This study examines the influence of situational prototypes on three dimensions of American subjects' intercultural communication competence: (a) understanding of Japanese rules of behaving in specific situations, (b) understanding of Japanese culture in general, and (c) affect toward Japanese culture. In the study, 44 interaction scenarios were constructed involving some misunderstanding between a Japanese and an American regarding the communication rules between two people from different cultures based on cultural variations in role, social, linguistic, nonverbal, and/or business rules for behavior. The research was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, cluster analysis of 44 interaction scenarios was undertaken to identify situational prototypes (ideal models of situations). The second phase examined the influence of the four situational prototypes on the three dimensions of intercultural communication competence. Overall results indicate that there were significant differences for each of the three measures of intercultural communication competence across the four situational prototypes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abe, H. , & Wiseman, R. (1983). Across-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7,53-67.
2.
Aldenderfer, M. S. , & Blashfield, R. K (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Barna, L. M. (1985). Stumbling blocks to intercultural intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar &R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication. A reader. (4th ed., pp. 330-338). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4.
Barnlund, D. C. , & Nomura, W. (1985). Decentering, convergence, and cross-cultural understanding. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. (4th ed., pp. 347-366). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
5.
Bolz, C. R. (1977). Typological theory and research. In R. B. Cattell & R. M. Dreger (Eds.), Handbook of modern personality theory. (pp. 269-292). New York: Wiley.
6.
Bowers, K (1973). Situationalism in psychology: An analysis and critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307-336.
7.
Brislin, R. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face interaction. New York: Pergamon.
8.
Cantor, M. , Mischel, W., & Schwartz, J. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological situations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45-77.
9.
Cattel, R B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavor Research, 1,245-276.
10.
Cody, M. J. , & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). The situation as a construct in interpersonal communication research. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication. (pp. 263-312). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
Detweiler, R. A. , Brislin, R. W., & McCormack, W. (1983). Situational analysis. In D. Landis & R. W. Brslin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training, Vol. 2: Issues in training methodology (pp. 100-123). New York: Pergamon.
12.
Dinges, N. (1983). Intercultural competence. In D. Landis & RI Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training, Vol. 1: Issues in theory and design. (pp. 176-202). New YorkPergamon.
13.
Forgas, J. P. (1978). Social episodes and social structure in an academic setting: The social environment of an intact group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14,434-448.
14.
Gudykunst, W. B. , & Hammer, M. RI (1984). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Culture specific or culture general?International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 1-10.
15.
Gudykunst, W. B. , & Kim, Y: Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New YorkRandom House.
16.
Hammer, M. H. (1984). The effects of an intercultural communication workshop on participants' intercultural communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 32, 252-262.
17.
Hammer, M. R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Areplication and extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 65-88.
18.
Hammer, M. RI (1989). Intercultural communication competence. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykumst (Eds.), The handbook of intercultural and development communication (pp. 247-260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19.
Hammer,: R. , Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382-392.
20.
Hawes, F. , & Kealey, D. J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 239-258.
21.
Kahn, A. , Lamm, H., & Nelson, RI (1977). Preferences for an equal or equitable allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 837-844.
22.
Kealey, D. J. , & Ruben, B. D. (1983). Cross-cultural personnel selection criteria, issues, and methods. In D. Landis & RI W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training, Vol. 1: Issues in theory and design. (pp. 155-175). New YorkPergamon.
23.
Littlejohn, S. W. , & Jabusch, D. M. (1982). Communication competence: Model and application. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 10, 29-37.
24.
Martin, J. N. , & Hammer, M. R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural communication competence: Everyday communicators' perceptions. International Joural of Intercultural Relations, 13, 3O3-332.
25.
Marwell, G. , &Hage, J. (197O). The organization of role relationships: A systematic description. American Sociological Review, 35, 884-900.
26.
McCroskey, J. E. (1984). Communication competence: The elusive construct In R N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication. (pp. 259-268). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine & Atherton.
28.
Mikla, G. (1974). Nationality, performance, and sex as determinants of reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 435-440.
29.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.
30.
Mischel, W. (1979). On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 34, 740-754.
31.
Mojena, RI (1977). Hierarchical grouping methods and stopping rules: An evaluation. Computer Journal, 20, 359-363.
32.
Nishida, H. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 247-269.
33.
Nishida, H. (1989). Nichibei Komyunikeishon Gap [Communication gap between Japanese and Americans]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
34.
Pervin, L. A. (1976). A free-response approach to the analysis of person-situation interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 456-474.
35.
Powers, W. G. , & Lowery, D. N. (1984). Basic communication fidelity: A fundamental approach. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed), Competence in communication. (pp. 57-74). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36.
Ruben, B. D. , Askling, L. R., & Kealey, D. J. (1977). Cross-cultural effectiveness. In D. S. Hoopes, P. B. Pedersen, & G. W. Renwick (Eds.), Overview of intercultural education, training and research, Vol. 1: theory. (pp. 92-105). Washington, DC: Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research.
37.
Samovar, L. A. , & Porter, R. E. (1985). Epilogue. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. (pp. 430-432). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
38.
Spitzberg, B. H. , & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
Stening, B. W. (1979). Problems in cross-cultural contact: A literature review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 269-313.
40.
Thorndike, R. L. (1953). Who belongs in a family?Psychometrica, 18, 267-276.
41.
Triandis, H. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.
42.
Triandis, H. (1978). Some universals of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 1-16.
43.
Wish, M. , Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. (1976). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 409-420.
44.
Wish, M* , & Kaplan, S. (1977). Toward an implicit theory of interpersonal communication. Sociometry, 40,234-246.
