I Axioms for a Theory of Intercultural
^ Communication Competence
BRIAN H. SPITZBERG
In this introductory essay Brian H. Spitzberg initiates a
discussion intended to alert you to the added problems
facing you when the component of culture is part of a
communication event. He writes,
The challenge of identifying the nature of commu­
nication competence is challenging enough when in­
teractants share common cultural assumptions and
orientations. When the complexity of divergent un­
derlying cultural perspectives is taken into account,
the prospect offormulating a valid theory or assess­
ment of intercultural communication competence
seems far more challenging.
To meet that challenge Spitzberg undertakes two
major assignments. First, he inventories and explains
the current state of research regarding intercultural com­
munication competence. Second, using this summary of
the status quo as a backdrop, Spitzberg offers some guid­
ance for future study and research.
Spitzberg begins his analysis with a general definition
of communication competence: “Communication compe­
tence is defined as social behavior that is perceived as
relatively appropriate and effective for a given context.”
Employing this definition as a starting point, he then moves
to a detailed survey of a number of intercultural commu­
nication competency and relational models: (1) composi­
tional, (2) co-orientational, (3) developmental, (4)
adaptational, (5) causal, and (6) relational. Once he has
explicated these models the author offers seven axioms that
serve to explain nearly all of the basic components of in­
tercultural competency. While these axioms are somewhat
definitional, when viewed as a whole these proposed tru­
isms serve to clarify what Spitzberg calls a basic model: a
model that helps describe the workings of competency.
Spitzberg also suggests these truisms can be usedfor “future
theory development.” The seven axioms of intercultural
communication competency developed by Spitzberg are
1. People are more similar across cultures than they
are different.
2. Judgments of competence are subject to several sys­
temic conditions.
3. Competence is a judgment.
4. Competence is evaluated most universally in terms
of “quality. ”
5. Competence judgments are related to skills.
6. Competence judgments are related to motivation
and knowledge.
7. People-not cultures—interact.
INTRODUCTION
Near the turn of the last century, psychologists began
to explore scientifically the possibility that humans
possess a common underlying intelligence and that
this capability could be measurable. The yardstick of
an intelligence quotient (IQ) was hypothesized, and it
was not long before similar conceptions of “social in­
telligence” were suggested (Thorndike, 1920). By the
1960s, interest in social intelligence was reconceptua­
lized in terms of interpersonal and communication
competence. The prospect of a common human met­
ric of social skillfulness retained its scientific attrac­
tion, but after almost a century of scholarly effort at
identifying the existence or precise nature of this
common metric, the goal continues to be elusive.
There are few places where the promise and per­
formance of academic models of social skills has been
so important, yet frustrating, as in the intercultural
context. The challenge of identifying the nature of
communication competence is challenging enough
when interactants share common cultural assump­
tions and orientations. When the complexity of
This original essay appears here in print for the first time. All rights reserved. Permission to reprint must be obtained from the
author and the publisher. Dr. Brian H. Spitzberg is a professor in the School of Communication at San Diego State University,
San Diego, California.
424
CHAPTER 7
Communicating Interculturally: Becoming Competent
divergent underlying cultural per­
2009, pp. 6-7). Culture is most com­
spectives is taken into account, the
monly marked by such common des­
prospect of formulating a valid the­
ignations as nationality, ethnicity,
There are fe w places
ory or assessment of intercultural
race, tribe, religion, or region. Thus,
where the prom ise and
communication competence seems
when interaction occurs among peo­
perform ance of
far more challenging.
ple from different cultures, it can be
academ ic m odels of
Progress in pursuing a viable
understood as involving intercultural
theory of intercultural communica­
communication competence. There
social skills has been so
tion competence (ICC) depends first
have been dozens, if not hundreds,
im portant, y e t
on mapping the current conceptual
of attempts to develop models of in­
fru stratin g, as in the
territory by identifying and distin­
tercultural communication compe­
intercultural context.
guishing among existing models of
tence, and sorting through these
ICC. A second step will involve the
conceptual trees is a necessary first
formulation of a clear set of guideposts for future
step in seeing the theoretical forest.
inquiry and research. This essay attempts these steps,
with an eye toward developing a philosophical foun­
THE STRUCTURE OF ICC MODELS
dation for subsequent scholarly conceptualizations of
As part of a project to survey the landscape of current
ICC. This analysis draws from an accumulated con­
theoretical efforts, Spitzberg and Chagnon (2009) ex­
sideration of the research and theory regarding com­
amined prominent models of ICC. The resulting sum­
munication competence (e.g., Spitzberg, 1983, 1987,
mary analysis identified five basic types of ICC
1989, 1993, 1994, 2000, 2007; Spitzberg & Brunner,
models: compositional, co-orientational, develop­
1991; Spitzberg & Chagnon, 2009; Spitzberg &
mental, adaptational, and causal. To this typology
Cupach, 1984, 1989, 2002).
will be added relational models.
Compositional models represent the conceptual
ORIENTING TO THE PHENOMENON
or empirical components of intercultural communica­
Communication competence is defined as social behav­
tion competence. These models do not specify the
ior that is perceived as relatively appropriate and ef­
nature of the interrelationships among these compo­
fective for a given context. This is a working
nents, at least not in a manner that could be directly
definition that recognizes that to qualify as communi­
falsified. For example, Howard Hamilton (1998) pro­
cation, behavior must have a potential social audience
poses three basic components: attitudes, knowledge,
and context in mind, and that to qualify as compe­
and skills. Attitudes that promote ICC include aware­
tent, this behavior must achieve some acceptable
ness of cultural values, understanding and devaluing
functional level of appropriateness and effectiveness
ethnocentrism or discrimination, and appreciation of
in a given context. The context of any communication
can be understood at numerous levels, including cul­
Knowledge includes an awareness of self, an under­
tural, chronological, relational, phys­
standing of oppressions, and an ap­
ical or environmental, and functional
preciation of the nature of social
Communication
(Spitzberg, 2000). Culture can be
change and the effects of cultural
competence is defined
understood here as a relatively ele­
differences on communication. Skills
mental theoretical term, consisting
include an ability to engage in self­
as social behavior that
of the “enduring yet evolving interreflection, identify differences, take
is perceived as
generational attitudes, values, beliefs,
multiple perspectives in mulnpie con­
relatively appropriate
rituals/customs, and behavioral pat­
texts, and challenge discriminatory
and effective fo r a given
terns into which people are bom
acts. These components coHeaiTCiy
but that is structurationally created
comprise ICC. but their s~e~~c
context.
and maintained by people’s ongoing
relationships to one another cr to
actions” (Spitzberg & Chagnon,
other types of prepresses. functions cr
Brian H. Spitzbers
Axioms for a Theory o f Intercultural Communication Cor oete'ce
425
minimization of the relevance or impor­
outcomes are less articulated. Other
tance of differences between the native
typical models that fit the composi­
Know ledge includes an
and new cultures. The communicator is
tional category include facework
expected eventually to experience a
(Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998), pyr­
awareness of self, an
amid (Deardorff, 2006), and global
shift into more ethnorelative stages, in
understanding of
which acceptance of the new culture in
(Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006)
oppressions, and an
its uniqueness occurs, followed by
competence models.
adaptation and then integration. Other
appreciation of the
Co-orientational models of ICC
prototypes of developmental models
focus on the achievement of overlap
nature of social change
include King and Baxter Magolda’s
in symbolic meanings across interac­
and the effects of
(2005) intercultural maturity model
tants. These models presume that a
cultural differences on
and Lysgaard’s (1955; see also Gullaproduct of the process of ICC is
hom & Gullahom, 1962) well-known
com m unication.
greater commonality of meaning, un­
U-curve model.
derstanding, accuracy, or mental con­
Adaptational models are generally
tent. Such models often value clarity,
similar to compositional models, but are extended
directness, feedback processes, or facilitators of over­
from a relatively individual perspective to a dyadic
lap in symbolic meanings. For example, Fantini
or group perspective. Adaptational models also tend
(1995) proposes that as two communicators interact,
to focus on a process of one communicator adjusting
their use of pragmatic actions in a given sociocultural
behavior to the host or other interactant’s culture.
context link with symbol and form systems such as
Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki (1989), for
verbal and nonverbal messages, and also with seman­
example, anticipate that there are four basic styles of
tic principles of meaning attribution. These links of
attitude acculturation, defined by the answers to two
pragmatics, symbol systems and semantics, when
questions: is maintenance of relationships with other
engaged in ongoing interaction, allow two distinct
groups valued, and is maintenance of cultural identity
worldviews to achieve increasing correspondence in
and characteristics valued? A communicator who
reference to a “cosmovision” of common reference
values neither maintenance of relationships nor
and orientation. Other exemplars of co-orientational
identity will engage in a marginalizing style of com­
models include Byram’s (1997) intercultural com­
munication. A communicator who
petence model, Rathje’s (2007)
values identity but not relationship
coherence-cohesion model,
and
maintenance will lean toward a segre­
W hen a com m unicator
Kupka’s (2008) intercultural compe­
gationist or separatist style of inter­
tence model for strategic human
first experiences
action. A communicator who values
resource management.
another culture, there
the maintenance of relationships but
Developmental models are distin­
is som e denial o f its
not self-identity will be inclined to
guished by their emphasis on a
assimilate, whereas a communicator
value, then som e
chronological process of change or
who
values both identity and relation­
evolution. Developmental models
defense or reversal of
ship maintenance will pursue a style of
tend to identify phases, stages, or
this view , and then
communicative integration with the
timelines along which certain changes
som e m inim ization of
culture. Other prototypes of adapta­
are likely to be marked in the process
tional models include Kim’s (1988)
the relevance or
of adapting to another culture. For
ICC model, Gallois, Franklin-Stokes,
example, Bennet (1986) hypothesized
im portance of
Giles, and Coupland’s (1988) accom­
the two broad stages of ethnocentric
differences betw een the
modation model, and Navas et al.’s
processes and ethnorelative processes.
native and new
(2005) relative acculturation model.
When a communicator first experi­
Causal models are typically de­
cultures.
ences another culture, there is some
signed specifically for a quantitative
denial of its value, then some defense
test of specific relationships among
or reversal of this view, and then some
426
CHAPTER 7
Communicatins Interculturally: Becoming Competent
proposed ICC components. These models tend to
predict particular concepts as they relate to one an­
other and collectively predict an outcome for the intercultural system or relationship. Hammer,
Wiseman, Rasmussen, and Bruschke (1998), for ex­
ample, hypothesized four clusters of initial predictors:
interpersonal saliencies (i.e., intimacy attraction); in­
tergroup saliencies (i.e., cultural identity, knowledge
of host cultural similarity); message exchange (i.e.,
passive strategies, interactive strategies, selfdisclosure, language proficiency); and host contact
conditions (i.e., host attitudes, favorable contacts).
These concepts are expected to predict satisfaction
with the interaction and relationship, but this influ­
ence is expected to occur through processes of attributional confidence and anxiety reduction. That is,
favorable conditions for an intercultural relationship
to be satisfying depend on the confidence of the com­
municator in the other culture, and the ability to
manage the experience of anxiety about the other
culture. Other causal path models include studies
by Arasaratnam (2008), Griffith and Harvey (2000),
and Ting-Toomey (1999). Deardorff (2006) also pro­
poses a model that, although circular in visualization,
proposes a particular outcome (i.e., effective and ap­
propriate intercultural communication) at the end of a
path of individual (i.e., attitudes and knowledge) and
interaction (i.e. adaptability, flexibility, empathy, ethnorelative views) processes.
Relational models take on many of the features of
adaptational, developmental and causal models, but
explicitly focus their outcomes on relationship forma­
tion and development. Such models emphasize that
communication is at some level what a relationship
consists of, and it is the competence of that communi­
cation that is likely to determine the progression of
that relationship. Typical of this category is a model
by Imahori and Lanigan (1989), which hypothesizes
that a sojourner’s motivation, knowledge, skills, ex­
periences and goals will interact with a host national’s
motivation, knowledge, skills, experiences and goals to
predict a variety of relational outcomes. The relational
outcomes include intercultural effectiveness, commu­
nication effectiveness, relational validation, intimacy,
relational satisfaction, relational commitment, rela­
tional stability and uncertainty reduction.
There is clearly no shortage of approaches to con­
ceptualizing intercultural communication competence.
Brian H. Spitzbers
| While there may be intellectual value in diversity of
approach, there are also drawbacks. First, one of the
; hallmarks of scientific credibility is the development
| of common terms, axioms, and common working
I paradigms through which “normal science” can be
| conducted (Kuhn, 1970). Second, the practical tasks
| of developing educational curricula, organizational
| training, counseling approaches, and the measures
| (i.e. “social intelligence tests”) these imply, all pre| sume a valid framework within which common ob| jectives can be coordinated. Third, even if a common
paradigm cannot be established, it is important to
articulate what distinguishes one paradigm from an­
other so that intellectual choices can be made on a
more reasoned basis. In an attempt to resolve some of
j these challenges, an axiomatic framework is devel­
oped to facilitate theoretical and empirical progress
j in conceptualizing and measuring ICC.
AN AXIOMATIC APPROACH TO ICC
|
|
j
I
j
I
|
Formal axiomatic theory is intended to formulate x =
jy types of statements (e.g., adaptability [x] is posi­
tively related [/] to intercultural communication competence [y]) that can then be deductively related and
expanded. The axioms developed here are somewhat
more definitional in nature (i.e., x = y), but neverthe­
less are intended to form a relatively coherent and
useful system. They are also intended to constitute a
basic model from which future theory development
can proceed. The model will be best prefaced by a
somewhat unexpected argument in a book about intercultural communication:
1. People are jar, jar, jar, far, more similar across
cultures than they are different.
We evolved from a common set of genetic ances­
tors on this planet only a few thousand genera­
tions ago. As biological beings, we share very
common needs—food, shelter, security, some
degree of predictability of environment, curios­
ity, attachment, mating, and group relations such
as cooperation and competition (Bugental,
2000). We are all hard-wired to learn language,
have relatively accurate ways of perceiving the
world around us (Osgood, 1969), and appear
to have even evolved sets of relatively universal
values (Schwartz et al., 2001). We are, in many
Axioms for a Theory o f Intercultural Communication Competence
427
ways, a universal people (Brown, 1991; Heine &
Buchtel, 2009; Lonner, 1980). The importance
of starting with this axiom is to indicate that a
single theoretical model of ICC is not only plau­
sible, but perhaps a necessary result of such
speculation.
2. Judgments of competence are subject to several sys­
temic conditions.
Competence is commonly assumed to be a syno­
nym for ability, and this is indeed a proper deno­
tative meaning. In the context of actual human
interaction, however, it seems clear that the deter­
mination of a communicator’s actual ability is lim­
ited by a number of realizations about the nature
of making such attributions. That is, in social con­
texts, actual ability is less important than what
people think about the ability.
2.1— Equifinality. Equifinality describes a char­
acteristic of systems in which many possible
paths may lead to the same endpoint, or
more precisely, “the same final state can
be reached from different initial conditions
and in different ways” (von Bertalanffy,
1968, p. 79). Different behaviors (e.g., fa­
cial expression vs. questions) can produce
the same outcome in the same context (e.g.,
a job interview). A potential lover may en­
act a smoothly practiced script of courtship
and flirtation to get a date, whereas another
may accidentally engage in self-deprecating
or embarrassing slips of the tongue to get a
date, and yet, both may succeed.
2.2— Multifinality. Multifinality is a conceptual
partner to equifinality. It describes the
character of systems in which a given
path might lead to multiple possible end­
points (Ramaprasad, 1983). The same be­
havior (e.g., smiling) may produce different
outcomes in different contexts (e.g., a
prayer service vs. a party). A roommate
may yell one time at another roommate
for not doing a fair share of the chores,
and ask politely the next time, and both
may produce similar compliance.
Equifinality represents a type of
“many-to-one” relationships, or a system
property of “convergence,” whereas
428
CHAPTER 7
multifinality represents a type of “oneto-many” relationships, or a system prop­
erty of divergence (Wilden, 1972, p. 492).
Both reflect the essential complexity and
unpredictability of any given interaction
or relationship based only upon knowledge
of initial conditions. As such, these proper­
ties indicate the fundamentally creative po­
tential that communication introduces to
any encounter or relationship.
2.3— Locus. Attribution theory proposes that
there is a self-serving bias of perception,
i.e., that people are inclined generally to
view self in favorable ways compared to
the views of others (Kelley & Michela,
1980; Miller & Ross, 1975). Research in­
dicates that people generally perceive them­
selves as more competent than the average
person (see, e.g., Dunning, Heath, & Suls,
2004; Kruger, 1999; Williams & Gilovich,
2008). W hether it is due to perceptual fo­
cus, activity salience or self-enhancing mo­
tivations, it is clear that different perceivers
perceive a given performance or interactant
differently. In any given episode of interac­
tion, there may be several perspectives of
perception, including self, fellow interactant(s), bystanders, and potentially, if the
interaction is recorded and evaluated by tea­
chers or researchers, observers. Each of
these perspectives permit, and may system­
atically imply, divergent types of compe­
tence evaluations (Cupach & Spitzberg,
1983).
3. Therefore, competence is a judgment.
3.1— Competence is not inherent to behavior. If
any given behavior may produce different
ends, and different behaviors can produce
the same end, and if different perceivers
perceive and evaluate a given behavior dif­
ferently, it follows that competence is not
in the behavior, but in people’s interpreta­
tions of the behavior. At least since Korzybski (1994), it has been widely
understood that the word is not the thing
it refers to, and that therefore, meanings
are in people and not the words
Communicatins Interculturally: Becoming Competent
themselves. Thus, competence, as an eval­
uative inference about a person’s commu­
nication behavior, exists not in the
performance itself but in the social evalua­
tion of behavior by a given perceiver in a
given context. Therefore,
3.2— Competence is an impression or evaluative
inference. Competence is a judgment made
about a given behavior or set of behaviors,
and made in reference to socially negoti­
ated criteria of relevance to the context in
which behavior is performed and evalu­
ated. A person may engage in highly po­
lished and interesting flirtation behavior (a
joke and a smile), but if it is in the context
of a job interview or in the receipt of tragic
news, such behavior is unlikely to be eval­
uated as competent. Thus, competence is
not an ability or set of skills or behaviors
per se, but a judgment about the adequacy
or value of that behavior in context.
4. Competence is evaluated most universally in terms
of “quality. ”
often equated with normative behavior, or
behavior that avoids violating expectancies
or rules of the situation. A problem with
this view, however, is that an action may be
extremely creative or novel, and yet compe­
tent, and therefore not normative or ex­
pected. The ordinary rules or expectations
of a first date, for example, may be to meet
at a social place where food and drink and
music are likely. In contrast, a person might
instead incite another out to view an art
auction or exhibit, feed parrots at an exotic
bird rehabilitation site, or walk a path
through a park as a first date. Such activities
do not fit the typical societal expectancies
for college student dating, but might have
the benefit of distinguishing the person’s
creativity and difference from the norm.
Furthermore, the best communicator may
be the person who faces a difficult situation
and finds a way of renegotiating the rules of
the situation— redefining the very nature of
the situation (Pearce & Cronen, 1980). Re­
search indicates that many college students
at some point or another renegotiate a rela­
tionship that was considered a (platonic)
friendship into a romantic (sexual) relation­
ship, or a romantic relationship that
has ended into a friendship, and sometimes
back again (as with “friends-with-benefits”),
suggesting that competence sometimes ex­
ists in the ability to renegotiate the rules of a
context (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Dailey,
Pfiester, Jin, Beck, & Clark, 2009; Schnei­
der & Kenny, 2000).
In any given particular context, there may be any
number of relevant criteria of adequacy or value
to infer about communication behavior. Many
criteria for gauging the competence of behavior
have been suggested, including clarity, content
knowledge, understanding, satisfaction, effi­
ciency, attractiveness, attraction, intimacy, and
so forth. All of these criteria, however, seem sub­
ordinate to a general concept of quality. Commu­
nication of higher quality, however this may be
defined, is generally preferable to communica­
tion of lower quality. Quality, in essence, takes
4.2— Effectiveness. Effectiveness refers to the
into account the variations and complexities of a
ability to achieve relatively rewarding out­
particular communication context, and still asks:
comes in a given context. Effectiveness is
what is the best thing to be done here? It follows
often inappropriately equated with achiev­
that quality, in turn, is likely to be a function of
ing satisfying or desired out­
two primary dimensions of eval­
comes. A problem with this
uation: appropriateness and
equation is that there are con­
A ppropriateness refers
effectiveness.
texts in which any action may
4.1—Appropriateness. Appro­
priateness refers to the le­
gitimacy or fit of behavior
to a given context. It is
Brian H. Spitzbers
to the legitim acy or fit
of behavior to a given
context.
produce undesired or dissatisfy­
ing outcomes. Breaking up with
a person or delivering bad news
may
inevitably
produce
Axioms for a Theory of Intercultural Communication Competence
429
unpleasant outcomes, but there are more
and less competent ways of delivering
such news. Therefore, effectiveness refers
to the achievement of outcomes that are
preferable relative to the possibilities the
context permits, even if this means the
best way of minimizing losses or costs.
To a large extent, the self is the best
judge of effectiveness, whereas others are
the best judge of the seifs appropriateness.
Nevertheless, people make judgments of
appropriateness and effectiveness about
both their own behavior and the behavior
of others. A person who is capable of com­
municating in a way that is perceived as
effective at achieving preferable outcomes,
and doing so in a way that preserves the
collective sense of appropriateness in the
context, is likely to have performed in a
manner that is competent, moral, ethical,
ideal, and high in quality (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2002). Such a universal claim, how­
ever, is not without some theoretical
conditions.
4.3— Probability conjecture. Given that compe­
tence is not inherent in the behavior, and
is instead in the inferences and judgments
made of such behaviors, it follows that no
algorithm can guarantee such inferences
or judgments. Assuming the existence of
at least a modicum of free will in the na­
ture of hum an experience, the optimal
conjectures and predictions that can be
made are probabilistic in nature. No be­
havior or behavioral script guarantees
competence— only a probability
of
competence.
4.4— Expectancy conjecture. One of the factors
that is likely to affect the probability of
competence impressions is the valence of ex­
pectancies. People enter social contexts with
expectancies, either based on prior
experiences or based on analogue contexts
cognitively matched to the anticipated en­
counter. Consistent with enormous amounts
of research into the evaluation-potency-
430
CHAPTER 7
activity (E-P-A)dimensions of perception
(Heise, 1979; Osgood, May & Miron,
1975), such expectations will be valenced.
It follows that generally perceivers will eval­
uate communication more positively to the
extent that it fulfills positively valenced ex­
pectancies, or appropriately violates negative
expectancies. In contrast, communication
will likely be viewed as more incompetent
to the extent it fulfills negatively valenced ex­
pectancies or violates positively valenced
expectancies.
4.5— Continuum conjecture. There may be so­
cial contexts that are purely dichotomous
in relevant judgm ents of competence, but
it seems likely that even these may be illu­
sions of dichotomy. A job interviewee may
not get a particular job, but there may be
potential for that same interviewer to hire
the candidate at a later date for a different
job, or to refer the candidate to another
employer. A divorce may seem final, but
there are many paths and many ends to
the various possible relationships the two
people may negotiate subsequently. If
competence is a function of appropriate­
ness and effectiveness, it seems reasonable
to conjecture that there are always degrees
of competence to be evaluated. Judgments
of quality are likely arrayed along a con­
tinuum, from lower to higher.
4.6— Curvilinearity conjecture. Any behavior or
action can be performed to excess. The
same behavior (e.g., eye contact) that is
competent in any given context is likely
to be perceived as incompetent if per­
formed to excess (e.g., 50 percent eye con­
tact vs. 100 percent eye contact). Research
in a variety of areas suggests a curvilinear
relationship between the amount of a be­
havior and its positive evaluation, includ­
ing the relationships of (a) verbal output
to behavioral receptivity and evaluation
(Brown, 1980; Hayes & Meltzer, 1972;
Street & Brady, 1982; Wheeless, Frymier,
& Thompson, 1992); (b) self-disclosure
Communicating Interculturally: Becoming Competent
and evaluations (Brewer & Mittelman,
1980; Cozby, 1972; Davis, Frye, <SrJoure,
1975); (c) cognitive or content complexity
and verbal fluency (Berger, Karol, & Jor­
dan, 1989; Schachter, Christenfeld, Ravina, & Bilous, 1991); (d) interactional
proximity and positive impressions (Pat­
terson & Sechrest, 1970); (e) nonverbal
immediacy and learning (Comstock, Ro­
well, & Bowers, 1995); (0 desired inti­
macy and relationship quality (Harper &
Elliott, 1988); and (g) behavioral accom­
modation
and
relationship
quality
(Fletcher, Thomas, & Durrant, 1999).
5. Competence judgments are related to skills.
Just because competence is not in the behavior
does not diminish the importance of behavior to
a theory of communication competence. The be­
havior is the communication, and as such, is ex­
pected to reveal systematic relationships to
judgments of competence. That is, equifinality
and multifinality do not prevent prediction—
they just prevent perfect prediction. Certain skills
are more likely than others to predict impres­
sions of competence across context types, and
research in a variety of domains has demon­
strated across decades of research that certain
types of behavior are more likely than others to
be perceived as competent, attractive, efficient, or
satisfying (see, e.g., Dillard &r Spitzberg, 1984;
Spitzberg & Chagnon, 2009; Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1984, 2002). The objective of any the­
oretical or assessment program of instruction, in­
tervention, or investigation is to identify the
skills that are most likely to be perceived as com­
petent, and identify ways in which understand­
ings and performances of these skills can be
optimally matched to relevant contexts.
This axiom ultimately provides a more eth­
ical basis upon which curricula can be predi­
cated. Instead of claiming that learning a
behavior makes a person competent, which it
cannot because competence does not inhere in
the behavior, the claim is that learning a set of
behaviors and their relationship to competence
evaluations increases the student’s likelihood of
Brian H. Spitzbers
being competent. Such an approach is more
likely to accord with students’ everyday experi­
ences and with the results of scientific research
seeking to predict human behavior and
perceptions.
6. Competence judgments are related to motivation
and knowledge.
The probability of linkage between behavior and
competence judgments has been conjectured as a
broader complex than just skills. Skills do not
emerge ex nihilo, but from a conative ontology of
human action encompassing the components of
motivation, knowledge and skills. Kantian and
Cartesian influences have no doubt simplified the
distinctions between the affective, the cognitive and
the behavioral (Bloom, 1956; Havighurst, 1957).
This tripartite distinction nevertheless has consid­
erable heuristic value in formulating conceptions of
competent interaction.
Of the over 20 models of intercultural com­
munication competence reviewed by Spitzberg
and Chagnon (2009), by far the most common
constitutive components were motivation,
knowledge, and skills, although not always la­
beled precisely with these terms. Motivation refers
to the many positive and negative valences that
move a communicator toward, against, or away
from a particular path of activity. Knowledge re­
presents the possession and understanding of re­
sources that inform the enactment of skills in a
given context, including the ability to acquire
informational resources, whether by questions,
observation, cognitive modeling, or creative in­
trospection. Skills are repeatable goal-directed be­
havioral sequences producing some level of goal
achievement. In general, it is conjectured that the
more motivated, knowledgeable, and skilled a com­
municator is, the more likely it is the communi­
cator will achieve the outcome of being perceived,
by self and other(s), as competent in any given
context. It is also conjectured that any theoretical
model that excludes any of these core compo­
nents (i.e., motivation, knowledge, skills, con­
text, outcomes) is incomplete, and will be
benefitted by including the missing components,
in one form or another.
Axioms for a Theory o f Intercultural Communication Competence
431
7. People interact— not cultures.
EXTENDING THE AXIOMS
A theory of interpersonal competence
To some degree, the term “interis to a large extent a grand unifying
M ost contexts of
cultural communication” is a mis­
theory of communication. Most con­
nomer. Communication does not
com m unication involve
texts of communication involve exten­
occur between cultures so much as
extensions of the
sions of the motivation, knowledge,
between communicators who to some
m otivation, knowledge,
and skills implicit in a model of interper­
degree or another are differentially
sonal competence. To the extent that cul­
and skills im plicit in a
influenced by their cultural perspec­
ture plays a role, it plays it through the
tives (Spitzberg, 1989). The term
m odel of interpersonal
motivation, knowledge, and skills of the
intercultural communication is of­
competence.
interactants involved. Many models of
ten applied in a presumptive man­
ICC have already proffered conceptuali­
ner—presuming that people who
zations, and occasionally measurement approaches, that
come from different nations, ethnicities, races, re­
represent differentiated instantiations of these core com­
ligions, and so forth are by definition engaging in
ponents. Yet the attempts to validate these models, much
intercultural communication. If competence is in­
less to replicate validations across different research
deed an impression, and if there are many paths to
groups in different contexts, are seriously undeveloped.
the same end and many ends to a given path, it
If institutional assessment objectives are increas­
follows that culture does not necessarily alter the
ing in importance, it will be increasingly important
outcome of a given communicative encounter. A
for institutions to have coherent conceptual and op­
person seeking directions from a native may not
erational approaches within which such objectives
share the language, perspective, or values of the
can be framed. Given research indicating hundreds
host, and yet these interactants may be able to ne­
of different concepts considered related to ICC
gotiate directions successfully. Interethnic romantic
(Spitzberg & Chagnon, 2009), which would be un­
relationships and marriages may present more po­
wieldy and overly complex to use in an assessment
tential problems than intraethnic relationships, ce­
context, it is important to pursue parsimonious and
teris paribus, but this is quite different than
heuristic approaches that can bring coherence to the
presupposing that culture is a dominant factor
scholarly and pedagogical context of intercultural com­
influencing their negotiation of the relationship.
munication competence. The axiomatic approach devel­
The complexities of maintaining any relationship
oped here is intended to provide a flexible framework
may vastly overshadow the role of culture in the
within which such future efforts can be extended.
relationship’s outcomes.
The most immediate implication of this axiom
is that a theory of intercultural communication
Acknowledgement
competence is necessarily a subset of a theory of
Thanks are due to the Japanese Association of College
interpersonal communication competence. Ex­
English Teachers, Kyushu-Okinawa Chapter, who
cluding “interactions” such as diplomacy or interinvited the essay upon which this article is based:
organizational relations through document trans­
Spitzberg, B. H. (2009). Axioms for a theory of inter­
fer, it is people who interact with one another, not
cultural communication competence. Annual Review
cultures (Spitzberg, 1989). In any given context,
of
English Learning and Teaching, 14, 69-81.
culture may well be so deeply submerged into the
background that it makes little difference to
the foreground of competent interaction. Thus,
References
the first priority to understanding intercultural
communication competence is to develop a frame­
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2008, May). Further testing of a new
work for understanding ICC, and then incorporate
model of intercultural communication competence. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International
the theoretical conditions in which culture is likely
Communication Association, New York, NY.
to influence the interaction under investigation.
432
CHAPTER 7
Communicating Interculturally: Becoming Competent
Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to train­
ing for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 10, 179-196.
Berger, C. R., Karol, S. H., & Jordan, J. M. (1989). When a
lot of knowledge is a dangerous thing: The debilitating
effects of plan complexity on verbal fluency. Human
Communication Research, 16, 91-119.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M.
(1989). Acculturation in plural societies. Applied Psy­
chology: An International Review, 38, 185-206.
Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends
with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
38, 66-73.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, hand­
book I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Brewer, M. B., & Mittelman, J. (1980). Effects of normative
control of self-disclosure on reciprocity. Journal of Per­
sonality, 48, 89-102.
Brown, B. L. (1980). Effects of speech rate on personality at­
tributions and competency evaluations. In H. Giles, W.
P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psy­
chological perspectives (pp. 293-300). Oxford: Pergamon.
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universal. Philadelphia: Tem­
ple University Press.
Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of
social life: A domain-based approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 187-219.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural commu­
nication competence. New York: Multilingual Matters.
Comstock, J., Rowell, E., & Bowers, J. W. (1995). Food for
thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learn­
ing, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44,
251-266.
Cozby, P. C. (1972). Self-disclosure, reciprocity and liking.
Sociometry, 35, 151-160.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Trait versus
state: A comparison of dispositional and situational
measures of interpersonal communication compe­
tence. Western Speech Communication Journal, 47,
364-379.
Dailey, R. M., Pfiester, A. Jin, B., Beck, G., & Clark, G.
(2009). On-again/off-again dating relationships: How
are they different from other dating relationships? Per­
sonal Relationships, 16, 23-47.
Davis, T. B., Frye, R. L., & Joure, S. (1975). Perceptions
and behaviors of dogmatic subjects in a T-group set­
ting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 375-381.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of
intercultural competence as a student outcome of
Brian H. Spitzberg
internationalization. Journal of Studies in Intercultural
Education, 10, 241-266.
Dillard, J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1984). Global impressions of
social skills: Behavioral predictors. In R. N Bostrom
(Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 8, pp. 156-176).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed selfassessment: Implications for health, education, and the
workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5,
69-106.
Fantini, A. E. (1995). Language, culture, and world view:
Exploring the nexus. International Journal of Intercul­
tural Relations, 19, 143-153.
Fletcher, G., Thomas, G., & Durrant, R. (1999). Cognitive
and behavioral accommodation in close relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 705730.
Gallois, C., Franklyn-Stokes, A., Giles, H., & Coupland, N.
(1988). Communication accommodation in intercul­
tural encounters. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), Theories in inter­
cultural communication (pp. 157-185). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Griffith, D. A., & Harvey, M. G. (2000). An intercultural
communication model for use in global interorganizational networks. Journal of International Marketing, 9
(3), 87-103.
Gullahom, J. R., & Gullahom, J. E. (1962). An extension of
the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 3, 33-47.
Hammer, M. R., Wiseman, R. L., Rasmussen, J. L., &
Bruschke, J. C. (1998). A test of anxiety/uncertainty
management theory: The intercultural adaptation con­
text. Communication Quarterly, 46, 309-326.
Harper, J. M., & Elliott, M. L. (1988). Can there be
too much of a good thing? The relationship be­
tween desired level of intimacy and marital adjust­
ment. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16,
351-360.
Havighurst, R. J. (1957). The social competence of middleaged people. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 56,297-375.
Hayes, D. P., & Meltzer, L. (1972). Interpersonal judg­
ments based on talkativeness: I. Fact or artifact? Soci­
ometry, 35, 538-561.
Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: The uni­
versal and the culturally specific. Annual Review of Psy­
chology, 60, 369-394.
Heise, D. R. (1979). Understanding events: Affect and the
construction of social action. Cambridge; New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Axioms for a Theory of Intercultural Communication Competence
433
Howard Hamilton, M. F., Richardson, B. J., & Shuford, B.
(1998). Promoting multicultural education: A holistic
approach. College Student Affairs Journal, 18, 5-17.
Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What
does it mean to be globally competent? Journal of Stud­
ies in Intercultural Education, 10, 267-285.
Imahori, T. T., & Lanigan, M. L. (1989). Relational model
of intercultural communication competence. Intercul­
tural Communication Competence, 13, 269-286.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory
and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501.
Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adapta­
tion: An integrative theory. Philadelphia: Multilingual
Matters.
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A develop­
mental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of Col­
lege Student Development, 46, 571-592.
Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and sanity: An introduction to
non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (5th ed.).
Fort Worth, TX: Institute of General Semantics.
Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The “belowaverage effect” and the egocentric nature of compara­
tive ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 221-232.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd
ed.). New York: New American Library/University of
Chicago Press.
Kupka, B. (2008). Creation of an instrument to assess inter­
cultural communication competence for strategic interna­
tional human resource management. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Otago, Otago,
New Zealand.
Lonner, W. J. (1980). The search for psychological univer­
sa l. In H. C. Triandis <Sr W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Hand­
book of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 143-204).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society:
Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United
States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45-51.
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the
attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological
Bulletin, 82, 213-225.
Navas, M., Garcia, M. C., Sanchez, J., Rojas, A. J., Pumares,
P, & Fernandez, J. S. (2005). Relative acculturation
extended model (RAEM): New contributions with re­
gard to the study of acculturation. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 29, 21-37.
Osgood, C. E. (1969). On the whys and wherefores of E, P,
and A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12,
194-199.
434
CHAPTER 7
Osgood, C. E., May, W. H., & Miron, M. S. (1975). Crosscultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana, IL:
University of Chicago.
Patterson, M. L., & Sechrest, L. B. (1970). Interpersonal
distance and impression formation. Journal of Person­
ality, 38, 161-166.
Pearce, W. B., &r Cronen, V. E. (1980). Communication,
action, and meaning. New York: Praeger.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback.
Behavioral Science, 28, 4-13.
Rathje, S. (2007). Intercultural competence: The status and
future of a controversial concept. Language and Inter­
cultural Communication, 7, 254-266.
Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B., & Bilous, F.
(1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowl­
edge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
362-367.
Schneider, C. S., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). Cross-sex friends
who were once romantic partners: Are they platonic
now? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17,
451-466.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as
knowledge, skill, and impression. Communication Edu­
cation, 32, 323-328.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Issues in the study of communica­
tive competence. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.),
Progress in Communication Sciences (Vol. 8, pp. 1-46).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). Issues in the development of a
theory of interpersonal competence in the intercultural
context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
13, 241-268.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of (in)competence.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10,
137-158.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). The dark side of (in)competence.
In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark
side of interpersonal communication (pp. 25-49).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2007). CSRS: The conversational skills rat­
ing scale— An instructional assessment of interpersonal
competence (NCA Diagnostic Series, 2nd ed.). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Chagnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing
intercultural communication competence. In D. K.
Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of intercultural
competence (pp. 2-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal
communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Communicating Interculturally: Becoming Competent
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of inter­
personal competence research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2002). Interpersonal
skills. In M. L. Knapp & J. R. Daly (Eds.), Handbook
of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 564-611).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Street, R. L., Jr., & Brady, R. M. (1982). Speech rate accep­
tance ranges as a function of evaluative domain, lis­
tener speech rate, and communication context.
Communication Monographs, 49, 290-308.
Williams, E. F., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Do people really
believe they are above average? Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 44, 1121-1128.
Concepts and Questions
1. Why, when you add culture as one additional variable
to communication competency, does it make the en­
tire process of competency “far more challenging”?
Thorndike, R. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harpers
Monthly, 140, 227-235.
2. What is Spitzberg’s definition of communication compe­
tence? Why are the words “appropriate” and “effective”
used in Spitzberg’s definition?
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures.
New York: Guilford.
3. According to Spitzberg, what are some common des­
ignations that “mark” culture?
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework compe­
tence in intercultural conflict: An updated facenegotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 22, 187-225.
4. What are the six intercultural communication models
advanced by Spitzberg? What do these models have in
common?
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Founda­
tions, development, applications (Rev. ed.). New York:
George Braziller.
Wheeless, L. R., Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992).
A comparison of verbal output and receptivity in rela­
tion to attraction and communication satisfaction in
interpersonal relationships. Communication Quarterly,
40, 102-115.
Wilden, A. (1972). System and structure: Essays in communi­
cation and exchange (2nd ed.). New York: Tavistock.
5. Why does Spitzberg believe that “People are far, far,
far, more similar across cultures than they are
different”?
6. Explain the phrase “Competence is a judgment.”
7. How does Spitzberg define and explain the notion of
“appropriateness” as it applies to intercultural
competence?
8. Why are competence judgments related to motivation
and knowledge?
9. Explain the phrase “people interact-not cultures.”
fc A Confucian Perspective of Communication
& Competence
XIAOSUI X IA O • GUO-MING CHEN
In the first essay in this chapter, Spitzberg examined in­
tercultural competency in both theoretical and general
terms. The second selection in this chapter looks at com­
petency from a specific point of view. In an essay titled “A
Confucian Perspective of Communication Competency,”
competency is analyzed as it applies to Confucian teach­
ings. The rationale behind the study is that there are
major differences in how cultures perceive and attain
competency during cross-cultural communication. The
authors note that “from the Western perspective,
This original essay appears here in print for the first time. All rights reserved. Permission to reprint must be obtained from the
publisher and the authors. An earlier version of this essay appeared in the Journal of Multicultural Discourse, 4(1), 2009,
pp. 61-74. Dr. Xiaosui Xiao is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Hong Kong Baptist Univer­
sity, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong. Dr. Guo-Ming Chen is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the Univer­
sity of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.
Xiaosui Xiao • Guo-Ming Chen
A Confucian Perspective of Communication Competence
435