at play in both types of relationships, it seems that one type will have more of one, and one more of the other. See my journal entry… Some areas of problems (including some noted above) are:
o Value differences
o Definition of relationship,
roles, etc.
o Prejudice, negative
expectations (for example, one study of intermarriage in Israel—of “Eastern”
and “Western” Jews—found people had much more expectation that (a) the
marriages of E & W Jewish people would not be as stable as homogeneous
marriages, and (b) the Eastern partners in E/W marriages must be marrying to
increase their social status. The author (Bizman,
1987) suggests that these negative expectations may impact the relationship.
o Power differences (who has
power in the relationships)
Ø
Graham, Moeai, & Shizuru (1985). In this (required)
reading, the authors look at a sample of intermarried individuals (they
survey individuals, not partners) in inter- and intra-cultural marriages (that
is, marriages between partners of different cultures and between partners
within the same culture). They based their study on a couple of key ideas,
including a foundational study of Black/White marriages in
o There are different types of problems that couples can have—or shall we say, different sources to which couples attribute their problems! (One problem that haunts this whole study is the blurring between perception or attribution of problems and actual problems—something I will return to below
– Internal problems: Based on factors within the relationship itself (that is, individual aspects of the relationship not based primarily on culture, like arguing over who takes out the garbage, sex, money, raising children, personal differences
– External problems: Problems that are based on something external to the couple itself, such as family pressure, cultural influences, language differences
o The Romeo & Juliet Effect: One idea that comes out elsewhere in the literature is that IR/IC relationships may be like Romeo and Juliet, the classic Shakespearean tragic heroine and hero, whose families opposed their relationship. The idea is that often, as opposition grows against the relationship, the relationship must grow stronger to stand up against it. As a partner in one relationship says, “We have to be strong—everyone’s against us.”
o
Method
& Findings: The authors find through standardized interviews [same
questions to all participants] of partners involved in IR marriages (they did
not usually interview both partners of a marriage] that partners in intracultural marriages in
Intracultural Intercultural
individual living habits interference
with extended family
children different
cultural customs
time with friends language
difficulties
financial problems
Their main conclusion is that ""The intercultural couple seems to have an added difficulty because of the cultural difference between the marriage partners" (p. 432). That is, intercultural couples have more external problems (e.g. family, culture) than intracultural couples. However, this study is a self-report. Just as in the studies above, we do not know if these are the real problems or are perceived problems. G, M, & S bring up in thier lit review the notion of the Romeo & Juliet Effect, in which couples who are persecuted tend to grow stronger. I would extend this to say there may be a tendency in intercultural/interethnic couples to want to blame difficulties on external factors (even if the differences are personal)--this false attribution might lead couples to be blind to--and have difficulty resolving--real issues.
·
Resolving
differences: In a way, resolving cultural differences may happen much the
same way that resolving individual differences—through hard work and
communication. Sometimes, being aware that cultural differences are present
help partners not to attribute problems to personality
that are, in fact, cultural (see my journal). Still, in IC marriages,
psychologist Tseng (in
Tseng's 5 styles of Cultural Adjustment. Tseng (1977), a psychologist in 
we
should know them:
*One-Way Adjustment: One partner gives in to the culture of the other; usually it is the wife, or it is the partner who is in the other person's culture.
*Alternative Adjustment: The couple alternates between cultural styles--first one partner's then the other's. Might vary with which aspect of life (say, public life, wife's culture; private life, husbands) or where the couple lives (adopts to whichever culture they are in).
*Simultaneous Adjustment: Elements of both cultures are adopted at the same time. For example, someone might go to the doctor at the same time as they treat themself with herbal medicine.
*Mixing: This seems to me to be a alternative adjustment at a micro level. Within a given culture or time, the couple uses aspects of one culture or the other. Tseng uses an example like "enchiladas tonight, sushi tomorrow night." For me, the lines between alternative, mixing, and simultaneous are somewhat fuzzy. Romano (1988) seems to include all of these under one category: Compromise (as opposed to submission, consensus, or obliteration).
*Creative Adjustment: Here the couple adopts elements of neither culture, but finds their "own" way--They decide to be neither Budhist or Christian but both become Muslim. They sort of create a "third culture" which is all their own. While this might occur in certain elements of culture, I am not sure how realistically it could occur in every aspect of relationship.
In Summary: Important questions to ask in the whole
issue of cultural adjustment in romantic relationships--especially before marriage
becomes an issue, are
-what are the motives for the partners involved?
-how do the partners feel about the various problem
issues (especially things like child-rearing, husband/wife roles, in-law and
extended family involvement, and so on)?
-who will be expected to adapt to whose
culture. In most cases, the woman is
expected to adopt to the man's. Is this
equitable? Is it acceptable by both
partners?
Romano (1988) gives an extensive list of thoughtful
questions for intercultural couples planning on a deeper relationship, and Hall
(2005) summarizes these in (of all places) his chapter on ethics (pp. 360-362).
Hall’s recommendations (a summary of Romano) of characteristics for someone who
seeks success in intercultural relationships consist of:
·
Good motives for
the marriage [or other relationship]
·
Common goals
·
A liking for the
other’s culture
·
Flexibility
·
Solid, positive,
self-image
·
Spirit of
adventure
·
Ability to
communicate
·
Commitment to the
relationship
·
Sense of humor
Some Specific
Martin, Nakayama, and Flores present several chapters on intercultural relationships. I would like everyone to read the one by Carley H. Dodd and that other dude and one other essay of your choice. Here are some questions:
Dodd, C. H., & Baldwin, J.
R. (2002). The role of
family and macrocultures in intercultural
relationships. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds).
Dodd and his co-author present a different view of culture than many authors.
v What, for them, is the “culture” of focus (hint, see heading, p. 280)? In this sense, the authors take what some have called a Third-Culture Perspective. This view notes how people from two different cultures (or even the same) come together and form their own set of values, expectations, and norms. This culture becomes unique to a couple or family. It is culture with a small “c” as opposed to the Cultures that might refer to nations, or, if you like, it takes a microcultural perspective, rather than a macrocultural perspective.
v What are some of the “elements of family culture” that might impact intercultural communication? Dodd and What’s-His-Name note how in each section, two partners in a relationship can bring the elements (cohesion, family rules, etc.) from their own family culture (microculture), but these may also be influenced by larger cultural standards and expectations (macroculture).
v Be able to recognize and define each of the main terms listed by the headings.
|
Thought Box: Describe your own “family culture” growing up, using some of Dodd & Baldwin’s terms, or systems theory terms from above—or both! Or describe how you and a partner have developed your own “third culture.” |
Hofstede, G. (2002). I, we, they. In J. N. Martin, T.
K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds).
This is a nice essay to read as it provides in Hofstede’s own words more detail on individualism/collectivism, said by many (e.g., Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, and others) to be the major cultural dimension by which cultures can vary! Again, this is a segment from a larger chapter Some questions to guide your reading:
v What are some of the main values associated with individualism and collectivism (p. 290)?
v What are some regions of the world associated with I and C? Note, however, that Table 1 illustrates how I and C are a continuum, with a wide range of scores, despite authors’ tendency to categorize cultures into only two groups—“individualistic” and “collectivistic.”
v How, briefly, might I and C play out in family values and norms? In the school? In the workplace?
There are a great many webpages on I/C. Note that in addition to Hofstede’s work, Harry Triandis, cross-cultural psychologist from the University of Illinois, has written much on the topic, including a 1995 book (co-edited with others), with many chapters just on this subject. Some sources:
v http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RaymieStata/WhatIsIndividualism.html
v IC and Web Use in the
v VIA Web, with many links to other introductory culture
notions: http://www.via-web.de/284.html
v A summary from
v A reference list from a Triandis
paper: http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/36/3/321
v Effects of gender & I/C on refusal of requests: http://spjp.massey.ac.nz/issues/2002-v14/v14-ang.pdf
Collier, M. J.
(2002). Intercultural friendships and interpersonal alliances. In J. N. Martin,
T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds). 
Experiences
and contexts (2nd ed., pp. 301-310).
Mary Jane Collier has done much research in the area of ethnic and interethnic rules—both in the areas of what makes for competent communication and in the area of friendships, specifically. She was one of the founding writers (in 1988, with Milt Thomas) of what is now cultural identity theory, though now her view of culture and her research has moved in a more critical and sometimes postcolonial direction. In this article, her goal is “to explore how individuals from different cultural backgrounds maintain their friendships as well as demonstrate respect for one another’s cultural differences” (p. 301). Some questions to guide your reading:
v What are some of the “spheres” of identity (my word, not Collier’s) one might have (pp. 302-303)? Note that some of these are voluntary and some are not; some are biological, some are socialized. Finally, “interpretations of what it means to be a member of an ethnic group may differ dramatically in different regions of the country”—and, from CTI, we would add, between different members of a given group even within one region (p. 303). The first few pages basically summarize identity categories, as we have studied before.
v What Collier now calls cultural identity theory is the same thing that Hecht now calls the communication theory of identity. (Perhaps the two of them should visit and agree on a single name…J). This section (pp. 304-306) basically reviews that theory for you.
v What is the role of cultural identity in friendship enactment?
v In what ways does her new approach (beginning page 307) go beyond the original tenets of CTI or cultural identity theory?
o Role of power and unearned (i.e., social) privilege
o Impact of histories of intolerance, segregation, oppression
