Chapter 7: Culture and Communication

Learning Objectives

1. Define culture.
2. Define personal, social, and cultural identities.
3. Compare and contrast individualistic/collectivistic, high-context/low-context, and large power
distance/small power distance cultures.
4. Define intercultural communication.
5. Articulate how diverse cultural standpoints influence communication interaction.
6. Explain how motivation, knowledge, and tolerance for uncertainty relate to intercultural
communication competence.

Humans have always been diverse in their cultural beliefs and practices. But as new
technologies have led to the perception that our world has shrunk, and demographic and
political changes have brought attention to cultural differences, people communicate across
cultures more now than ever before. The oceans and continents that separate us can now be
traversed instantly with an email, phone call, Tweet, or status update. Additionally, many of
our workplaces, schools, and neighborhoods have become more diverse along lines that
include race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and other factors. But just because we are
exposed to more difference doesn’t mean we understand it, can communicate across it, or
appreciate it. This chapter will help you do all three.

7.1 Understanding Culture

When you first think of the word “culture,”

you might first think of unique and vibrant cultural traditions from around the world, like
Japan’s Kabuki theatre, depicted here. But it is easy to overlook the ways that your own
culture affects your life. Photo by Susann Schuster on Unsplash.

Culture is a complicated word to define, as there are at least six common ways that culture is
used in the United States. For the purposes of exploring the communicative aspects of
culture, we will define culture as the ongoing negotiation of learned and patterned beliefs,
attitudes, values, and behaviors. Unpacking the definition, we can see that culture shouldn’t
be conceptualized as stable and unchanging. Culture is “negotiated,” culture is dynamic, and
cultural changes can be traced and analyzed to better understand why our society is the way it
is. The definition also points out that culture is learned, which accounts for the importance of
socializing institutions like family, school, peers, and the media. Culture is patterned in that
there are recognizable widespread similarities among people within a cultural group. There is
also deviation from and resistance to those patterns by individuals and subgroups within a
culture, which is why cultural patterns change over time. Last, the definition acknowledges
that culture influences our beliefs about what is true and false, our attitudes including our
likes and dislikes, our values regarding what is right and wrong, and our behaviors. It is from
these cultural influences that our identities are formed.

Culture and Identity

Ask yourself the question “Who am I?” Recall from our discussion of self-concept in Chapter
2 that we develop a sense of who we are based on what is reflected back on us from other
people. Our parents, friends, teachers, and the media help shape our identities. While this
happens from birth, most people in Western societies reach a stage in adolescence where
maturing cognitive abilities and increased social awareness lead them to begin to reflect on
who they are. This begins a lifelong process of thinking about who we are now, who we were
before, and who we will become (Tatum, 2000). Our identities make up an important part of
our self-concept and can be broken down into three main categories: personal, social, and
cultural identities.

Joining, or even cheering on, a sports team is an example of a

social identity. Photo by Wallace Chuck from Pexels.

We must avoid the temptation to think of our identities as constant. Instead, our identities are
formed through processes that started before we were born and will continue after we are
gone; therefore, our identities aren’t something we achieve or complete. Two related but
distinct components of our identities are our personal and social identities (Spreckels &
Kotthoff, 2009). Personal identities include the components of self that are primarily
intrapersonal and connected to our life experiences. For example, you might consider
yourself a puzzle lover or a fan of hip-hop music. Our social identities are the components of
self that are derived from involvement in social groups with which we are interpersonally
committed. For example, we may derive aspects of our social identity from our family or
from a community of fans for a sports team. Social identities differ from personal identities
because they are externally organized through membership. Our membership may be
voluntary (Greek organization on campus) or involuntary (family) and explicit (we pay dues
to our labor union) or implicit (we purchase and play board games). There are innumerous
options for personal and social identities. While our personal identity choices express who we
are, our social identities align us with particular groups. Through our social identities, we
make statements about who we are and who we are not.

Cultural identities are based on socially constructed categories that teach us a way of being
and include expectations for social behavior or ways of acting (Yep, 1998). Common ways of
being and acting within a cultural identity group are expressed through communication. To be
accepted as a member of a cultural group, members must be acculturated, essentially
learning and using a code that other group members will be able to recognize. We are
acculturated into our various cultural identities in obvious and less obvious ways. For
example, we may literally have a parent or friend tell us what it means to be a man or a
woman. We may also unconsciously consume messages from popular culture that offer
representations of gender.

Cosplayers who self-identify as “comic book

nerds” have alignment between their ascribed and avowed identities. Photo by Kashawn
Hernandez on Unsplash.

Any of these identity types can be ascribed or avowed. Ascribed identities are personal,
social, or cultural identities that are placed on us by others, while avowed identities are those
that we claim for ourselves (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Sometimes people ascribe an
identity to someone else based on stereotypes. You may see a person who likes to read
science-fiction books, watches documentaries, has glasses, and collects Star Trek
memorabilia and label them a nerd. If the person doesn’t avow that identity, it can create
friction, and that label may even hurt the other person’s feelings. But ascribed and avowed
identities can match up. To extend the previous example, many people have embraced
the nerd label, turning it into a positive descriptor and identifying with nerd subculture.

Although some identities are essentially permanent, the degree to which we are aware of
them, also known as salience, changes. The intensity with which we avow an identity also
changes based on context. For example, an African American may not have difficulty
deciding which box to check on the demographic section of a survey. But if an African
American becomes president of her college’s Black Student Union, she may more intensely
avow her African American identity, which has now become more salient. If she studies
abroad in Africa her junior year, she may be ascribed an identity of American by her new
African friends, rather than African American. For the Africans, their visitor’s identity as
American is likely more salient than her identity as someone of African descent.
Throughout modern history, cultural and social influences have established dominant and
nondominant groups (Allen, 2011). Dominant groups historically have had more resources
and influence, while nondominant groups historically have had less resources and influence.
It’s important to remember that these distinctions are being made at the societal level, not the
individual level. There are obviously exceptions, with people in groups considered
nondominant obtaining more resources and power than a person in a dominant group.
However, the overall trend is that difference based on cultural groups exists and exceptions
do not change this fact. Because of this uneven distribution of resources and power, members
of dominant groups are granted privileges while nondominant groups are at a disadvantage.
Nondominant groups often face various forms of discrimination, including racism, sexism,
heterosexism, and ableism. As we will discuss later, privilege and disadvantage are not “all or
nothing.” No two people are completely different or completely similar, and no one person is
completely privileged or completely disadvantaged.

Types of Cultures

Numerous factors including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, ability,
and age intersect and combine to form one’s cultural identity. The myriad of ways that these
factors intersect make it impossible to describe the nuanced differences and similarities of
every type of culture. However, it is helpful to discuss some broad categories we can use to
distinguish between types of cultures. In this section, we will compare individualistic and
collectivistic cultures, high-context and low-context cultures, and large power distance and
small power distance cultures.

Individualistic vs. Collectivistic Cultures

The distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures is an important dimension

across which all cultures vary. Individualistic cultures emphasize individual identity over
group identity and prioritize individual goals, achievements, and personal
freedoms. Collectivistic cultures value group identity over individual identity and place a
greater emphasis on interdependence, collective goals, and social harmony.

The United States is largely considered to

have an individualistic culture. Photo by Brett Sayles from Pexels.

Most consider the larger culture of the United States to be individualistic. For example, the
narrative of the “American Dream” prioritizes individualistic values like independence and
self-determination. Within the narrative, a person can “pull themselves up by their
bootstraps” to achieve personal success. Comparatively, Japan’s national culture is more
collectivistic. In Japan, individuals often feel a strong sense of duty to fulfilling social roles
and prioritize the needs of the community over their personal desires. While these broad
characterizations are true, it is important to note that there are elements of both individualism
and collectivism in each culture. In the largely individualistic United States, collectivistic
values often appear in families, religious communities, and other groups. In Japan,
globalization and other cultural trends have led to individualistic values becoming more
prevalent in recent years.

Low-Context vs. High-Context Cultures

In a low-context culture, much of the meaning generated within an interaction comes from
the verbal communication used rather than nonverbal or contextual cues. Communicators
provide clear, explicit, and detailed messages. Conversely, much of the meaning generated in
a high-context culture comes from nonverbal and contextual cues. Cultures with a high-
context orientation generally use less or more ambiguous verbal communication and require
communicators to pay close attention to nonverbal signals and consider contextual influences
on a message (Lustig & Koester, 2006).

Many Native American cultures have a high-context orientation where communication often
relies on shared cultural knowledge and nonverbal cues. Many Western European countries
have low-context cultures and value directness and clarity in communication. Individuals
from low-context cultures may feel frustrated by the ambiguity of speakers from high-context
cultures, while speakers from high-context cultures may feel overwhelmed or even insulted
by the level of detail used by low-context communicators.

Large Power Distance vs. Small Power Distance Cultures

Military training camps typically have large

power distance cultures. Photo by Pixabay from Pexels.

Cultures vary in how they distribute power and differentiate between high-status and low-
status individuals. In a large power distance culture, there is a clear hierarchy of power that
entails a significant gap in privilege and status between individuals. In a small power
distance culture, power is more evenly distributed and differences in status are minimized
(Hofstede et al., 2010). Status in various cultures could be related to age, seniority, wealth, or
profession. In large power distance cultures, differences in status are respected and
accentuated. In such cultures, lower-status individuals communicate with a degree of
deference and formality to higher-status people. While small power distance cultures may
still involve different levels of status, they de-emphasize and decentralize those differences.
Communication in small power distance cultures tends to be open and informal, even
between people of different status levels.
 In a college or university setting, you are likely to come across examples of both large and
small power distance subcultures. You might take an art class with an instructor who asks
you to call her by her first name and who interacts with you informally both inside and
outside of the classroom. In an accounting class, you might encounter another instructor who
asks that you address her as “Dr.” or “Professor” and who only interacts with you through the
institution’s formal channels of communication (e.g., email and visits during office hours).
These examples demonstrate the differences that can exist within the same larger culture
based on context, individual preferences, and other factors.

7.2 Intercultural Communication

It is through intercultural communication that we come to create, understand, and transform
culture and identity. Intercultural communication is communication between people with
differing cultural identities. As we have discussed, numerous factors contribute to creating
one’s cultural identity. Therefore, intercultural communication can best be thought of as
occurring on a spectrum. Consider to what extent you would classify these examples as
intercultural communication:

An international tourist asking for directions is clear example

of intercultural communication. What are some less obvious examples of intercultural
communication that you engage in regularly? Photo by cottonbro studio from Pexels.

1. A tourist asking for directions from someone who speaks a different language.
2. Two people from different parts of the world playing a video game together online.
3. A Muslim woman chatting with her Catholic co-worker.
4. An elderly man sharing stories with a group of teenagers.
5. A medical doctor discussing treatment options with her patient.

These examples demonstrate the different degrees to which an interaction could be

considered as intercultural communication. While some examples are clear-cut (e.g., when
there are differences in language), others are less so (e.g., when there are differences in
profession or age). Still, the communicators in each example would benefit from being aware
of potential cultural differences.

In addition to making us better communicators, understanding intercultural communication

helps us foster greater self-awareness (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Our thought process
regarding culture is often “other focused,” meaning that the culture of the other person or
group is what stands out in our perception. However, the old adage “know thyself” is
appropriate, as we become more aware of our own culture by better understanding other
cultures and perspectives. Intercultural communication can allow us to step outside of our
comfortable, usual frame of reference and see our culture through a different lens.
Additionally, as we become more self-aware, we may also become more ethical
communicators as we challenge our ethnocentrism, or our tendency to view our own culture
as superior to other cultures.

Intercultural communication is complicated, messy, and at times contradictory. It is not

always easy to conceptualize or study. In this section, we describe a dialectical approach to
help capture the dynamism of intercultural communication. Afterwards, we take a look at
intercultural relationships and conclude with some advice for enhancing your intercultural
communication competence.

A Dialectical Approach to Intercultural Communication

A dialectic is a relationship between two opposing concepts that constantly push and pull one
another (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). To put it another way, thinking dialectically helps us
realize that our experiences often occur in between two different phenomena. This
perspective is especially useful for interpersonal and intercultural communication, because
when we think dialectically, we think relationally. This means we look at the relationship
between aspects of intercultural communication rather than viewing them in isolation. We
can better understand intercultural communication by examining six dialectics (Martin &
Nakayama, 1999).

The cultural-individual dialectic captures the interplay between patterned behaviors learned
from a cultural group and individual behaviors that may be variations on or counter to those
of the larger culture. This dialectic is useful because it helps us account for exceptions to
cultural norms. For example, earlier we learned about high- and low-context cultures. The
United States is said to be a low-context culture, which means that we value verbal
communication as our primary, meaning-rich form of communication. Conversely, China is
said to be a high-context culture, which means they often look for nonverbal clues like tone,
silence, or what is not said for meaning. However, you can find people in the United States
who intentionally put much meaning into how they say things, perhaps because they are not
as comfortable speaking directly what’s on their mind. We often do this in situations where
we may hurt someone’s feelings or damage a relationship. Does that mean we come from a
high-context culture? Does the Chinese man who speaks more than is socially acceptable
come from a low-context culture? The answer to both questions is no. Neither the behaviors
of a small percentage of individuals nor occasional situational choices constitute a cultural
pattern.

The personal-contextual dialectic highlights the connection between our personal patterns
of and preferences for communicating and how various contexts influence the personal. In
some cases, our communication patterns and preferences will stay the same across many
contexts. In other cases, a context shift may lead us to alter our communication and adapt.
For example, an American businesswoman may prefer to communicate with her employees
in an informal and laid-back manner. When she is promoted to manage a department in her
company’s office in Malaysia, she may again prefer to communicate with her new Malaysian
employees the same way she did with those in the United States. In the United States, we
know that there are some accepted norms that communication in work contexts is more
formal than in personal contexts. However, we also know that individual managers often
adapt these expectations to suit their own personal tastes. This type of managerial discretion
would likely not go over as well in Malaysia where there is a greater emphasis put on power
distance (Hofstede et al., 2010). So, while the American manager may not know to adapt to
the new context unless she has a high degree of intercultural communication competence,
Malaysian managers would realize that this is an instance where the context likely influences
communication more than personal preferences.

The differences-similarities dialectic guides us

to not focus exclusively on differences or similarities. Photo by Pixabay from Pexels.

The differences-similarities dialectic allows us to examine how we are simultaneously

similar to and different from others. As was noted earlier, it’s easy to fall into a view of
intercultural communication as “other oriented” and set up dichotomies between “us” and
“them.” When we overfocus on differences, we can end up polarizing groups that actually
have things in common. When we overfocus on similarities, we essentialize, or
reduce/overlook important variations within a group. This tendency is evident in most of the
popular, and some of the academic, conversations regarding “gender differences.” The
book Men Are from Mars and Women Are from Venus makes it seem like men and women
aren’t even species that hail from the same planet. The media is quick to include a blurb from
a research study indicating again how men and women are “wired” to communicate
differently. However, the overwhelming majority of current research on gender and
communication finds that while there are differences between how men and women
communicate, there are far more similarities (Allen, 2011).

The static-dynamic dialectic suggests that culture and communication change over time yet
often appear to be and are experienced as stable. Our cultural beliefs and practices are rooted
in the past and some cultural values remain relatively consistent over time, allowing us to
make some generalizations about a culture. However, many aspects of a culture can change
dramatically over time. For example, many associate Greek life on college campuses with
hazing, binge drinking, and other toxic behaviors. However, on many campuses today,
sororities and fraternities have open, inclusive, and welcoming cultures far removed from
popular stereotypes.
The history/past-present/future dialectic reminds us to understand that current and future
cultural conditions are linked to the past. We always view history through the lens of the
present and we should also view the present with an understanding of the past. For example,
many argue that solutions to various conflicts in the Middle East requires a deep
understanding of a complex history that includes wars, colonization, ethnic and religious
rivalries, and other factors.

The privileges-disadvantages dialectic captures the complex interrelation of unearned,

systemic advantages and disadvantages that operate among our various identities. As was
discussed earlier, our society consists of dominant and nondominant groups. Our cultures and
identities have certain privileges and/or disadvantages. To understand this dialectic, we must
view culture and identity through a lens of intersectionality, which asks us to acknowledge
that we each have multiple cultures and identities that intersect with each other. Because our
identities are complex, no one is completely privileged, and no one is completely
disadvantaged. For example, while we may think of a white, heterosexual male as being very
privileged, he may also have a disability that leaves him without the able-bodied privilege
that a Latina woman has.

As these dialectics reiterate, culture and communication are complex systems that intersect
with and diverge from many contexts. A better understanding of all these dialectics helps us
be more critical thinkers and competent communicators in a changing world.

Intercultural Relationships

Intercultural relationships are formed between people with different cultural identities and
include friends, romantic partners, family, and coworkers. Intercultural relationships have
many benefits, such as increasing cultural knowledge, challenging previously held
stereotypes, and learning new skills (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). However, intercultural
relationships also present challenges. Whereas differences between people’s cultural
identities may be obvious, it often takes some effort to uncover commonalities that can form
the basis of a relationship. Negative stereotypes may also hinder progress toward relational
development, especially if the individuals are not open to adjusting their preexisting beliefs.
Intercultural relationships may also take more work to nurture and maintain. The benefit of
increased cultural awareness is often achieved because the relational partners explain their
cultures to each other. This type of explaining requires time, effort, and patience and may be
an extra burden that some are not willing to carry. Last, engaging in intercultural
relationships can lead to questioning or even backlash from one’s own cultural group. While
these challenges range from mild inconveniences to more serious repercussions, they are
important to be aware of.

As noted earlier, intercultural relationships can take many forms. The focus of this section is
on friendships and romantic relationships, but much of the following discussion can be
extended to other relationship types.

Intercultural Friendships
 Intercultural friendships bring potential
challenges and advantages. Photo by Kampus Production from Pexels.

Even within the United States, views of friendship vary based on cultural identities. Research
on friendship has shown that Latinos/as value relational support and positive feedback, Asian
Americans emphasize exchanges of ideas like offering feedback or asking for guidance,
African Americans value respect and mutual acceptance, and European Americans value
recognition of each other as individuals (Coller, 1996). Despite the differences in emphasis,
research also shows that the overall definition of a close friend is similar across cultures. A
close friend is thought of as someone who is helpful and nonjudgmental, who you enjoy
spending time with but can also be independent, and who shares similar interests and
personality traits (Lee, 2006).

Intercultural friendships may face challenges that other friendships do not. Prior intercultural
experience and overcoming language barriers increase the likelihood of intercultural
friendship formation (Sias et al., 2008). In some cases, previous intercultural experience, like
studying abroad in college or living in a diverse place, may motivate someone to pursue
intercultural friendships once they are no longer in that context. When friendships cross
nationality, it may be necessary to invest more time in common understanding, due to
language barriers. With sufficient motivation and language skills, communication exchanges
through self-disclosure can then further relational formation. The potential for broadening
one’s perspective and learning more about cultural identities is not always balanced,
however. In some instances, members of a dominant culture may be more interested in
sharing their culture with their intercultural friend than they are in learning about their
friend’s culture, which illustrates how context and power influence friendships (Lee, 2006).
Again, intercultural friendships illustrate the complexity of culture and the importance of
remaining mindful of your communication and the contexts in which it occurs.

Culture & Romantic Relationships

Romantic relationships are influenced by society and culture, and still today some people face
discrimination based on who they love. Specifically, sexual orientation and race affect
societal views of romantic relationships. Although many in the United States have become
more accepting of gay and lesbian relationships, there is still a climate of prejudice and
discrimination that individuals in same-gender romantic relationships must face. While
interracial relationships have occurred throughout history, anti-miscegenation laws were
common in states and made it illegal for people of different racial/ethnic groups to marry
until 1967, when the Supreme Court declared these laws to be unconstitutional.
 Romantic relationships between same-sex and interracial
couples still face societal prejudice and discrimination today. Photo by Anna Shvets from
Pexels.

Intercultural romantic relationships require partners to work through various challenges.

Differences in religion, race, ethnicity, and other cultural markers are increasingly common,
as more people engage in intercultural romantic relationships today than in previous
years (Alberts et al., 2022). But while challenges exist, many studies on intercultural couples
counter the notion that partners may be less satisfied in their relationships due to cultural
differences. For example, a study examining interracial relationships found that satisfaction
was not significantly different for interracial partners even though the challenges they may
face in finding acceptance from other people could lead to stressors that are not as strong for
intracultural partners (Gaines Jr. & Brennan, 2011). Other studies have found positives for
intercultural relationships, including increased empathy and knowledge of alternative
perspectives (Gaines Jr. & Liu, 2000).

Intercultural Communication Competence

Throughout this book we have been putting various tools in our communication toolbox to
improve our communication competence. Many of these tools can be translated into
intercultural contexts. Some key components to intercultural communication competence
include motivation, knowledge, and tolerance for uncertainty.

Initially, a person’s motivation for communicating with people from other cultures must be
considered. Motivation refers to the root of a person’s desire to foster intercultural
relationships and can be intrinsic or extrinsic (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Put simply, if a
person isn’t motivated to communicate with people from different cultures, then the
components of intercultural communication competence discussed next don’t really matter. If
a person has a healthy curiosity that drives them toward intercultural encounters in order to
learn more about self and others, then there is a foundation from which to build additional
competence-relevant attitudes and skills. This intrinsic motivation makes intercultural
communication a voluntary, rewarding, and lifelong learning process. Motivation can also be
extrinsic, meaning that the desire for intercultural communication is driven by an outside
reward like money, power, or recognition. Both types of motivation can contribute to one’s
intercultural communication competence.

Knowledge supplements motivation and is an important part of building competence.

Knowledge includes self- and other-awareness, mindfulness, and cognitive flexibility.
Building knowledge of our own cultures, identities, and communication patterns takes more
than passive experience (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). As you’ll recall from Chapter 2, we
learn who we are through our interactions with others. Developing cultural self-awareness
often requires us to get out of our comfort zones. Listening to people who are different from
us is a key component of developing self-awareness. This may be uncomfortable, because we
may realize that people think of our identities differently than we thought.

When direct encounters with other cultures is

not possible, classes, books, and documentaries also serve as useful educational sources to
learn about other cultures. Photo by Leeloo Thefirst from Pexels.

The most effective way to develop other-awareness is by direct and thoughtful encounters
with other cultures. However, people may not readily have these opportunities for a variety of
reasons. Despite the overall diversity in the United States, many people still only interact with
people who are similar to them. Even in a racially diverse educational setting, for example,
people often group off with people of their own race. While a heterosexual person may have
a gay or lesbian friend or relative, they likely spend most of their time with other
heterosexuals. Unless an able-bodied person interacts with people with disabilities as part of
their job or has a person with a disability in their friend or family group, they likely spend
most of their time interacting with other able-bodied people. Living in a rural area may limit
one’s ability to interact with a range of cultures, and most people do not travel internationally
regularly. Because of this, we may have to make a determined effort to interact with other
cultures or rely on educational sources like college classes, books, or documentaries.
Learning another language is also a good way to learn about a culture, because you can then
read the news or watch movies in the native language, which can offer insights that are lost in
translation.

Developing self- and other-awareness is an ongoing process that will continue to adapt and
grow as we encounter new experiences. Mindfulness and cognitive flexibility will help as we
continue to build our intercultural communication competence (Pusch, 2009). Mindfulness is
a state of self- and other-monitoring that informs later reflection on communication
interactions. As mindful communicators we should ask questions that focus on the interactive
process like “How is our communication going? What are my reactions? What are their
reactions?” Being able to adapt our communication in the moment based on our answers to
these questions is a skill that we should seek to develop. Reflecting on the communication
encounter later to see what can be learned is also a way to build competence. We should then
be able to incorporate what we learned into our communication frameworks, which requires
cognitive flexibility. Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to continually supplement and
revise existing knowledge to create new categories rather than forcing new knowledge into
old categories. Cognitive flexibility helps prevent our knowledge from becoming stale and
also prevents the formation of stereotypes and can help us avoid prejudging an encounter or
jumping to conclusions. In summary, to be better intercultural communicators, we should
know much about others and ourselves and be able to reflect on and adapt our knowledge as
we gain new experiences.

Motivation and knowledge can inform us as we gain new experiences, but how we feel in the
moment of intercultural encounters is also important. Tolerance for uncertainty refers to an
individual’s attitude about and level of comfort in uncertain situations (Martin & Nakayama,
2010). Some people perform better in uncertain situations than others, and intercultural
encounters often bring up uncertainty. Whether communicating with someone of a different
gender, race, or nationality, we are often wondering what we should or shouldn’t do or say.
Situations of uncertainty most often become clearer as they progress, but the anxiety that an
individual with a low tolerance for uncertainty feels may lead them to leave the situation or
otherwise communicate in a less competent manner. Individuals with a high tolerance for
uncertainty may exhibit more patience, waiting on new information to become available or
seeking out information, which may then increase the understanding of the situation and lead
to a more successful outcome (Pusch, 2009). Individuals who are intrinsically motivated
toward intercultural communication may have a higher tolerance for uncertainty, in that their
curiosity leads them to engage with others who are different because they find the self- and
other-knowledge gained rewarding.
Key Concepts: Thinking Under the Influence
Communication and culture scholar Brenda Allen (2011) coined the phrase “thinking under the
influence” (TUI) to highlight a reflective process that can help us hone our intercultural
communication competence. As we discussed earlier, being mindful is an important part of building
competence. Once we can become aware of our thought processes and behaviors, we can more
effectively monitor and intervene in them. She asks us to monitor our thoughts and feelings about
other people, both similar to and different from us. As we monitor, we should try to identify instances
when we are guilty of TUI, such as uncritically accepting the dominant belief systems, relying on
stereotypes, or prejudging someone based on their identities.

Allen recounts seeing a picture on the front of the newspaper with three men who appeared Latino.
She found herself wondering what they had done, and then found out from the caption that they were
the relatives of people who died in a car crash. She identified that as a TUI moment and asked herself
if she would have had the same thought if they had been black, white, Asian, or female. When we feel
“surprised” by someone different, this often points to a preexisting negative assumption that we can
unpack and learn from. Allen also found herself surprised when a panelist at a conference who used a
wheelchair and was hearing impaired made witty comments. Upon reflection, she realized that she
had an assumption that people with disabilities would have a gloomy outlook on life. While these
examples focus on out-groups, she also notes that it’s important for people, especially in nondominant
groups, to monitor their thoughts about their own group, as they may have internalized negative
attitudes about their group from the dominant culture. As a black woman, she notes that she has been
critical of black people who “do not speak mainstream English” based on stereotypes she internalized
about race, language, and intelligence.

It is not automatically a bad thing to TUI. Even Brenda Allen, an accomplished and admirable scholar
of culture and communication, catches herself doing it. When we notice that we TUI, it’s important to
reflect on that moment and try to adjust our thinking processes. This is an ongoing process, but it is an
 easy-to-remember way to cultivate your intercultural communication competence. Keep a record of
instances where you catch yourself “thinking under the influence.”

Discussion Questions:

1. What triggers you to TUI?

2. Where did these influences on your thought come from?
3. What concepts from this chapter can you apply to change your thought processes?

References
Alberts, J. K., Nakayama, T. K., & Martin, J. N. (2022). Human communication in
society (6th ed.). Pearson.

Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.). Waveland.

Coller, M. J. (1996). Communication competence problematics in ethnic

friendships. Communication Monographs, 63(4), 314–
336. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376397

Gaines Jr., S. O., & Brennan, K. A. (2011). Establishing and maintaining satisfaction in
multicultural relationships. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships:
Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 237–254). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gaines Jr., S. O., & Liu, J. H. (2000). Multicultural/multiracial relationships. In C. Hendrick

& S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 97–109). Sage.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Softwares
of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Lee, P. (2006). Bridging cultures: Understanding the construction of relational identity in

intercultural friendships. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(1), 3–
22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475740600739156

Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2006). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication

across cultures (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and
communication. Communication Theory, 9(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2885.1999.tb00160.x

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Intercultural communication in contexts (5th ed.).
McGraw-Hill.

Pusch, M. D. (2009). The interculturally competent global leader. In D. K. Deardorff

(Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 66–84). Sage.

Sias, P. M., Drzewiecka, J. A., Meares, M., Bent, R. Konomi, Y., Ortega, M. & White, C.
(2008). Intercultural friendship development. Communication Reports, 21(1), 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210701643750
Spreckels, J., & Kotthoff, H. (2009). Communicating identity in intercultural communication.
In H. Kotthoff & H. Spencer-Oatey (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural communication (pp.
415–440). Mouton de Gruyter.

Tatum, B. D. (2000). The complexity of identity: “Who am I?”. In M. Adams, W. J.

Blumfeld, R. Casteneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for
diversity and social justice (pp. 9–14). Routledge.

Yep, G. A. (1998). My three cultures: Navigating the multicultural identity landscape. In J.

N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 79–84).
Mayfield.

Credits