Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints

This study investigates how cultural groups may differ in their perceptions about preferred communication behavior. It focuses on the importance attached to “conversational constraints” in conversation. For the primary goal of requesting, the following five conversational constraints are identified: (a) concern for clarity, (b) concern for avoiding hurting the hearer's feelings, (c) concern for nonimposition, (d) concern for avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer, and (e) concern for effectiveness. Five hypotheses are formulated regarding the relationships between individualistic-collectivistic orientation (an important dimension of“culture”) and these five conversational constraints. Data were collected from 892 participants (undergraduates studying in Korea, Hawaii, and the mainland United States). After being presented at random with one of the six request situations, participants rated the perceived importance of each conversational constraint in that situation. The results indicate that the perceived importance of clarity was higher in the more individualistic cultures. On the other hand, the perceived importance of avoiding hurting the hearer's feelings and of minimizing imposition were higher in the more collectivistic cultures. The perceived importance of effectiveness and of avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer, on the other hand, did not significantly differ across the three cultural groups. Theoretical as well as practical implications are discussed.

[1]  J. Guilford.  Fundamental statistics in psychology and education , 1943 .

[2]  W. F. Soskin,et al.  The Study of Spontaneous Talk. , 1963 .

[3]  Min-Sun Kim,et al.  Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Meta-Analysis of Attitudinal Relevance and Topic , 1993 .

[4]  J. Goldman.  Some methodological problems in planning, executing and validating a cross-national study of children's sexual cognition , 1994 .

[5]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[6]  A. E. Lindsey,et al.  Encoding Processes in the Production of Multiple-Goal Messages. , 1989 .

[7]  Harry C. Triandis,et al.  The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures , 1986 .

[8]  G. Kasper,et al.  Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies , 1991 .

[9]  D. Ho.  On the Concept of Face , 1976, American Journal of Sociology.

[10]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[11]  楊國樞,et al.  Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-Free Dimensions of Culture , 1987 .

[12]  T. Herrmann,et al.  Speech and Situation: A General Model for the Process of Speech Production , 1985 .

[13]  C. Hui,et al.  Individualism-Collectivism and Pyschological Needs , 1989 .

[14]  Brian H. Spitzberg,et al.  A Model of the Perceived Competence of Conflict Strategies. , 1989 .

[15]  G. Leech.  Principles of pragmatics , 1983 .

[16]  Kuo-shu Yang.  Social Orientation and Individual Modernity among Chinese Students in Taiwan , 1981 .

[17]  Min-Sun Kim,et al.  A cross‐cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting , 1994 .

[18]  Guo-ming Chen.  Relationships of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence , 1989 .

[19]  Michael Harris Bond,et al.  Collectivism-Individualism in Everyday Social Life: The Middle Kingdom and the Melting Pot , 1989 .

[20]  W. Labov,et al.  Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy As Conversation , 1976 .

[21]  S. Ervin-Tripp.  Is Sybil there? the structure of some American English directives , 1976, Language in Society.

[22]  J. Yum.  The impact of confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia , 1988 .

[23]  Robert Wilensky,et al.  Meta-Planning: Representing and Using Knowledge About Planning in Problem Solving and Natural Language Understanding , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  H. Triandis,et al.  Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation , 1985 .

[25]  H. Markus,et al.  Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. , 1991 .

[26]  S. Blum-Kulka.  Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? , 1987 .

[27]  A. Kimball Romney,et al.  Variations in value orientations. , 1961 .

[28]  Thomas Holtgraves,et al.  Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. , 1990 .

[29]  William Douglas,et al.  Affinity-Testing in Initial Interactions , 1987 .

[30]  Min-Sun Kim,et al.  The relationship between individuals' self-construals and perceived importance of interactive constraints , 1994 .

[31]  M. Collier.  A comparison of conversations among and between domestic culture groups: How intra‐ and intercultural competencies vary , 1988 .

[32]  Judy C. Pearson,et al.  Gender and communication , 1985 .

[33]  Yuichi Iizuka,et al.  CROSS‐CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN RELATIONSHIP RULES , 1986 .

[34]  Jenny A. Thomas.  Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure , 1983 .

[35]  S. Schwartz,et al.  Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. , 1990 .

[36]  Barbara Westbrook Eakins,et al.  Sex differences in human communication , 1978 .

[37]  Harry C. Triandis,et al.  Individualism-Collectivism , 1986 .

[38]  J. Austin.  How to do things with words , 1962 .

[39]  S. Jacobs.  Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication , 1981 .

[40]  William B. Gudykunst,et al.  Culture and interpersonal communication , 1988 .

[41]  K. Leung.  Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. , 1987 .

[42]  Min-Sun Kim,et al.  Relationships Among Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions, and Behavior , 1993 .

[43]  Min-Sun Kim.  A comparative analysis of nonverbal expressions as portrayed by Korean and American print‐media advertising , 1992 .