LaRay M. BarnaThis is a featured page

!! PAGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION !!







STUMBLING BLOCKS IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Laray M. Barna

From Intercultural Communication: A Reader






Edited by Larry Samovar & Richard Porter Copyright 1988 Reprinted with permission of Wadsworth Publishing Company Belmont, CA



WHY IS IT THAT CONTACT with persons from other cultures so often is frustrating and fraught with misunderstanding? Good intentions, a friendly approach, and even the possibility of mutual benefits don’t seem to be sufficient—to many people’s surprise. One answer to the question might be that many of us naively assume there are sufficient similarities among peoples of the world to enable us to successfully exchange information and/or feelings, solve problems of mutual concern, cement business relationships, or just make the kind of impression we wish to make. The tendency for all people to reproduce, group into families and/or societies, develop a language, and adapt to their environment is particularly deceiving because it leads to the expectation that the forms of these behaviors and the attitudes and values surrounding them will also be similar. It’s comforting to believe that “people are people” and “deep down we’re all alike,” but a determined search for proof of this leads to disappointment. The major similarities are biological ones, including the need for food, shelter, and safety (with radical variations as to type and amount of each). Eibl-Eibesfeldt lists as cross-cultural similarities the “sucking response, the breast-seeking automatism, smiling, crying and a number of reflexes.”i There is also Pavlov’s “orienting reaction”—the instantaneous bodily changes that occur when threat is perceived.ii Such changes include the flow of extra adrenaline and noradrenaline into the system, increased muscle tension, cessation of digestive processes, and other changes that prepare the human animal to “fight or flee.” Although this is a universal and a key adaptive mechanism that allowed survival in a hostile environment for early humans, it hinders rather than helps today’s intercultural communication process, which calls for calm, considered exchanges. None of the above universals are much help for purposes of communication. More promising are the cross-cultural studies seeking to support Darwin’s theory that facial expressions are universal.iii Ekman found that “the particular visible pattern on the face, the combination of muscles contracted for anger, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust, happiness (and probably also for interest) is the same for all members of our species.”iv This seems helpful until it is realized that a person’s cultural upbringing determines whether or not the emotion will be displayed or suppressed, as well as on which occasions and to what degree.v The situations that bring about the emotional feeling also differ from culture to culture; for example, the death of a loved one may be a cause for joy, sorrow, or some other emotion, depending upon the accepted cultural belief. There seem to be no universals of “human nature” that can be used as a basis for automatic understanding. The aforementioned assumption of similarity might be a common characteristic, however. Each of us seems to be so unconsciously influenced by our own cultural upbringings that we at first assume that the needs, desires, and basic assumptions of others are the same as our own. As expressed by Vinh The Do, “If we realize that we are all culture bound and culturally modified, we will accept the fact that, being unlike, we do not really know what someone else ‘is.’ This is another way to view the ‘people are people’ idea. We now have to find a way to sort out the cultural modifiers in each separate encounter to find similarity.”6 The aura of similarity is a serious stumbling block to successful intercultural communication. A look-alike facade is deceiving when representatives from contrasting cultures meet, each wearing Western dress, speaking English, and using similar greeting rituals. It is like assuming that New York, Tokyo, and Tehran are all alike because each has the appearance of a modern city. Without being alert to possible differences and the need to learn new rules for functioning, persons going from one city to the other will be in immediate trouble, even when acting simple roles such as pedestrian or driver. Unless a foreigner expects subtle differences it will take a long time of noninsulated living in a new culture (not in an enclave of his or her own kind) before he or she can be jarred into new perceptual and nonevaluative thinking. The confidence that goes with the myth of similarity is much more comfortable than the assumption of differences, the latter requiring tentative assumptions and behaviors and a willingness to accept the anxiety of “not knowing.” Only with the assumption of differences, however, can reactions and interpretations be adjusted to fit “what’s happening.” Otherwise someone is likely to misread signs and judge the scene ethnocentrically. The stumbling block of assumed similarity is a “troublem,” as one English learner expressed it, not only for the foreigner but for the people in the host country (United States or any other) with whom the international visitor comes into contact. The native inhabitants are likely to be lulled into the expectation that, since the foreign person is dressed appropriately and speaks some of the language, he or she will also have similar nonverbal codes, thoughts, and feelings. Thus, nodding, smiling, and affirmative comments will probably be confidently interpreted by straightforward, friendly Americans as meaning that they have informed, helped, and pleased the newcomer. It is likely, however, that the foreigner actually understood very little of the verbal and nonverbal content and was merely indicating polite interest or trying not to embarrass himself or herself or the host with verbalized questions. The conversation may even have confirmed a stereotype that Americans are insensitive and ethnocentric. Unless there is overt reporting of assumptions made by each party, which seldom happens, there is no chance for comparing impressions and correcting misinterpretations. The university class room is a convenient laboratory to make such discoveries. For example, U.S. students often complain that international student members of a discussion or project group seem uncooperative or uninterested. One such person who had been judged “guilty” offered the following explanation: I was surrounded by Americans with whom I couldn’t follow their tempo of discussion half of the time. I have difficulty to listen and speak, but also with the way they handle the group. I felt uncomfortable because sometimes they believe their opinion strongly. I had been very serious about the whole subject but I was afraid I would say something wrong. I had the idea but not the words.7 The classroom is also a good place to test whether one common nonverbal behavior, the smile, is actually the universal people assume it to be. The following enlightening comments came from international students newly arrived in the United States and a U.S. student:8 Japanese student: On my way to and from school I have received a smile by non-acquaintance American girls several times. I have finally learned they have no interest for me; it means only a kind of greeting to a foreigner. If someone smiles at a stranger in Japan, especially a girl, she can assume he is either a sexual maniac or an impolite person. Korean student: An American visited me in my country for one week. His inference was that people in Korea are not very friendly because they didn’t smile or want to talk with foreign people. Most Korean people take time to get to be friendly with people. We never talk or smile at strangers. Arabian student: When I walked around the campus my first day many people smiled at me. I was very embarrassed and rushed to the men’s room to see if I had made a mistake with my clothes. But I could find nothing for them to smile at. Now I am used to all the smiles. U.S. student: I was waiting for my husband on a downtown corner when a man with a baby and two young children approached. Judging by small quirks of fashion he had not been in the U.S. long. I have a baby about the same age and in appreciation of his family and obvious involvement as a father I smiled at him. Immediately I realized I did the wrong thing as he stopped, looked me over from head to toe and said, “Are you waiting for me? You meet me later?” Apparently I had acted as a prostitute would in his county. Vietnamese student: The reason why certain foreigners may think that Americans are superficial—and they are, some Americans even recognize this—is that they talk and smile too much. For people who come from placid cultures where nonverbal language is more used, and where a silence, a smile, a glance have their own meaning, it is true that Americans speak a lot. The superficiality of Americans can also be detected in their relations with others. Their friendships are, most of the time, so ephemeral compared to the friendships we have at home. Americans make friends very easily and leave their friends almost as quickly, while in my country it takes a long time to find out a possible friend and then she becomes your friend—with a very strong sense of the term. Another U.S. student gives her view: In general it seems to me that foreign people are not necessarily snobs but are very unfriendly. Some class members have told me that you shouldn’t smile at others while passing them by on the street. To me I can’t stop smiling. It’s just natural to be smiling and friendly. I can see now why so many foreign people stick together. They are impossible to get to know. It’s like the Americans are big bad wolves. How do Americans break this barrier? I want friends from all over the world but how do you start to be friends without offending them or scaring them off—like sheep?9 The discussion thus far threatens the popular expectation that increased contact with representatives of diverse cultures through travel, student exchange programs, joint business ventures, and so on will result in better understanding and friendship. Tests of that assumption have indeed been disappointing.10 Recent research, for example, found that Vietnamese immigrants who speak English well and have the best jobs are suffering the most from psychosomatic complaints and mental problems and are less optimistic about the future than their counterparts who remain in ethnic enclaves without attempts to adjust to their new homeland. One explanation given is that these persons, unlike the less acculturated immigrants, “spend considerable time in the mainstream of society, regularly facing the challenges and stresses of dealing with American attitudes.”11 After 15 years of listening to conversations between international and U.S. students and professors and seeing the frustrations of both groups as they try to understand each other, this author, for one, is inclined to agree with Charles Frankel, who says, “Tensions exist within nations and between nations that never would have existed were these nations not in such intensive cultural communication with one another.”12 It doesn’t have to be that way. Just as more opportunities now exist for cross-cultural contact, so does more information about what will be likely to make the venture more satisfactory. There are more orientation and training programs around the country, more courses in intercultural communication in educational institutions, and more published material.13 However, until the majority can put aside the euphoria of the expectation of similarity among all people of the world and squarely face the likelihood of difference and misunderstanding, they will not be motivated to take advantage of these resources. Until recently the method used to improve chances for successful intercultural communication was just to gather information about the customs of the other country and a smattering of the language. Behaviors and attitudes of its people might be researched, but almost always from a secondhand source. Experts realize that information gained in this fashion is general, seldom sufficient, and may or may not be applicable to the specific situation and area that the traveler visits. Also, knowing “what to expect” often blinds the observer to all but what confirms his or her image. Any contradictory evidence that does filter through the screens of preconception is likely to be treated as an exception and thus discounted. A better approach is to begin by studying the history, political structure, art, literature, and language of the country if time permits. Even more important, develop an investigative, nonjudgmental attitude and a high tolerance for ambiguity—which means lowered defenses. Margaret Mead suggests sensitizing persons to the kinds of things that need to be taken into account instead of developing behavior and attitude stereotypes. She reasons that there are individual differences in each encounter and that changes occur regularly in culture patterns, which makes researched information obsolete.14 Edward Stewart also warns against providing lists of “do’s and don’t’s” for travelers for several reasons, the main one being that behavior is ambiguous. Another reason is that the same action can have different meanings in different situations and no one can be armed with prescriptions for every contingency. Instead Stewart encourages persons to understand the assumptions and values on which their own behavior rests. This can then be compared with what is found in the other culture, and a “third culture” can be adopted based on expanded cross-cultural understanding.15 One way to follow Margaret Mead’s suggestion of improving sensitivity to what might go wrong is to examine variables in the intercultural communication process. One stumbling block has already been discussed, the hazard of assuming similarity instead of difference. A second block is so obvious it hardly needs mentioning—language. Vocabulary, syntax, idioms, slang, dialects, and so on all cause difficulty, but the person struggling with a different language is at least aware of being in this kind of trouble. A worse language problem is the tenacity with which someone will cling to just one meaning of a word or phrase in the new language, regardless of connotation or context. The infinite variations possible, especially if inflection and tonal qualities are added, are so difficult to cope with that they are often waved aside. The reason this problem is worse than simply struggling to translate foreign words is because each person thinks he or she understands. The nationwide misinterpretation of Khrushchev’s sentence “We’ll bury you” is a classic example. Even “yes” and “no” cause trouble. When a Japanese hears, “Won’t you have some tea?” he or she listens to the literal meaning of the sentence and answers, “No,” meaning that he or she wants some. “Yes, I won’t” would be a better reply because this tips off the host or hostess that there may be a misunderstanding. Also, in some cultures, it is polite to refuse the first or second offer of refreshment. Many foreign guests have gone hungry because their U.S. host or hostess never presented the third offer—another case of “no” meaning “yes.” Learning the language, which most visitors to foreign countries consider their only barrier to understanding, is actually only the beginning. As Frankel says, “To enter into a culture is to be able to hear, in Lionel Trilling’s phrase, its special ‘hum and buzz of implication.’ ”16 This suggests the third stumbling block, nonverbal misinterpretations. People from different cultures inhabit different sensory realities. They see, hear, feel, and smell only that which has some meaning or importance for them. They abstract whatever fits into their personal world of recognition and then interpret it through the frame of reference of their own culture. An example follows. An Oregon girl in an intercultural communication class asked a young man from Saudi Arabia how he would nonverbally signal that he liked her. His response was to smooth back his hair, which to her was just a common nervous gesture signifying nothing. She repeated her question three times. He smoothed his hair three times, and, realizing that she was not recognizing this movement as his reply to her question, automatically ducked his head and stuck out his tongue slightly in embarrassment. This behavior was noticed by the girl and she expressed astonishment that he would show liking for someone by sticking out his tongue. The lack of comprehension of nonverbal signs and symbols that are easy to observe—such as gestures, postures, and other body movements—is a definite communication barrier. But it is possible to learn the meanings of these messages, usually in informal rather than formal ways. It is more difficult to note correctly the unspoken codes of the other culture that are further from awareness, such as the handling of time and spatial relationships and subtle signs of respect of formality.17 The fourth stumbling block is the presence of preconceptions and stereotypes. If the label “inscrutable” has preceded the Japanese guest, it is thus we explain the Japanese constant and inappropriate smile. The stereotype that Arabs are “inflammable” causes U.S. students to keep their distance or alert authorities when an animated and noisy group from the Middle East gathers. A professor who expects everyone from Indonesia, Mexico, and many other countries to “bargain” may unfairly interpret a hesitation or request from an international student as a move to manipulate preferential treatment. Stereotypes help do what Ernest Becker says the anxiety-prone human race must do—reduce the threat of the unknown by making the world predictable.18 Indeed, this is one of the basic functions of culture: to lay out a predictable world in which the individual is firmly oriented. Stereotypes are overgeneralized beliefs that provide conceptual bases from which to “make sense” out of what goes on around us. In a foreign land their use increases our feeling of security and is psychologically necessary to the degree that we cannot tolerate ambiguity or the sense of helplessness resulting from inability to understand and deal with people and situations beyond our comprehension. Stereotypes are stumbling blocks for communicators because they interfere with objective viewing of stimuli—the sensitive search for cues to guide the imagination toward the other person’s reality. Stereotypes are not easy to overcome in ourselves or to correct in others, even with the presentation of evidence. They persist because they are firmly established as myths or truisms by one’s own national culture and because they sometimes rationalize prejudices. They are also sustained and fed by the tendency to perceive selectively only those pieces of new information that correspond to the image held. For example, the Asian or African visitor who is accustomed to privation and the values of self-denial and self-help cannot fail to experience American culture as materialistic and wasteful. The stereotype for the visitor becomes a reality. The fifth stumbling block and another deterrent to understanding between persons of differing cultures or ethnic groups is the tendency to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statements and actions of the other person or group rather than to try to comprehend completely the thoughts and feelings expressed from the world view of the other. Each person’s culture or way of life always seems right, proper, and natural. This bias prevents the open-minded attention needed to look at the attitudes and behavior patterns from the other’s point of view. A mid-day siesta changes from a “lazy habit” to a “pretty good idea” when someone listens long enough to realize the mid-day temperature in that country is 115° F. The author, fresh from a conference in Tokyo where Japanese professors had emphasized the preference of the people of Japan for simple natural settings of rocks, moss, and water and of muted greens and misty ethereal landscapes, visited the Katsura Imperial Gardens in Kyoto. At the appointed time of the tour a young Japanese guide approached the group of 20 waiting Americans and remarked how fortunate it was that the day was cloudy. This brought hesitant smiles to the group who were less than pleased at the prospect of a shower. The guide’s next statement was that the timing of the midsummer visit was particularly appropriate in that the azalea and rhododendron blossoms were gone and the trees had not yet turned to their brilliant fall colors. The group laughed loudly, now convinced that the young man had a fine sense of humor. I winced at his bewildered expression, realizing that had I come before attending the conference I, also evaluating the weather as “not very good,” would have shared the group’s inference that he could not be serious. The communication cutoff caused by immediate evaluation is heightened when feelings and emotions are deeply involved; yet this is just the time when listening with understanding is most needed. This can be exemplified by the long deadlock in resolving the issue of the U.S. hostages in Iran. It takes both awareness of the tendency to close our minds and courage to risk change in our own perceptions and values to dare to comprehend why someone thinks and acts differently from us. As stated by Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall, “A person’s commitment to his religion, politics, values of his family, and his stand on the virtue of his way of life are ingredients in his self-picture—intimately felt and cherished.”19 It is very easy to dismiss strange or different behaviors as “wrong,” listen through a thick screen of value judgments, and therefore fail miserably to achieve a fair understanding. The impatience of the American public over the choice of the shape of the conference table at the Paris Peace talks is another example. There are innumerable examples of intercultural value clashes that result in a breach in interpersonal relationships. Two follow:20 U.S. student: A Persian friend got offended because when we got in an argument with a third party, I didn’t take his side. He says back home you are supposed to take a friend’s or family’s side even when they are wrong. When you get home then you can attack the “wrongdoer” but you are never supposed to go against a relative or friend to a stranger. This I found strange because even if it is my mother and I think she is wrong, I say so. Korean student: When I call on my American friend he said through window, “I am sorry. I have no time because of my study.” Then he shut the window. I couldn’t understand through my cultural background. House owner should have welcome visitor whether he likes or not and whether he is busy or not. Also the owner never speaks without opening his door. The sixth stumbling block is high anxiety, separately mentioned for the purpose of emphasis. Unlike the other five (assumption of similarity, language, nonverbal misinterpretations, preconceptions and stereotypes, and the practice of immediate evaluation), the stumbling block of high anxiety is not distinct but underlies and compounds the others. Different language and nonverbal patterns are difficult to use or interpret under the best of conditions. The distraction of high anxiety (sometimes called “internal noise”) makes mistakes even more likely. As stated by Jack Gibb: “Defense arousal prevents the listener from concentrating upon the message. Not only do defensive communicators send off multiple value, motive, and affect cues, but also defensive recipients distort what they receive. As a person becomes more and more defensive, he becomes less and less able to perceive accurately the motives, the values, and the emotions of the sender.”21 The stumbling blocks other than language and nonverbal misinterpretations are defense mechanisms in themselves, as previously explained, and as such would obviously increase under stress. The presence of anxiety/tension is common in cross-cultural experiences due to the number of uncertainties present and the personal involvement and risk. Whether or not the reaction will be debilitating depends on the level of activation and whether the feeling is classified as being pleasant (thought of as excitement or anticipation) or unpleasant (anxiety). Moderate arousal and positive attitudes prepare one to meet challenges with energy, but high arousal, caused by a buildup of continued moderate stress, depletes the body’s energy reserve quickly and defense must be used whether or not the person wills it. If the stay in a foreign country is prolonged and the newcomer cannot let down his or her high alert level, the “culture shock” phenomenon occurs. Illness may result, the body forcing needed rest and recuperation. Anxious feelings usually permeate both parties in a dialogue. The host national is uncomfortable when talking with a foreigner because he or she cannot maintain the normal flow of verbal and nonverbal interaction. There are language and perception barriers; silences are too long or too short; proxemic and other norms may be violated. He or she is also threatened by the other’s unknown knowledge, experience, and evaluation—the visitor’s potential for scrutiny and rejection of the host national and his or her country. The inevitable question, “How do you like it here?” which the foreigner abhors, is a quest for reassurance, or at least a “feeler” that reduces the unknown and gives grounds for defense if that seems necessary. The foreign members of dyads are even more threatened. They feel strange and vulnerable, helpless to cope with messages that swamp them, to which “normal” reactions seem inappropriate. Their self-esteem is often intolerably undermined unless they employ such defenses as withdrawal into their own reference group or into themselves, screening out or misperceiving stimuli, rationalization, overcompensation, “going native,” or becoming aggressive or hostile. None of these defenses leads to effective communication. Fatigue is a natural result of such a continued state of alertness, but, too often, instead of allowing needed rest, the body then tenses even more to keep up its guard in the potentially threatening environment. To relax is to be vulnerable. An international student says it well: During those several months after my arrival in the U.S.A., every day I came back from school exhausted so that I had to take a rest for a while, stretching myself on the bed. For, all the time, I strained every nerve in order to understand what the people were saying and make myself understood in my broken English. When I don’t understand what American people are talking about and why they are laughing, I sometimes have to pretend to understand by smiling, even though I feel alienated, uneasy and tense. In addition to this, the difference in culture or customs, the way of thinking between two countries, produces more tension because we don’t know how we should react to totally foreign customs or attitudes, and sometimes we can’t guess how the people from another county react to my saying or behavior. We always have a fear somewhere in the bottom of our hearts that there are much more chances of breakdown in intercultural communication than in communication with our own fellow countrymen.22 Knowing that the aforementioned stumbling blocks are present is certainly an aid in avoiding them, but these particular ones cannot be easily circumvented. For most people it takes insight, training, and sometimes an alteration of long-standing habits or cherished beliefs before progress can be made. But the increasing need for global understanding and cooperation makes the effort vital. To show that it is not impossible a few general suggestions follow. We can study other languages and learn to expect differences in nonverbal forms and other cultural aspects. It is also possible to train ourselves to meet intercultural encounters with more attention to situational details, using an investigative approach rather than preconceptions and stereotypes. We can gradually expose ourselves to differences so that they become less threatening. By practicing conscious relaxation techniques we can also learn to lower our tension level when needed to avoid triggering defensive reactions. In a relaxed state it is also easier to allow the temporary suspension of our own world view, a necessary step to experience empathy. What the intercultural communicator must seek to achieve is summarized by Roger Harrison when he says: “the communicator cannot stop at knowing that the people he is working with have different customs, goals, and thought patterns from his own. He must be able to feel his way into intimate contact with these alien values, attitudes, and feelings. He must be able to work with them and within them, neither losing his own values in the confrontation nor protecting himself behind a wall of intellectual detachment.”23 NOTES 1. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenaus, “Experimental Criteria for Distinguishing Innate from Culturally Conditioned Behavior,” in Cross-Cultural Understanding: Epistemology in Anthropology, ed. F. S. C. Northrop and Helen H. Livingston (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 304. 2. Furst, Charles, “Automating Attention,” Psychology Today (August 1979), p. 112. 3. See Darwin, Charles, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals (New York: Appleton, 1872); Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenaus, Ethology: The Biology of Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970); Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesan, “Constants Across Cultures in the Face and Emotion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17 (1971), pp. 124-129. 4. Ekman, Paul, “Movements with Precise Meanings,” Journal of Communication 26 (Summer 1976), pp. 19-20. 5. Ekman, Paul, and Wallace Friesen, “The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior—Categories, Origins, Usage and Coding,” Semiotica, 1, 1. 6. Personal correspondence. Mr. Do is a counselor at the Indochinese Center in Portland, Oregon, and a counselor-interpreter at the Indochinese Psychiatry Clinic. 7. Taken from student papers in a course in intercultural communi-cation taught by the author. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. See for example: Wedge, Bryant, Visitors to the United States and How They See Us (NJ.: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1965); and Miller, Milton, et al., “The Cross-Cultural Student: Lessons in Human Nature,” Bulletin of Menninger Clinic (March 1971). 11. Horn, Jack D., “Vietnamese Immigrants: Doing Poorly by Doing Well,” Psychology Today (June 1980), pp. 103-104. 12. Frankel, Charles, The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1965), p. 1. 13. For information see newsletters and other material prepared by the Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research (SIETAR), Georgetown Univ., Washington, D.C., 20057. Sources are also listed in the International and Intercultural Communication Annual, published by the Speech Communication Association, 5205 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; the International Journal of Intercultural Relations, New York: Pergamon Press; and The Bridge, 1800 Pontiac, Denver, Colorado 80220. 14. Mead, Margaret, “The Cultural Perspective,” in Communication or Conflict, ed. Mary Capes (Association Press, 1960). 15. Stewart, Edward C. American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Intercultural Network, Inc., 906 N. Spring Ave., LaGrange Park Illinois 60525, 1972), p. 20. 16. Frankel, The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs, p. 103. 17. For an overview see Ramsey, Sheila J., “Nonverbal Behavior: An Intercultural Perspective,” in Handbook of Intercultural Communication, ed. Molefi K Asante, Eileen Newmark, and Cecil A. Blake (Beverly Hills/ London: Sage Publications, 1979), pp. 105-143. 18. Becker, Ernest, The Birth and Death of Meaning (New York: Free Press, 1962), pp. 84-89. 19. Sherif, Carolyn W., Musafer Sherif, and Roger Nebergall, Attitude and Attitude Change (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. vi. 20. Taken from student papers in a course in intercultural communi-cation taught by the author. 21. Gibb, Jack R., “Defensive Communication,” Journal of Communication 2 (September 1961), pp. 141-148. 22. Taken from student papers in a course in intercultural communication taught by the author. 23. Harrison, Roger, “The Design of Cross-Cultural Training: An Alternative to the University Model,” in Explorations in Human Relations Training and Research (Bethesda, Md.: National Training Laboratories, 1966), NEA No. 2, p. 4.
i
v


okoj
okoj
Latest page update: made by okoj , Sep 5 2006, 7:46 PM EDT (about this update About This Update okoj Read only version - okoj

No content added or deleted.

- complete history)
Keyword tags: barna
More Info: links to this page
There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.

Related Content

  (what's this?Related ContentThanks to keyword tags, links to related pages and threads are added to the bottom of your pages. Up to 15 links are shown, determined by matching tags and by how recently the content was updated; keeping the most current at the top. Share your feedback on WikiFoundry Central.)