University of Rhode Island

DigitalCommons@URI

Communication Studies Faculty Publications Communication Studies

1992

A Test of Intercultural Communication Competence

Guo-Ming Chen
University of Rhode Island, gmchen@uri.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/com_facpubs

Terms of Use
All rights reserved under copyright.

Citation/Publisher Attribution
Chen, Guo-Ming. "A test of intercultural communication competence." Intercultural Communication
Studies, vol. 2, no. 21992, pp. 63-82. https://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/04-Guo-Ming-Chen.pdf
Available at: https://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/04-Guo-Ming-Chen.pdf

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies at DigitalCommons@URI. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons-group@uri.edu.
A Test of Intercultural Communication Competence

Terms of Use
All rights reserved under copyright.

This article is available at DigitalCommons@URI: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/com_facpubs/34

 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen

A Test of
Intercultural Communication Competence

Guo-Ming Chen

University of Rhode Island

Abstract

This study investigated the concept of intercultural communication competence.

One hundred and forty nine foreign students and 129 Americans were asked to serve as
participants in this study. The results of Pearson product-moment correlations indicated
significant relationships among the seven elements of Intercultural Behavioral
Assessment Indices (IBAI) developed by Ruben. Multiple stepwise regressions were also
conducted to examine the predictors of the seven elements of IBAI. Finally, limitation
and directions for future research are discussed.

When people sojourn in a foreign country, some adapt well to the new
environment within a short period of time, while others find the new environment a
nightmare. One of the main reasons why some find new environments problematic is
that most familiar symbols they use in daily lives change suddenly in the strange culture.
They then begin to reject, consciously or unconsciously, the new ways of life that cause
discomfort.
Worse than that, some become victims of “culture shock.” Symptoms of culture
shock include washing hands excessively, being overly concerned with food and
drinking, fearing people, being absent-minded, refusing to learn the host country’s
language and customs, and worrying about being robbed, cheated, or injured (Oberg,
1960; Smalley, 1963). Eventually, the only way to eliminate this problem is by returning
to one’s homeland. If sojourners cannot return home, the difficulty in cross-cultural
adaptation may cause severe psychological or psychiatric problems such as paranoia,
depression, schizophrenia, and lack of confidence (Yeh, Chu, Klein, Alexander, & Miller,

63
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
1981). These maladies suggest the importance of being competent in adaptation to new
environments. Owing to the increase of face-to-face contact among people of different
cultures in recent years, we live in a world that is becoming increasingly interdependent.
It is therefore most urgent that we study intercultural communication competence.
Although consensus has not been reached concerning the conceptualization of
intercultural communication competence, the concept has been investigated by scholars
from different disciplines (e.g. Chen, 1989; Collier, 1989; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1984;
Hammer, 1987, 1989; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Martin & Hammer, 1989;
Ruben, 1976, 1977; Wiseman & Abe, 1984; Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida, 1989). Ruben’s
studies are two of the earliest investigations on the concept of intercultural
communication competence. Ruben identified seven elements and created a general
model for intercultural communication competence. In addition, Ruben designed the
Intercultural Behavioral Assessment Indices (IBAI) as the instrument of measuring
intercultural communication competence. Appendix A shows a reduced version of IBAI.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of the seven elements of IBAI
and to further investigate predictors that explain the seven elements.

Intercultural Behavioral Assessment Indices

Communication competence was conceptualized by Ruben (1976) as “the ability

to function in a manner that is perceived to be relatively consistent with the needs,
capacities, goals, and expectations of the individuals in one’s environment while
satisfying one’s own needs, capacities, goals, and expectations” (p. 336). Based on this
definition of communication competence, Ruben identified seven behavioral elements
that make individuals function effectively in intercultural settings. The seven elements
are: display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, empathy, role
behaviors, interaction management, and tolerance of ambiguity.
Display of respect refers to “the ability to express respect and positive regard for
another person” (Ruben, 1976, p. 339). This element includes behavioral cues such as eye
contact, body posture, voice tone and pitch, and general displays of interest in the
interaction. Interaction posture refers to “the ability to respond to others in a descriptive,
nonevaluating, and nonjudgmental way” (p. 340). According to Ruben, the more
competent the individuals are, the more descriptive and less evaluative or judgmental
they are.
Orientation to knowledge refers to the ability to recognize “the extent to which
knowledge is individual in nature” (p. 340). The hierarchical order for individuals in
intercultural communication is first and foremost, intrapersonal orientation, then
interpersonal orientation, cultural orientation, and last, physical orientation. Empathy is
the ability to “put oneself in another’s shoes” (p. 340). A highly empathic individual
usually responds accurately to “apparent and less apparent expressions of feeling and

64
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
thought by others” and usually “projects interest and provides verbal and nonverbal
cues that he or she understands the state of affairs of others” (p. 349).
Role behaviors refer to the ability to be functionally flexible in different group
situations. Role behaviors were classified into task roles, relational roles, and
individualistic roles. For the task roles a competent person shows the ability to complete
tasks such as “initiation of ideas, requesting further information or facts, seeking of
clarification or group tasks, clarification of task-related issues, evaluation of suggestions
of others, or focusing group on task” (p. 350). For relational roles a competent person
shows the ability to lead the group to outcomes such as “harmonizing and mediating
scraps and/or conflicts between group members, attempts to regulate evenness of
contributions of group members,” offers comments “relative to the group’s dynamics,”
displays “indications of a willingness to compromise own position for the sake of group
consensus,” (p. 350) and displays interests. For individualistic roles, a competent person
would not show behaviors such as resistance to other’s ideas, attempting to call attention
to him or herself, manipulation of the group, and avoidance of participation in the group
activities. Because task and individualistic roles did not show a satisfactory level of
reliability in Ruben’s study, only the relational role was used in the present study.
Interaction management refers to the ability to take “turns in discussion and
initiating and terminating interaction based on a reasonably accurate assessment of the
needs and desires of others” (p. 341). A competent person with high interaction
management skill is always concerned with “the interests, tolerances, and orientation of
others who are party to discussions” (p. 350).
Finally, tolerance of ambiguity refers to the ability “to react to new and
ambiguous situations with little visible discomfort” (p. 341). A competent person with
high ambiguity tolerance tends to adapt to the demands of the new situation quickly
without “noticeable personal, interpersonal, or group consequences” (p. 352).
Based on the seven elements, Ruben (1976) developed the Intercultural
Behavioral Assessment Indices for the measurement of intercultural communication
competence. Ruben found that the IBAI could be easily administered by untrained
observers with efficiency and reliability. In order to examine the components of IBAI a
research question was advanced:

RQ1: What are the relationships among the seven elements of IBAI?

Elements Related to Intercultural Communication Competence

The seven elements of intercultural communication competence identified by

Ruben emphasized the behavioral perspective of communication competence. In
addition to these communication skills, a number of elements essential to

65
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
communication competence were also specified by scholars from different disciplines.
Those major elements include self-disclosure (Bochner & Kelly, 1974), self-consciousness
(Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984), social relaxation (Wiemann, 1977), behavioral flexibility
(Martin, 1987), interaction involvement (Cegala, 1981), and the abilities to deal with
social difficulties in the host culture (Furnham & Bochner, 1982).
Self-disclosure refers to the process of revealing personal information to one’s
partners who are not likely to know from other sources (Pearce & Sharp, 1973).
According to Bochner and Kelly (1974), self-disclosure is one of the main elements in
communication competence. In addition, Parks (1976) indicated that self-disclosure can
lead individuals to achieve their goals in communication. However, self-disclosure must
be regulated by the norm of appropriateness in which individuals judge the degree of
disclosure for a given situation.
Self-consciousness is the ability to know or to monitor oneself. Self-
consciousness can help individuals to implement conversationally competent behaviors
in interaction (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984) and to adjust better in other cultures (Brislin,
1979; Gudykunst, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1977; Triandis, 1977a).
Social relaxation refers to low levels of communication anxiety. It is assumed
that an individual would experience anxiety crises during the initial period of
sojourning in a new culture (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988; Hammer, 1989). Spitzberg
and Cupach (1984) indicated that socially relaxed persons are those who are able to get
rid of behaviors such as undue perspiration, shakiness, postural rigidity, self and object
adapters, and minimal response tendencies when communicating with other persons.
Wiemann (1977) also indicated that competent persons must know how to handle
behaviors such as rocking movements, leg and foot movements, body lean, speech rate,
speech disturbances, hesitations, and nonfluencies, and how to manipulate objects.
Behavioral flexibility is the ability to behave appropriately in different situations
(Bochner & Kelly, 1974). This is similar to Parks’ (1976) creativity and flexibility
dimension. Parks felt that, for creativity and flexibility, an individual must demonstrate
ability to be accurate and “flexible in attending to information,” to be flexible “in the
response repertoire,” and to be flexible “in selecting strategies” in order to achieve
personal goals in communication (p. 16). This ability of behavioral flexibility was found
to be one of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence (Martin, 1987).
Wiemann (1977) as well indicated that behavioral flexibility consists of verbal
immediacy cues and the alternation and co-occurrence of specific speech choices that
mark the status and affiliative relationships of interactants. Moreover, Wheeless and
Duran (1982) proposed adaptability as one of the dimensions of communicative
competence. According to them, communication adaptability focuses on the variety of
individual experiences and “the ability to be flexible and feel comfortable with a variety
of people” (p. 55)

66
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
Interaction involvement is the ability to be attentive, responsive, and perceptive
in interaction. Cegala (1981) found that interaction involvement is one of the dimensions
of communication competence. The dimension mainly emphasizes individual empathic
and other-oriented ability in interaction.
Finally, the ability to deal with social difficulties caused by the host culture is
one way to help sojourners psychologically acclimate to a new environment. According
to Furnham (1986, 1987) and Furnham and Bochner (1982), psychological adaptation is
typically associated with personal ability to deal with situations such as frustration,
stress, alienation, and ambiguity caused by the host culture. That is, psychological
adaptation indicates how individuals deal with the so-called ‘‘social difficulties.”
Furnham and Bochner’s (1982) study has shown that the bigger the difference between
the host culture and the sojourner’s culture, the greater the social difficulty. The study
also demonstrated that foreign students experience greater social difficulty than do the
host culture students.
Since these elements are related to communication competence, one might ask
how could these elements explain Ruben’s seven elements of intercultural
communication competence. In order to examine this problem a research question was
proposed as follows:

RQ2: Which of the elements related to communication competence best predict the
seven elements of IBAI?

Methods

Respondents and Procedures

Respondents were 149 foreign students studying in the United States. Among
them, 55 were females and 94 were males. In addition to the foreign student subjects, 149
Americans, identified by the foreign student subjects as persons who knew them well,
were asked to serve as raters in the study. Among the 149 Americans, 129 persons
agreed to participate in this project.

Measurement
Foreign students were asked to complete five questionnaires to measure the
above-mentioned elements that are related to communication competence. The 31-item
General Disclosure Scale (GDS) developed by Wheeless (1978) was used to measure the
foreign student subjects’ general tendency of disclosure to Americans. The scale consists
of five dimensions: amount of disclosure, consciously intended disclosure,
honesty/accuracy of disclosure, positiveness/negativeness of disclosure, and
depth/intimacy of disclosure.

67
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
Wheeless (1978) has found that the GDS could predict some of the variables
related to interpersonal solidarity. In addition, Wheeless and Grotz’s (1976) earlier study
leading to the development of the GDS showed that a self-report self-disclosure measure
about a specific target person could be used to measure intent and amount of disclosure;
these were related to level of trust in the target person. The coefficient alphas of the five
dimensions of GDS ranged from .72 to .88 in the present study.
The 23-item Self-Consciousness Scale, developed by Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss
(1975), was used to measure the foreign student subjects’ self-consciousness and social
relaxation. The scale consists of three dimensions: private self-consciousness, public self-
consciousness, and social anxiety.
Private self-consciousness is concerned with the attention to one’s inner
thoughts and feelings. Public self-consciousness is concerned with general awareness of
the self as a social object, one that has an effect on others. Social anxiety is concerned
with discomfort people experience in the presence of others. The social-anxiety
dimension was used to measure the degree of social relaxation in this study.
Fenigstein’s (1974) study has found that women who had high public self-
consciousness were more sensitive to rejection by a peer group, and people who were
high in private self-consciousness were more responsive to their transient affective state.
The coefficient alphas of the scales in this study were .70 for private self-
consciousness, .84 for public self-consciousness, and .77 for social anxiety.
The 18-item Interaction Involvement Scale, developed by Cegala (1981), was
used to measure the foreign student subjects’ interaction involvement ability. The scale
consists of three dimensions: responsiveness, perceptiveness, and attentiveness.
Responsiveness refers to mental ability to know what to say and when to say it in
communication; perceptiveness refers to the ability to organize the meaning of
interaction; and attentiveness refers to the concentration of one’s mind on the
conversation in the process of communication.
The dimensions of interaction involvement were found to be related to variables
such as empathy, behavioral flexibility, interaction management, support, social
relaxation, extroversion, neuroticism, self-consciousness, and communication
apprehension (Cegala, Savage, Brunner, & Conrad, 1982; Wiemann, 1977). The
coefficient alphas for the three dimensions in this study were .80 for responsiveness, .82
for perceptiveness. and .65 for attentiveness.
The 20-item Communicative Adaptability Scale, developed by Wheeless and
Duran (1982), was used to measure the foreign student subjects’ degree of behavioral
flexibility and adaptability. The scale consists of two dimensions: communication
adaptability and rewarding impression. According to Wheeless and Duran,
communication adaptability focuses on the variety of individual experiences and “the
ability to be flexible and feel comfortable with a variety of people” (p. 55), and

68
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
rewarding impressions center around “the themes of being other-oriented, sensitive to
others, and providing positive feelings toward others” (p. 55).
Studies by Duran (1983) and Wheeless and Duran (1982) indicated that
masculinity characteristics were highly correlated with communication adaptability;
femininity characteristics were highly correlated with the rewarding impressions; and
androgynous individuals scored high on both dimensions. The coefficient alphas of the
three dimensions in this study were .88 for communication adaptability, and .85 for
rewarding impressions.
The 26-item Social Situations Questionnaire, developed by Furnham and
Bochner (1982), was used to measure the foreign student subjects’ ability to deal with
social difficulties caused by the host culture. The questionnaire consists of six
dimensions: formal relations, managing intimate relationships, public rituals, initiating
contact, public decision-making, and assertiveness.
Formal relations refer to individuals’ knowledge for acting appropriately in the
formal situations in the host culture; managing intimate relationships refers to the ability
to make friends with the host nationals; public rituals refer to the ability to use the public
or private facilities in the host culture; initiating contact deals with the degree of self-
disclosure to the host nationals; public decision-making involves the ability to make a
decision publicly in the host culture; and assertiveness deals with the ability to handle
the hostility or rudeness caused by the host nationals. Furnham and Bochner (1982) have
reported that social difficulty was a positive function of culture distance. In other words,
the larger the difference between the host culture and the sojourner’s culture, the greater
the social difficulty sojourners would experience. The coefficient alphas of the six
dimensions in this study ranged from .69 to .87.
Finally, the 129 American raters were asked to rate the foreign student subjects
on seven items of IBAI, The scores obtained from IBAI constituted the degree of
intercultural communication competence of foreign student subjects within the
American environment. The coefficient alphas of IBAI was .80 in this study.

Results

In order to examine the relationships among the seven elements of IBAI. Pearson
product-moment correlations were computed. The results are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Seven Elements of IBAI

Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Display of Respect .45 .36 .60 .45 .46 .37

69
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
2. Interaction Posture .37 .32 .55 .44 .35
3. Orientation to Knowledge .26 .31 .21 .34
4. Empathy .39 .33 .41
5. Relational Roles Behavior .40 .32
6. Interaction Management .29
7. Tolerance of Ambiguity —

Note: N = 129. p < .01

The results indicated that display of respect was significantly correlated with
interaction posture (r = .45, p < .01), orientation to knowledge (r = .36, p < .01), empathy
(r = .60, p < .01), relational roles behavior (r = .45, p < .01), interaction management (r
= .46, p < .01), and tolerance of ambiguity (r = .37, p < .01).
Interaction posture was significantly correlated with orientation to knowledge (r
= .37, p < .01), empathy (r = .32, p < .01). relational roles behavior (r = .55, p < .01),
interaction management (r = .44, p < .01), and tolerance of ambiguity (r = .35, p < .01).
Orientation to knowledge was significantly correlated with empathy (r = .26, p < .01),
relational roles behavior (r = .31, p < .01), interaction management (r = .21, p < .01), and
tolerance of ambiguity (r = .34, p < .01).
Empathy was significantly correlated with relational roles behavior (r = .26, p
< .01), interaction management (r = .33, p <.01), and tolerance of ambiguity (r = .41, p
< .01), Relational roles behavior was significantly correlated with interaction
management (r = .40, p < .01) and tolerance of ambiguity (r = .32, p < .01). Lastly,
interaction management was significantly correlated with tolerance of ambiguity (r = .29,
p <.01).
The purpose of research question 2 is to find out which measure of the elements
relating to communication competence best predicts the seven elements of IBAI.
Stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine this question. Each of
the seven elements of IBAI were regressed to the measures of the elements relating to
communication competence. The results are presented in Table 2 on the next page.
The results indicated that display of respect was best predicted by assertiveness,
rewarding impressions, perceptiveness, and social anxiety. Orientation to knowledge
was best predicted by amount of self-disclosure. Relational role behavior was best
predicted by public rituals, rewarding impressions, and social anxiety. Interaction
management was best predicted by responsiveness and social anxiety. Finally, tolerance
of ambiguity was best predicted by public rituals.

Discussion

70
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the elements of intercultural
communication competence. The basis of the research began with Ruben’s work on the
seven elements of IBAI and tested the relationships of the seven elements with other
related variables.

71
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen

TABLE 2

Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regressions Analysis

Source of Variance R R2 F P Beta

Display of Respect
Assertiveness .18 .03 4.82 .02 -.18
Rewarding Impressions .29 .09 6.76 .01 .24
Perceptiveness .35 .12 6.57 .01 -.20
Social Anxiety .38 .15 6.20 .01 .17

Orientation to Knowledge
Amount of Disclosure .16 .03 3.93 .05 .16

Relational Roles Behavior

Public Rituals .22 .05 7.13 .01 .22
Rewarding Impressions .27 .07 5.75 .01 .16
Social Anxiety .32 .10 5.51 .01 .18

Interaction Management
Responsiveness .22 .05 7.17 .01 .22
Social Anxiety .28 .08 6.05 .01 .20

Tolerance of Ambiguity
Public Rituals .19 .04 5.44 .02 .19

Note: N = 149.

The first research question examined the relationships among the seven
elements of IBAI. Significant correlations were found among the seven elements.
Because most of the seven elements of IBAI were behavioral and concerned a sojourner’s
communication skills that are important in the process of communication, it is not
surprising to find that positive relationships exist among them. The results support
studies conducted by different scholars. For instance, Sewell and Davidsen (1956) and
Deutsch and Won (1963) indicated that a sojourner with good communication skills is
especially satisfied and psychologically adjusted in another culture. Ruben and Kealey’s

72
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
study (1979) showed that empathy and interaction were two of the communication skills
significantly related to cultural shock.
Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) indicated that the sojourner’s
effective communication skills are the basis of being aware of another culture. The
authors specifically mentioned that communication skills such as interaction posture and
interaction management are necessary for sojourners to gather information about
various aspects of the host cultures to interact effectively with people from the host
culture. Research from Martin and Hammer (1989), Spitzberg (1989), and Wiseman,
Hammer, and Nishida (1989) also supported the important role communication skills
play in the process of intercultural communication.
Results from analyses of the second research question show predictors of the
seven elements of IBAI. Those predictors for display of respect include assertiveness,
rewarding impressions, perceptiveness, and social anxiety. This indicates that
individuals with the abilities of speaking out for themselves in the face of rudeness or
hostility, of being able to show positive messages to support their counterparts, and of
being less anxious in communication tend to express respect and positive regard for
another persons in intercultural interaction. These predictors have been found to be
related to communication competence (Dodd, 1991; Furnham & Bochner, 1982; Parks,
1976; Wiemann, 1977).
Orientation to knowledge was best predicted by amount of disclosure.
According to Ruben (1976), people use different terms to describe themselves and the
world around them. The more individuals talk on the basis of personal perspective, the
easier they will adapt to a new culture. This might be the reason why amount of self-
disclosure is correlated with orientation to knowledge.
Relational roles behavior and tolerance of ambiguity were best predicted by
public rituals. According to Furnham and Bochner (1982), public rituals refer to the
degree of sojourner’s familiarity with private and public facilities in the host culture. The
lack of understanding of public rituals increases the uncertainty level and negatively
affects the establishment of relationships with the host nationals. Mikes (1966) indicated
that this is a major source of cross-cultural misunderstanding and difficulty.
Lastly, interaction management was best predicted by responsiveness.
Responsiveness is a component of interaction involvement. According to Cegala (1981,
1984), interaction involvement refers to individuals’ empathic and other-oriented
abilities in communication. This concept is very close to interaction management (Chen,
1990). In other words, in order to take turns in conversation, one has to know how to
respond appropriately to the messages.
A limitation of the study is that most of the components of IBAI focus on
behavioral aspects of intercultural communication. Many studies (e.g. Chen, 1989; Hall,
1959; Hammer,1989; Spitzberg, 1989; Turner, 1968) have shown that, in addition to
communication skills, other abilities such as personal attributes, psychological

73
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
acclimation, and cultural awareness are also indispensable for being competent in
different cultures. This is especially important when these components of intercultural
communication competence are applied to intercultural training programs. According to
Bennet (1986), in the intercultural communication program, training examines how
individuals can better adapt to a new environment. The training aims to integrate the
conceptual groundwork and requires individuals to demonstrate behaviors outside the
program. In other words, in order to be competent in intercultural settings, individuals
must possess the conceptual “why” and behavioral “how” elements regarding the host
culture.
The conceptual abilities, as a precursor of the behavioral skills, are based on four
training approaches: cognitive, affective, self-awareness, and cultural awareness (Bennet,
1986; Brislin, 1989; Triandis, 1977b). The cognitive approach focuses on the
understanding of a culture’s people, customs, institutions, and values. Downs (1969)
indicated that this approach often uses lectures, readings, films, and other multimedia
presentations to transmit information. The affective approach usually applies simulation
methods to create a specific environment or situation that is as similar as possible to that
of the host culture, and requires participants to be actively involved in the learning
process. The self-awareness approach assumes that individuals who know themselves
better will know their culture better and will consequently be more competent in other
culture. Finally, the cultural-awareness approach is designed to give participants with
general cultural information. This approach requires participants understand their own
cultural values and examine contrasts with the host culture in order to apply the insights
to improve intercultural competence. Future research concerning intercultural
communication competence should take all these elements into consideration.

74
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
References

Bennet, J. M.
1986 Modes of cross-cultural training: Conceptualizing cross-cultural training as
education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 117–34.
Bochner, A. P., & Kelly, C. W.
1974 Interpersonal competence: Rationale, philosophy, and implementation of a
conceptual framework. Speech Teacher, 23, 279–301.
Brislin, R. W.
1979 Orientation programs for cross-cultural preparation. In A. J. Marsella, R. G.
Tharp, & T. J. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on cross-cultural psychology (pp.
287–303). New York: Academic Press.
1989 Intercultural communication training. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst
(Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 441–
460). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cegala, D. J.
1981 nteraction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative
competence. Communication Education, 30, 109–21.
1984 Affective and cognitive manifestations of interaction involvement during
unstructured and competitive interaction. Communication Monographs, 51,
320–38.
Cegala, D. J., Savage, G. T., Brunner, C. C., & Conrad, A. B.
1982 An elaboration of the meaning of interaction involvement: Toward the
development of a theoretical concept. Communication Monographs, 49, 229–48.
Chen, G. M.
1989 Relationships of dimensions of intercultural communication competence.
Communication Quarterly, 37 (2), 118–33.
1990 Intercultural communication competence: Some perspectives of research.
Howard Journal of Communications, 2, 243–61.
Collier, M. J.
1989 Cultural and intercultural communication competence: Current approaches
and directions for future research. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 13, 287–302.
Deutsch, S. E., & Won, G. Y. M.
1963 Some factors in the adjustment of foreign nationals in the United States.
Journal of Social Issues, 19, 115–22.

Dodd, C. H.
1991 Dynamics of intercultural communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Downs, J. F.

75
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
1969 Fables, fancies and failures in cross-cultural training. Trends, 2, 3.
Duran, R. L.
1983 Communicative adaptability: A measure of social communicative
competence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 320–26.
Fenigstein, A.
1974 Self-consciousness, self-awareness and rejection. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H.
1975 Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–27.
Furnham, A.
1986 Cultural shock: Psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. New York:
Methuen.
1987 The adjustment of sojourners. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-
cultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp. 42–61). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S.
1982 Social difficulty in foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In
S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction. New
York: Pergamon Press.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R.
1984 Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Culture specific or culture general?
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 1–10
1988 Strangers and hosts: An uncertainty reduction based theory of intercultural
adaptation. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation:
Current approaches (pp. 106–39). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Hammer, M. R., & Wiseman, R. L.
1977 An analysis of an integrated approach to cross-cultural training. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 1–10.
Hall, E. T.
1959 The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1976 Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Hammer, M.
1987 Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: A replication and
extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 65–88.
1989 Intercultural communication competence. In M. K. Asante & W. B.
Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication
(pp. 247–60). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W., & Wiseman, R.

76
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
1978 Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 2, 382–93.
Martin, J. N.
1987 The relationships between student sojourner perceptions of intercultural
competencies and previous sojourn experience. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 11, 337–55 .
Martin, J. N., & Hammer, R. M.
1989 Behavioral categories of intercultural communication competence: Everyday
communicator’s perception. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13,
302–32.
Oberg, K.
1960 Culture shock : Adjustment to new cultural environment. Practical
Anthropology, 7, 177-82.
Parks, M. R.
1976 Communication competence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, San Francisco. December.
Pearce, W. B., & Sharp, S. M.
1973 Self-disclosing communication. Journal of Communication, 23, 407–25.
Ruben, B. D.
1976 Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group &
Organization Studies, 1, 334 – 54 .
1977 Guidelines for cross-cultural communication effectiveness. Group &
Organization Studies, 2, 470–79.
1989 The study of cross-cultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 229–40.
Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J.
1979 Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of
cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15–
47.

Sewell, W. H., & Davidsen, O. M.

1956 The adjustment of Scandinavian students. Journal of Social Issues, 12, 9–19.
Smalley, W. A.
1963 Culture shock, language shock, and the shock of self-discovery. Practical
Anthropology, 10 (1), 49–56.
Spitzberg, B. H.
1989 Issues in the development of a theory of interpersonal competence in the
intercultural context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 241–68.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R.
1984 Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

77
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
Triandis, H. C.
1977a Subjective culture and interpersonal relations across cultures. In L. Loeb-
Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences, 285, 418–34.
1977b Theoretical framework for evaluation of cross-cultural training effectiveness.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 1, 195–213.
Turner, C. V.
1968 The Sinasina “Big Man” complex: A central culture theme. Practical
Anthropology, 15, 16–23.
Wheeless, L. R.
1978 A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and
interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4 (2), 143–57.
Wheeless, E. W., & Duran, R. L.
1982 Gender orientation as a correlate of communicative competence. Southern
Speech Communication Journal. 48, 51–64.
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J.
1977 The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Human
Communication Research, 3, 250–57.
Wiemann, J. M.
1977 Explication and test of model of communication competence. Human
Communication Research, 3, 195–213.
Wiseman, R. L., & Abe, H.
1984 Finding and explaining differences: A reply to Gudykunst and Hammer.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 11–6.

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

1989 Predictors of intercultural communication competence. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 13, 349–70.
Yeh, E., Chu, H., Klein, M. H., Alexander, A. A., & Miller, M. H.
1981 Psychiatric implications of cross-cultural education: Chinese students in the
United States. In S. Bochner (Ed.), The mediating person: Bridges between
cultures (pp. 136–68). Cambridge: Schenkman.

APPENDIX A

78
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
A REDUCED VERSION OF THE INTERCULTURAL BEHAVIORAL
ASSESSMENT INDICES

A. Respect

Instructions: There are different degrees to which individuals express respect or

positive regard for other persons around them. These behaviors may take many forms,
ranging from verbal and nonverbal expressions of minimal interest and regard to
statements, gestures, and tones that are extremely supportive and demonstrate high
regard and respect. Please indicate on a 1 to 5 continuum which pattern of expression
was most characteristic of the person.

1. The verbal and nonverbal expressions of the individual suggest a clear lack of
respect and negative regard for others around him or her.
2. The individual responds to others in a way that communicates little respect for
others’ feelings, experiences, or potentials.
3. The individual indicates some respect for others’ situations and some concern for
their feelings, experiences, and potentials.
4. The individual indicates a concern for the feelings, experiences, and potentials of
others.
5. The individual indicates a deep respect for the worth of others as persons of high
potential and worth.

B. Interaction Posture

Instructions: Responses to another person or persons in an interpersonal or

group situation range from descriptive, nonvaluing to highly judgmental. Indicate on a 1 to
4 continuum which interaction pattern was most characteristic of the person.

1. High Evaluation. The individual appears to measure the contributions of others in

terms of a highly structured, predetermined framework of thoughts, beliefs,
attitudes, and values.
2. Evaluative. The individual measures the responses and comments of others in
terms of a predetermined framework of thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.
3. Evaluative-Descriptive. The individual offers evaluative responses, but they do not
appear to be very rigidly held. The responses seem open to negotiation and
modification.

79
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
4. Descriptive. The individual provides evaluative responses, but only after gathering
enough information to provide a response that is appropriate to the persons
involved.

C. Orientation to Knowledge

Instructions. Different people explain themselves and the world around them in
different terms. Some personalize their explanations, knowledge, and understandings,
prefacing their statements with phrases such as “I feel” or “I think” and might say “I
don’t like Mexican food.” Others tend to generalize their explanations, understandings,
and feelings, using statements such as “It’s a fact that,” “It’s human nature to,” etc. This
pattern could lead an individual to say “Mexican food is very disagreeable,” indicating
that the food is the basis of the problem rather than the person’s own tastes. For each
individual, indicate on a 1 to 4 continuum the pattern of expression that was most
characteristic of the person.
1. Physical Orientation. The individual assumes other people will always share the
same perceptions, attitudes, and feelings.
2. Cultural Orientation. The individual assumes that persons of similar cultural
heritage will always share the same perceptions.
3. Interpersonal Orientation. The individual assumes that others in an immediate
group will share the same perceptions, feelings, or thoughts.
4. Intrapersonal Orientation. The individual sees that differences in perception
between people are not problematical.

D. Empathy

Instructions. Individuals differ in their ability to project an image that suggests

they understand things from another person’s point of view. Some individuals seem to
communicate a fairly complete awareness of another person’s thoughts, feelings, and
experience; others seem unable to display any awareness of another’s thoughts, feelings,
or state of affairs. For each individual, indicate on a 1 to 5 continuum which pattern of
behavior was most characteristic of the person.
1. Low-Level Empathy. The individual indicates little or no awareness of even the most
obvious, surface feelings and thoughts of others.
2. Medium-Low Empathy. The individual displays some awareness of obvious feelings
and thoughts of others.
3. Medium Empathy. The individual predictably responds to others with reasonably
accurate understandings of the surface feelings of others.
4. Medium-High Empathy. The individual displays an understanding of responses of
others at a deeper-than-surface level.

80
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
5. High Empathy. The individual appears to respond with great accuracy to apparent
and less apparent expressions of feelings and thoughts of others.

E. Role Behavior

Relational Roles. Individuals differ in the extent to which they devote effort to
building or maintaining relationships within a group. Group-development activities, as
they are sometimes termed, may consist of verbal and nonverbal displays that provide a
supportive climate for the group members and help to solidify the group’s feelings of
participation. Behaviors that lead to these outcomes include harmonizing and mediating
scraps and/or conflicts between group members, attempts to regulate evenness of
contributions of group members, comments offered relative to the group’s dynamics,
and indications of a willingness to compromise own interest. Indicate on the 1 to 5
continuum with 1 representing “never” and 5 representing ‘‘continually.”

F. Interaction Management

Instructions: People vary in their skill at ‘‘managing” interactions in which they

take part. Particularly with regard to taking turns in discussion and initiating and
terminating interaction based upon the need of others, some individuals display great skill.
Indicate on the 1 to 5 continuum which pattern was most characteristic of the person.

1. Low Management. The individual is unconcerned with taking turns in discussion.

2. Moderately Low Management. The individual is minimally concerned with taking
turns in discussion.
3. Moderate Management. The individual is somewhat concerned with taking turns in
discussion.
4. Moderately High Management. The individual is quite concerned with taking turns
in discussion.
5. High Management. The individual is extremely concerned with providing equal
opportunity for all participants to share in contributions to discussion.

G. Ambiguity Tolerance

Instructions: Some persons react to new situations with greater comfort than
others. Some individuals are excessively nervous, highly frustrated, and/or hostile
toward the new situation and/or the persons who may be present. Other persons
encounter new situations as a challenge; they appear to function best wherever the
unexpected or unpredictable may occur and quickly adapt to the demands of changing

81
 Intercultural Communication Studies II:2 1992 Guo-Ming
Chen
environments. On the 1 to 5 continuum, indicate the manner in which the person
observed seemed to respond to new and/or ambiguous situations.

1. Low Tolerance. The individual seems quite troubled by new and/or ambiguous
situations and exhibits excessive nervousness and frustration.
2. Moderately Low Tolerance. The individual seems somewhat troubled by new and/or
ambiguous situations and exhibits nervousness and frustration.
3. Moderate Tolerance. The individual reacts with moderate nervousness and
frustration to new or ambiguous situations but adapts to these environments with
reasonable speed and resilience.
4. Moderately High Tolerance. The individual reacts with some nervousness and
frustration to new or ambiguous situations. He or she adapts to the situation quite
rapidly, with no personal expression of hostility.
5. High Tolerance. The individual reacts with little or no nervousness or frustration
to new or ambiguous situations.

82