CULTURE-LEVEL & INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AS AN ANTECEDENT OF CONVERSATIONAL INDIRECTNESS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 16 ANZAM 2009 CULTURE-LEVEL & INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AS AN ANTECEDENT OF CONVERSATIONAL INDIRECTNESS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT: EVIDENCE FROM U.S. VS THAILAND Suwichit Chaidaroon, Ph.D.* Assistant Professor Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore schaidaroon@ntu.edu.sg Kawpong Polyorat, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management Science Khonkaen University, Thailand kawpong@kku.ac.th Hara Kazuya Assistant Professor Faculty of Language and Cultures Meikai University, Japan harak@meikai.ac.jp

2 ANZAM 2009 Page 2 of 16 CULTURE-LEVEL & INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AS AN ANTECEDENT OF CONVERSATIONAL INDIRECTNESS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT: EVIDENCE FROM U.S. VS THAILAND Abstract Conversational indirectness, or the extent to which people express and interpret meanings directly or indirectly, plays an important role in successful cross-cultural management. This paper hypothesizes that individualism-collectivism, both at the culture-level and individual-level, is one factor that impacts the use of conversational indirectness. Because individualism focuses on personal independence and being true to themselves while collectivism emphasizes relationships with others, it is expected that individualism will negatively influence the use of conversational indirectness while collectivism will positively influence the use of conversational indirectness. Results from a quantitative survey comparing U.S & Thai participants provide general supports for the proposed hypotheses. The implications for successful cross-cultural interactions in a workplace and directions for future research are also provided. Keywords: Communication, Cross-cultural behavior, Cross-cultural management, International OB

3 Page 3 of 16 ANZAM 2009 CULTURE-LEVEL & INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AS AN ANTECEDENT OF CONVERSATIONAL INDIRECTNESS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT: EVIDENCE FROM U.S. VS THAILAND Literature on effective international management is primarily based on communication theories originated mostly in the U.S. (Dissanayake 2003). Thus it is not surprising that American cultural assumptions might influence, implicitly or explicitly, such theories. In other words, American culture may have an impact on the standard by which the communication behavior is studied and the basis for philosophies of how communication works (De Mooij 1994). As a consequence, it is important to better understand cross-cultural communication behavior and investigate more communication phenomena where the same communication style operates differently in a crosscultural context of business interactions (Kim 2002). Indirect communication may vary across cultures and individuals. This dimension of communication style has great impact on successful international management. Some people prefer to express their messages directly in their work environments while others may appreciate indirect and ambiguous communication. In a similar vein, while certain people are inclined to read and interpret the hidden meanings from others message, others are not. As a consequence, the present research seeks to propose that individualism-collectivism (Hofstede 1990), both at the cultural level and individual level, has a potential to impact on the extent to which people communicate directly versus indirectly and provide implications for international management. Because indirect communication can be expressed through several approaches, this study will focus on one form of them- conversation indirectness (Holtgraves 1997). THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Conversational Indirectness Conversational indirectness can be expressed through various forms of indirect language use. The use of round-about words, metaphor, euphemism or hinting strategies are some examples (Lakoff & Johnson 1980). Indirectness may also be demonstrated through extreme polite forms of expressions (Brown & Levinson 1987). People who are conscious and conscientious about their interactions and

4 ANZAM 2009 Page 4 of 16 avoid communicative rigidity are considered rhetorically sensitive (Hart & Burks 1972; Hart, Carlson & Eadie 1980), which can be considered another form of conversational indirectness. Specifically, conversational indirectness refers to the extent to which people express their meanings directly or indirectly and the extent to which they look for indirect meanings from others, which can be manifested in two dimensions; production and interpretation (Holtgraves 1997). The interpretation dimension refers to the extent to which communicators look for indirect meanings in the counterpart s message. In other words, communicators are different in terms of (a) the degree to which they believe that significant meanings may lie below the surface level of utterances and (b) the tendency to seek and find hidden meanings in others remarks (Holtgraves 1997). People from different cultures may appreciate or tolerate ambiguous/indirect messages with different levels of comfort. The production dimension indicates a communicator s inclination to speak directly or indirectly (i.e., communicate non-literal or ambiguous meanings). The frequency and the degree of indirectness are the indicators of this dimension. Holtgraves (1997) found that the two dimensions are significantly correlated. Communicators who tend to seek indirect meanings from what other people say also have a tendency to speak indirectly. The primary objective of this study was to examine the extent to which indirect communication was used in a cross-cultural context as well as to identify the culture-level and individual-level factor that drove the differences in such use in order to provide implications for successful cross-cultural interactions in workplaces. Specifically, it was hypothesized that individualism-collectivism was one of the factors for conversational indirectness. Individualism-Collectivism Hofstede (1990) identified four major cultural dimensions including individualismcollectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. These four cultural dimensions provide a great deal of insight on how culture may influence behaviors across cultures and were commonly cited in cross-cultural research. Individualism-collectivism itself appears to be the most powerful dimension of the four (Hofstede 1990). Individualism refers to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose and people tend to have an independent view of the self while collectivism reflects societies in which one s

5 Page 5 of 16 ANZAM 2009 identity tends to be much more connected to the social network and people tend to have an interdependent view of the self (Aaker & Maheswaran 1997). Individualism focuses on personal independence, personal achievement, self-knowledge, uniqueness, privacy, and competition, while collectivism emphasizes sense of duty to group, relatedness to others, seeking others advice, harmony, working in groups, sense of belonging to a group, contextual self, and hierarchy (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeir 2002). North American (i.e., U.S. & Canada), Western European (e.g., Britain & Germany), Australian and New Zealand cultures are highly individualist while Asian (e.g., Japan, Hong Kong, &Taiwan), African and Latin American cultures, in contrast, are considered collectivist cultures (Triandis 1995). Impact of Individualism-Collectivism on Conversation Indirectness In interpersonal interactions, the use of direct communication may cause the counterpart to lose face or the projected image of one s self in a relational situation (Gudykunst 1998). Face is a vulnerable identity and can be threatened in any social situation (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi 1998). One approach to avoid attacking the counterpart s face is through the use of indirect communication as it provides two benefits (Tannen 1984). First, defensive benefit occurs when a speaker does not make a direct request and consequently the hearer does not need to reply directly with a rejection. As a result, indirect communication enables communications to maintain harmony. Second, rapport benefits are also realized when communicators deeply understand each other without so much explanation. In individualist cultures, people are socialized to express themselves as being true to themselves, and to develop consistent identity-defining preferences about things (Fiske, Kitayama, Markus & Nisbett 1998). Moreover, they are motivated to identify their internal attributes, express them in public and assure them in private (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto & Norasakkunkit 1997). Therefore, direct conversation, rather than an indirect communicative strategy, can be an approach to accomplish these tasks. In contrast, collectivists are socialized to act in an appropriate manner and not to impose on other people (Kim, Hunter, Miyahara, Horvath, Bresnahan & Yoon 1996). Individuals from collectivist cultures are afraid that speaking straightforwardly to others about issues that they feel hesitant to discuss directly may hurt the others feelings (Markus & Kitayama 1991). In other words,

6 ANZAM 2009 Page 6 of 16 being direct in conversation may hinder the achievement of the desired relationships. From this perspective, collectivists may view being direct as negative, disruptive, or even rude behaviors. As a consequence, collectivism is expected to positively influence the use of conversational indirectness. Another piece of preliminary support for our hypothesized relationships between individualism-collectivism and conversational indirectness is derived from two assertiveness studies. Holtgraves (1997) found that indirectness was negatively related to assertiveness, suggesting that assertive communicators tended to use direct communications in expressing their remarks. Polyorat et al. (2005) found that individualists (i.e., Americans) were more assertive than collectivists (i.e., Thais). From those previous research findings, it is expected that individualists will use conversational indirectness to a lesser extent than collectivists. Because indirect communication is more common in collectivist countries and collectivists (vs. individualists) have a greater concern for other people s feelings, needs and wants and less assertive, it is hypothesized that, collectivists will use conversational indirectness to a greater extent than individualists. H1: Collectivists will use conversational indirectness to a greater extent than individualists. Because conversational indirectness is composed of two dimensions: production and interpretation and these two are found to be significantly correlated (Holtgraves 1997), we further expect that the hypothesized relationships will hold for both dimensions. H1a: Collectivists will use conversational indirectness (production dimension) to a greater extent than individualists. H1b: Collectivists will use conversational indirectness (interpretation dimension) to a greater extent than individualists. Individualism-Collectivism at the Individual Level The use of individualism-collectivism at the cultural level will shed light on the antecedents of conversational indirectness at the macro level. However, the between-culture comparison is subject to alternative explanations. The use of one country which is categorized as an individualist culture according to Hofstede s score and another country which is categorized as a collectivist culture implies that the two countries are similar in all other aspects except individualism-collectivism. The

7 Page 7 of 16 ANZAM 2009 fact is these two countries are different not only in terms of culture but also economy, technology and legality. Even within the cultural framework, the two countries are different not only in individualismcollectivism dimension but also in uncertainty avoidance, power distance and masculinity-femininity (Hofstede, 1990). Consequently, there is a need to also examine the role of individualism-collectivism on the use of conversational indirectness at an individual level to ascertain that the difference in the use of conversational indirectness is actually derived from individualism-collectivism rather other cultural dimensions or other socio-economic, technological and legal factors. At the individual level, individualism-collectivism is often operationalized through the use of self-construal scale (Gudykunst, Matsumoto, Ting-Toomey, Nishida, Kim & Heyman 1996; Singelis, 1994). Self-construal refers to an individual s thoughts, feelings and actions concerning relationships to others as well as the self as distinct from others (Singelis, 1994). In individualist cultures, people tend to have an independent self-construal, which emphasizes the separateness and uniqueness of the individual (Aaker & Maheswaran 1997). In collectivist cultures, people tend to have an interdependent self-construal, which emphasizes social connectedness and group relations (Singelis 1994). Paralleling the line of reasoning for the impact of individualism-collectivism at the cultural level, it is expected that independent self-construal will negatively influence the use of conversational indirectness. In contrast, interdependent self-construal is expected to positively influence the use of conversational indirectness. H2: Independent self-construal will negatively influence the use of conversational indirectness. H3: Interdependent self-construal is expected to positively influence the use of conversational indirectness. Because conversational indirect is composed of two dimensions: production and interpretation, we further expect that the above hypothesized relationships will hold for both dimensions. H2a: Independent self-construal will negatively influence the use of conversational indirectness- production dimension.

8 ANZAM 2009 Page 8 of 16 H2b: Independent self-construal will negatively influence the use of conversational indirectness- interpretation dimension. H3a: Interdependent self-construal is expected to positively influence the use of conversational indirectness- production dimension. H3b: Interdependent self-construal is expected to positively influence the use of conversational indirectness- interpretation dimension. METHODOLOGY Survey research was conducted to examine the relationships between individualismcollectivism and conversational indirectness. A series of mean comparisons and regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses with two-country data, i.e. Thailand and America. Previous studies have confirmed that in contrast to America, Thailand is a collectivist culture (Hofstede 1994; Noypayak & Speece 1998). For instance, one aspect of Thai communication competence was found to be conflict avoidance in order to maintain good relationships with others in the same group (Boonsathorn 2007; Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam & Jablin 1999). Chaidaroon (2004) further argued that Thai communication style was relationship oriented in that Thai people were more concerned with maintaining relationships with the group rather than getting a task accomplished. These pieces of evidence have confirmed that the use of Thai and American samples were appropriate in investigating the impacts of individualism-collectivism on conversational indirectness. Samples Two hundred and forty-six American business undergraduates students attending a western U.S. university (mean age = 22 years, 55% female) and one hundred and eleven Thai business undergraduates in a major northeastern Thai University (mean age = 21 years, 65% female) participated in the study as a part of course requirement. Student participants were purposively selected as samples for this study as student samples were generally homogenous allowing this study to enhance its internal validity by preventing it from other socio-cultural differences among the participating samples (Kardes 1996).

9 Page 9 of 16 ANZAM 2009 Measures National culture was represented by the US and Thailand as proxies for individualist and collectivist culture, respectively. In addition the 30-item Self-Construal Scale (Singelis 1994) was also used to tap individualism-collectivism at the individual level which is referred to as independent selfconstrual versus interdependent self-construal, respectively. The scale s reliabilities for the independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal are.78 and.72 in the US samples and.69 and.79 in the Thai samples, respectively. Conversational indirectness was measured with Holtgraves (1997) CIS scale which is comprised of 19 items measuring two separate but related dimensions: conversational indirectness interpretation and production. The scale s reliabilities for the interpretation and production subdimensions were.87 and.86 in the US samples and.74 and.75 in the Thai samples, respectively. Both self-construal scale and conversational indirectness scale were measured with a 7-point Likert type (strongly disagree=1; strongly agree=7). All measures were combined into a questionnaire and a paper and pencil version was given to participants to fill out. Procedure All American participants received the original versions of the scales which were written in English. Thai participants received the Thai versions of the scales which were translated from English to Thai using back translation procedure to ensure accuracy (Brislin 1980). In both countries, participants filled out the survey during regular class hours. Research participants completed the two scales of interest (i.e., conversational indirectness scale and self-construal scale) and provided demographic data at the end. RESULTS National Differences As expected, there were significant national differences. Thai participants employed conversational indirectness (production dimension) to a greater extent than their US counterparts (M Thai = 4.05 vs. M US = 3.75, t = 2.91, p <.001). Thai participants also used conversational indirectness (interpretation dimension) to a greater extent than their US counterparts (M Thai = 4.99 vs. M US = 4.53, t = 4.52, p<.001). Thus, both H1a and H1b were supported.

10 ANZAM 2009 Page 10 of 16 Individual Level Analysis Independent self-construal. To examine the impact of self-construal on conversational indirectness, we conducted a series of multiple regression analyses in which independent selfconstrual and interdependent self-construal were independent variables and each of the two conversational indirectness dimensions (production and interpretation) was the dependent variables. The results of multiple regression analyses shown for the U.S. and Thai samples were illustrated separately and combined in Table 1. Regarding the production dimension of conversational indirectness, independent self-construal marginally and negatively influenced conversational indirectness in the combined data (β INDSC = -.09, t = -1.66, p <.1), significantly and negatively influenced conversational indirectness in the US data (β INDSC = 1.17, t = -2.64, p <.01). However, independent self-construal did not negatively influence conversational indirectness in the Thai data (β INDSC =.158, t = 1.49, p >.1). H2a was, thus, partially supported. Contrary to the expectation, independent self-construal did not negatively influence the use of conversational indirectness (interpretation dimension) in the combined data (β INDSC =.08, t = 1.58, p >.1), in the US data (β INDSC =.07, t = 1.12, p >.1), and in the Thai data (β INDSC =.16, t = 1.66, p >.1). H2b was, thus, not supported. Interdependent self-construal. Interdependent self-construal positively influenced conversational indirectness (production dimension) in the combined data (β INTSC =.16, t = 2.82, p <.01), and in the US data (β INTSC =.16, t = 2.82, p <.01). However, it did not significantly and positively influence conversational indirectness (production dimension) in the Thai data (β INTSC =.09, t =.90, p >.1). H3a was, thus, partially supported. Interdependent self-construal significantly and positively influenced conversational indirectness (interpretation dimension) in the combined data (β INTSC =.29, t = 5.60, p <.001), in the US data (β INTSC =.19, t = 2.93, p <.001) and in the Thai data (β INTSC =.33, t = 3.51, p <.001). H3b was, thus, supported.

11 Page 11 of 16 ANZAM 2009 DISCUSSION The primary purpose of this study was to examine the impact of individualism-collectivism on the use of conversational indirectness both at the cultural and individual levels. The collectivist Thai communicators employed conversational indirectness to a greater extent than the individualist US communicators. At the individual levels, as hypothesized, interdependent self-construal positively influences the use of conversational indirectness. There is a mixed support, however, regarding the impact of independent self-construal. The results fail to consistently demonstrate the negative impact of independent self-construal. The findings that interdependent self-construal impacts on conversation indirectness while independent self-construal did not have a consistent negative impact suggests two implications. First, it suggests that interdependent versus independent self-construal may not be the opposite poles of a single continuum. If self-construal is two-dimensional, then high interdependent self-construal would not be considered equivalent to low independent self-construal. Thus, without a single continuum, the two would not be equally and inversely related to other variables (Kagitcibasi 1997). Numerous studies, especially at the individual level, argue for the orthogonality and coexistence of these two self-construals (Ryeder, Alden & Paulhus 2000; Singelis 1994; Trafimow, Triandis & Goto 1991). In addition, a comprehensive review of more than 50 studies by Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeir (2002) provides evidence that the two self-construal constructs may not be correlated. The second implication, which is related the first implication, is that one type of self-construal may be more salient or relevant in a particular situation than the other. For example, Polyorat and Alden (2005) report the impact of independent self-construal, but not interdependent self-construal, on the persuasiveness of comparative advertising. As in the context of this study, we focus on conversational indirectness which may be more relevant to interdependent self-construal than independent self-construal. IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES We acknowledge some limitations in our study. Our study compared only two countries that are known to be different in individualism-collectivism (Hofstede 1990). The result may need to be replicated with different country samples or multiple samples in one study. In addition, this study used rather homogeneous student samples. It would certainly be interesting to replicate this study with

12 ANZAM 2009 Page 12 of 16 managers who work with international workforce to re-investigate the hypotheses with a different group of participants. Nevertheless, the present findings are encouraging and provide empirical evidence for future investigation. In particular, future study can investigate impact of other dimensions of cultural values on the use of conversational indirectness. For example, masculinity (Hofstede 1990) may negatively influence conversational indirectness, while femininity may positively influence it. The use of indirect conversation sometimes may cause misunderstanding (Tannen 1990) as a listener may fail to correctly infer indirect meanings and thus miss the conversant s intended meaning. Future research may also explore how communicators from different cultures cope with such misunderstanding. Chaidaroon (2003), for example, argued that there were times when Thai people remained silent or did not express their intentions explicitly in order to gain respect from their interlocutors. These behaviors are one form of conversational indirectness which is strategically performed for a unique purpose in this particular national culture. Therefore, future research on conversational indirectness needs to address the importance of culture and the actual meaning of being indirect in a particular culture. To apply the implications of this study in an international management setting, people who work in a multinational setting need to be particularly sensitive to the use of direct and indirect communication style as this may cause misunderstanding in their teams easily. Specifically, in many sensitive contexts such as performance appraisal or decision making meetings where stakes are high, people tend to communicate based on their cultural value automatically without realizing that their style may not be preferred by their interlocutors. Or even in daily work routine such as giving instruction, the use or misuse of conversational (in)directness by supervisors may cause frustration among subordinates over a period of time. These misunderstandings and frustrations will definitely lead to conflicts, low morale, and unproductive work environment. In conclusion, it appears that conversational indirectness is employed and valued in certain cultures while it seems to be a weak and problematic form of communication in others. As such, it is important to fully understand the indirect communication style and its usages in international management situations where people from different cultures communicate with one another in order for them to appreciate different communication styles and achieve shared meanings.

13 Page 13 of 16 ANZAM 2009 Table 1: Multiple Regression Results Combined USA Thailand DV Independent Variable β t-value β t-value β t-value Conversational Indirectness (Production) Independent self-construal (IND) Interdependent self-construal (INT) Conversational Indirectness (Interpretation) Independent self-construal (IND) Interdependent self-construal (INT)

14 ANZAM 2009 Page 14 of 16 REFERENCES Aaker JL and Maheswaran D (1997) The effect of cultural orientation on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 24: Boonsathorn W (2007) Understanding conflict management styles of Thais and Americans in multinational corporations in Thailand, International Journal of Conflict Management 18(3): Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material, in Triandis HC & Berry JW (Eds) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology II, pp , Ally & Bacon, Boston. Brown P and Levinson S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chaidaroon SS (2003) When shyness is not incompetence: A case of Thai communication competence, Intercultural Communication Studies 12: Chaidaroon SS (2004) Effective Communication Management for Thai People in the Global Era. Proceedings of the International Conference on Revisiting Globalization and Communication in the 2000s, August, Bangkok, Thailand De Mooij MK (1994) Advertising Worldwide: concepts, theories and practice of international, multinational and global advertising, Prentice-Hall, New York. Dissanayake W (2003) Asian approaches to human communication: Retrospect and prospect. Intercultural Communication Studies 12: Fiske AP, Kitayama S, Markus HR, and Nisbett RE (1998) The cultural matrix of social psychology. in Gilbert DT, Fiske ST and Lindzey G (Eds) The Handbook of social psychology II, pp ), McGraw-Hill, New York. Gudykunst WB (1998) Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on communication: An introduction, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22: Gudykunst WB, Matsumoto Y, Ting-Toomey S, Nishida T, Kim K, and Heyman S (1996) The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures, Human Communication Research 22(4):

15 Page 15 of 16 ANZAM 2009 Hart RP and Burks DM (1972) Rhetorical sensitivity and social interaction, Speech Monograph 39(2): Hart RP, Carlson RE and Eadie WF (1980) Attitudes toward communication and the assessment of rhetorical sensitivity, Communication Monographs 47:1-22. Hofstede G (1990) Culture and Organization: Software of the Mind McGraw-Hill, London. Hofstede G (1994) The business of international business is culture, International Business Review 3(1): Holtgraves T (1997) Styles of language use: individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: Kagitcibasi C (1997) Individualism and collectivism, in Berry JW, Segall MH and Kagitcibaci C (Eds.) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology Volume 3: Social Behavior and Applications, pp.1-50, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights. Kardes F (1996) In Defense of Experimental Consumer Psychology, Journal of Consumer Psychology 5: Kim MS (2002) Non-western perspectives on human communication: Implications for theory and practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Kim MS, Hunter JE, Miyahara A, Horvath A, Bresnahan M and Yoon HJ (1996) Individual- vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversation style, Communication Monographs 63: Kitayama S, Markus HR, Matsumoto H and Norasakkunkit V (1997) Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: self-enhancement in the United States and selfcriticism in Japan, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(6): Lakoff G and Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press, Chicago. Markus HR and Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation, Psychological Review 98: Noypayak W and Speece M (1998) Tactics to influence subordinates among Thai Managers, Journal of Managerial Psychology 13(5/6):

16 ANZAM 2009 Page 16 of 16 Oyserman, Daphna, Heather M. Coon, and Markus Kemmelmeir (2002). Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1), Polyorat K and Alden DL (2005) Self-Construal and need for cognition effects on brand attitudes and purchase intentions in response to comparative advertising in Thailand and the United States, Journal of Advertising 34: Polyotrat K, Jung JM, Kim ES and Ongkhuluap S (2005) Impact of self-construal and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence on consumer assertiveness/aggressiveness: Crossnational investigation using Thai and U.S. samples, in Ha YWH and Yi Y (Eds) Asia-Pacific advances in consumer research, Vol. 6. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. Ryder AG, Alden LD and Paulhus DL (2000) Is Acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(1): Singelis TM (1994) The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20: Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam N and Jablin, FM (1999) An exploratory study of communication competence in Thai organizations, The Journal of Business Communication 36: Tannen D (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing talk among friends, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Tannen D (1990) You just don t understand, Morrow, New York. Ting-Toomey S and Kurogi A (1998) Facework competence in intercultural-conflict: An updated facenegotiation theory, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22: Trafimow D, Triandis HC and Goto SG (1991) Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(5): Triandis HC (1995) Individualism and Collectivism, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.