Communication predispositions influence interactions between individuals from different cultures. Three such predispositions have been found to affect behavior in intercultural contexts: Apprehension about intercultural communication, ethnocentrism, and intercultural willingness to communicate. This study examined differences between men (n = 130) and women (n = 175) on those three predispositions. The analysis showed that men reported experiencing higher apprehension about intercultural communication, being more ethnocentric than women, and being less willing to communicate interculturally than women. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CanaryD. J.HauseK. S. (1993) Is there any reason to research sex differences in communication?Communication Quarterly, 41, 129–144.
2.
DalyJ. A. (1987) Personality and intercultural communication: Issues and directions. In McCroskeyT. C.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 13–41.
3.
GrantP. R. (1993) Ethnocentrism in response to a threat of social identity. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 143–154.
4.
GudykunstW. B.KimY. Y. (1997) Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
InfanteD. A.RancerA. S. (1996) Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In BurlesonB. (Ed.), Communication vearbook 19. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 319–351.
6.
KassingJ. W. (1997) Development of the Intercultural Willingness to Communicate scale. Communication Research Reports, 14, 399–407.
7.
LeVineR. A.CampbellD. T. (1972) Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley.
8.
LinY.RancerA. S. (2001) Ethnocentrism, intercultural communication apprehension, and intercultural willingness to communicate: Testing a proposed model. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA, November.
9.
McCroskeyJ. C.RichmondV. (1987) Willingness-to-communicate. In McCroskeyJ. C.DalyJ. (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 129–156.
10.
McCroskeyJ. C.SimpsonT. J.RichmondV. P. (1982) Biological sex and communication apprehension. Communication Quarterly, 30, 129–133.
11.
NeuliepJ. W.ChaudoirM.McCroskeyJ. C. (2001) A cross-cultural comparison of ethnocentrism among Japanese and United States college students. Communication Research Reports, 18, 137–146.
12.
NeuliepJ. W.McCroskeyJ. C. (1997a) The development of intercultural and interethnic communication apprehension scales. Communication Research Reports, 14, 145–156.
13.
NeuliepJ. W.McCroskeyJ. C. (1997b) The development of a U.S. and generalized ethnocentrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14, 385–398.
14.
O'DriscollM.FeatherN. (1983) Perception of value congruence and interethnic behavioral intentions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 239–252.
15.
SamovarL. A.PorterR. E. (Eds.) (2000) Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
16.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (1985) Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175.
17.
WoodJ. T.DindiaK. (1998) What's the difference? A dialogue about differences and similarities between women and men. In CanaryD. J.DindiaK. (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 19–39.
