INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 1

Examination of Interpersonal Sensitivity Across Cultures

Abtin Pazooki
Intercultural Communication
Worcester State University










INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 2
Sensitivity is the foundation of all interpersonal relationships. Classifications of what is
and isnt taboo closely follow the durability of a particular relationship. In a more contemporary
sense, globalization requires a proper understanding of cultural sensitivity to promote balance
and harmony, whether it be between friends, family, or coworkers. An environment that lacks
sensitivity as a social norm is one which is susceptible to prejudice and misinterpretation.
Case studies often parallel cultures with easily observable differences. Asian cultures,
when viewed against the backdrop of traditional Anglo-Saxon or American culture, particularly
stand out. It is for this reason that Roichi Okabe examined the cultures differences in terms of
defining sensitivity (2007). He asserts that cultural sensitivity manifests in one of two ways: an
inherent trait, dependent on the sender or the recipient in a communication model, or as a product
of the environment, implying sensitivity is situational and learned (Okabe, 2007, p. 75). Whether
or not certain individuals are born with a higher innate charisma or sense of emotional
intelligence is debatable, but the two theories directly correspond to American and Asian notions
of sensitivity. Americans more frequently relate sensitivity to their sense of self, whereas Asians
consider it a situational quality.
Sensitivity to nonverbal cues in Japan, for example, is much higher than in the U.S.
(Okabe, 2007, p. 80). There exists a certain ceremonial aspect in Japanese culture that, as Okabe
posits, do not justify or explain; they only affirm and reassure (2007, p. 80). American
speakers, by contrast, mainly focus their attention on the verbal and explicit aspects of
communication (2007, p. 80). A primary example of this is American sensitivity to celebrities
in the media spotlight. If anything is left to be understood implicitly, media will often scrutinize
and speculate about what is not being said. This stands out from the Japanese school of thought
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 3
to exhibit an eagerness to avoid verbal confrontation (Okabe, 2007, p. 80). This motif pops in
in several bordering countries as well.
In the spirit of further developing a contrast in different cultures sensitivity, Carmencita
P. Del Villar examined these trends in the Philippines (2009). In examining the countrys
growing sense of diversity, she cited researchers Chen and Starostas claim that sensitivity is
one of the most important abilities that helps us live successfully in the culturally diverse
society (2009, p. 3). This is a theme echoed in nearly all peer-reviewed studies on the topic. In a
statistic congruous with surveys of many other first-world nations, Filipino males were shown to
be more open to communicating with foreigners. Meanwhile, female Filipinos were more
receptive to conversations with individuals of a similar socio-economic status, as well as with
gays and lesbians (Del Villar, 2009, p. 7). Also similar to other cultures, students in the
Philippines were found to be the peak of the states sensitivity, reflecting the more liberal
attitudes of the youth. An overwhelming 72% of college-age student respondents registered as
having high sensitivity, meaning they held positive emotion towards understanding and
appreciating cultural differences (Del Villar, 2009, p. 7). The Philippines holds a unique
position in a growing global economy. They serve as something of a hub between what the West
knows as the Far East, Australia, and the U.S. minor outlying islands. Del Villar draws a
correlation between this phenomenon and the countrys perceived sense of self, or the racial
harmony and homogeny that exists within the countrys border. Factors such as frequency of
visits and number of foreign friends also affected the average Filipinos outlook toward other
cultures (Del Villar, 2009, p. 9). Moreover it appears as though Filipino speakers are
transitioning toward a low-context Western method of speech.
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 4
Chen and Starostas own studies have been customized to this part of the world more
than once. There are few nations as culturally, geographically, and religiously diverse as the
islands of Malaysia, the subject of their study. Ezhar Tamams aim was to prove that
intercultural sensitivity is not only a theoretically relevant but also a practically pertinent
construct, a pragmatic attitude that forms the foundation of Chen and Starostas hypotheses
(Tamam, 2010, p. 2). In using their communication model, most often applied to Western
cultures, Tamam discovered that some of their case study was inapplicable to a non-Western
culture, much like Del Villars subsequent findings. What he did find, however, was that
sensitivity in Malaysia was based on attentiveness, respect, openness, and confidence as its
primary factors (Tamam, 2010, p. 9). It is at this point were reminded of the traditional sender-
receiver communication model found in Western culture and how it differs vastly from other
parts of the world. The sensitivity to saving face is much more mainstream in Asian cultures,
whether it be the Philippines or Malaysia. In this sense, respect, harmony, reciprocity, and
mutuality top the list of factors that Malaysians signify as important to intercultural
communication (Taman, 2010, p. 5).
In yet another nearby country, Thomas J. Knutson & Sutirat Posirisuk look at the effects
of high- and low-context communicators on social harmony (2006). Their case study considers
Thailand, known as the Land of Smile for its optimistic attitude regarding interpersonal
relationships (2006, p. 206). Thailand, much like the Philippines, is an emerging player on the
international stage, currently undergoing a flux of upwardly mobile market activity and business
immigration. It originally appeared as if U.S. speakers were much more rhetorically sensitive
when compared to Thai speakers, but it became evident that it was simply a matter of context.
Knutson and Posirisuk keenly observe that people in high context cultures may prefer to wait
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 5
for social cues to emerge in order to encode messages appropriate for their receivers (2006, p.
207). This reflects the greater emphasis placed on saving face in Asian cultures. An American
visitor in Thailand would do well then to keep in mind that a brief conversation with a local
resident does not necessarily mean unwillingness to converse. Above all, they note that a core
element of Thai culture is the avoidance of confrontation (Knutson, 1994; Komin, 1991). There
is a more dynamic sense of self in the country in terms of intimacy versus public perception. In
other words, Thai culture is generally more self-conscious than Western culture. Awareness of
these subtle differences can lead to higher sensitivity in high- and low-context interactions.
Another key factor explaining the source of a cultures sensitivity is its sense of
ethnocentrism (Dong, Day, Collaco, 2007). As these three researchers note, ethnocentrism is
also highly related to individuals identity formation (Dong, Day, Collaco, 2007, p. 4). To that
end, it forms part of the basis for what an individual considers tactful or socially acceptable. The
forming of this identity then in turn relates to cultural awareness and the ability to separate ones
self from ones culture. Their findings conclude that there is a direct proportional representation
between number of cultural interactions and overall sensitivity. As Americans we would
understand this phenomenon more anecdotally through our various friends of different ethnicities
and backgrounds. Conversely, its important to consider that xenophobia in the U.S. was at its
peak when the country was still isolationist in foreign policy. This was the same period of history
that brought us the Alien and Sedition Acts, a crackdown on German immigrants, and the
resurgence of the KKK in other words, cultural sensitivity was at an all-time low. Dong, Day,
and Collaco continue with this hypothesis to note that teachers and the dispelling of negative
stereotypes directly affect an individuals level of sensitivity, to no surprise (2007, p. 6).
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 6
Stereotypes come up most often in this genre of social science as the single biggest
hurdle to cultural sensitivity. Design analysts Moriarty and Lohe examine this particular effect
with graphic design students and whether they rate their work as effective. They cite Howard
Universitys communication dean Orlando Taylor, who reasons that most, if not all, truths are
merely perceptions of truth viewed through the prism of the perceptors culture (Moriarty &
Lohe, 1992, p. 33). It is with this principle in mind that they tested the cultural know-how of
their students. Left to their own devices for this mock test, there were some interesting results
regarding notions of stereotypes. One student was asked to make a symbol for people of
Hispanic descent. In accordance with the purposefully vague project guidelines, he designed an
emblem with the image of Don Quixote and the color blue. However, the student had no concrete
understanding of whether or not this emblem was appropriate, let alone relevant, to the Spanish
culture. What he meant to portray was a brave knight, not knowing that Don Quixote was a
parody of that same stereotype (Moriarty & Lohe, 1992, p. 33). With Mexican culture, as with
Spanish culture, students primarily invoked common stereotypes or elements of history. Mayan
ruins, chili peppers, mariachi bands, and cacti topped the list. Suffice to say, this studys point
was proven stereotypes do indeed cloud and even substitute true cultural understanding and
sensitivity (Moriarty & Lohe, 1992, p. 36).
The issue of tactfulness remains prevalent even beyond social science and the arts. In the
health sciences, the issue of personal care is intertwined with the need for nuances in delivering
messages. Kimberly L. Kline dissects this method of message delivery through informational
pamphlets geared toward African-American women with cancer (2007). This group is the most
disproportionately affected by cancer in the U.S., and as the American Cancer Society has
pointed out, educational resources fare better if customized to a target audience (2003). Through
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 7
these means, Kline finds that religious undertones and community empowerment were key
factors to maintaining cultural sensitivity (2007, p. 2). She recommends that health practitioners
also utilize a message of self-reliance in their interpersonal relationships with these patients the
psychological effects of being sensitive to African-American womens sense of self proved
positive (2007, p. 3). More than anything though, the field of health can take a cue from social
science studies by first understanding that it does not fully understand culture. Sensitivity and
medicine must be considered hand-in-hand. Patient feedback is just another way of increasing
intercultural connectivity, and it allows the doctor to better function as both a communicator and
public servant. It is critical though, as Kline writes, to take a lead from behind approach to
treating African-American women, as they have a long-standing and documented mistrust of
government services (2007, p. 4).
However, different cultures view cancer in different lights. D. B. Friedman and L.
Hoffman-Goetz conducted a broad survey relating cultural sensitivity to the disease and its
origins. As it turns out, there exists a wide variance rooted in cultural outlook. A questionnaire of
South Asian women revealed a more superstitious angle when its share of respondents pondered
that simply talking about cancer increases ones cancer risk (Johnson et al., 1999). Other Asian
correspondents still assumed that cancer was incurable and mostly untreatable. Now, the
accuracy of these assumptions must take a backseat to the handling of any misconceptions. In
other words, a health care provider requires sensitivity to defuse these ideas without coming off
as disrespectful to the individuals beliefs (Friedman & Hoffman-Goetz, 2006, p. 2). Two other
prominent factors that were recurring themes for several minority populations were the
preservation of family honor and the perception of low risk. African-Americans, Asians, and
Hispanics generally shared the view that the cost burden of treatment must not outweigh
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 8
likelihood of survival (Friedman & Hoffman-Goetz, 2006, p. 2). In matters of life and death such
as cancer, especially, cultural sensitivity can directly translate into longer lifespans and happier
families.
As with any examination of sensitivity and its implications, the discussion inevitably
moves toward political correctness. It is a lightning rod, highly politicized, and an ongoing issue.
As Edna Andrews writes in American Speech (1996), political correctness has changed the very
landscape of American language. She includes a table which shows us just how many terms have
been affected by the trend Oriental, blind, negro, and stewardess are just a few of the
varied terms that are found unacceptable in modern discourse (1996, p. 391). The impact is far-
reaching. For example, where do we draw the line? It should come as no-surprise that the term
negro is now found offensive, but what determines if a group has sufficient right to change its
label? Native Americans now prefer the term American Indian after years of rejecting Indian
as a misnomer by Columbus. In this way Andrews makes the clear point that sensitivity is ever-
changing, evolving, and at times very layered. She follows through by mentioning the Sapir-
Wharf extralinguistic theory the belief that language is, by nature, a reality-limiting construct
that is itself prone to insensitivity (1996, p. 392). For instance, words that carry connotations in
one language can lose their meaning entirely once translated. Phonetics and synonyms also come
into play, especially with beginner speakers. Combined with unfamiliarity with customs, its
understandable how language could ironically be a barrier to sensitivity itself.
Perhaps the most distinction one can make regarding sensitivity is how to define it in the
first place. Different cultures define impoliteness in their own ways, and, as Jonathan Culpeper,
Leyla Marti, Meilian Mei, Minna Nevala, and Gila Schauer report, there is no solid agreement
in the chapters as to what impoliteness actually is (Locher & Bousfield, 2008). Despite the
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 9
lack of academic consensus, there is still something of a set of guidelines with which to navigate
intercultural sensitivity. The concept of taboo as mentioned earlier frequently includes human
processes related to sex, nudity, and waste, regardless of culture. Any further examination on the
concept of taboo requires one to look at cultures on case-by-case basis. Starting with Western
culture, a simple word association survey gives us startling insight into what average Americans
find most rude: bartenders, waitresses, bouncers, New Yorkers, and the French. When paired
with actions, the responses become eavesdrop, interrupt, and point (Culpeper et al., 2010,
p. 598). The problem arises when we apply these sentiments to North Americans as a whole,
belying the true cultural diversity of the area. And by returning to the examples that contrast
Asian culture with Anglo-Saxon culture namely, the dynamics of silence in an interpersonal
interaction, personal space, eye contact, and intimacy we can begin to get a better grasp on
which social norm deviations translate to insensitivity.
Whether the focus is Asia, health, or language, it is readily observable that
misunderstandings due to lack of sensitivity are common. The key is to educate oneself about the
needs and differences of other cultures. Intercultural communication competence as a philosophy
truly does help bring us together. And in an age where sensitivity is at an all-time high, I think
its time that we embrace the qualities that bind us together as humans, rather than dismiss and
reject what may be lost in translation.





INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 10
References
Andrews, E. (1996). Cultural sensitivity and political correctness: The linguistic problem of
naming. American Speech, 71(4), 389.

Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M., & Schauer, G. (2010). Cross-cultural variation in
the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by students in
England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 597-624.
doi:10.1515/IPRG.2010.027

Del Villar, C. P. (2010). How Savvy Are We? : Towards Predicting Intercultural Sensitivity.
Human Communication, 13(3), 197-215.

Friedman, D., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2006). Assessment of Cultural Sensitivity of Cancer
Information in Ethnic Print Media. Journal Of Health Communication, 11(4), 425-447.
doi:10.1080/10810730600671920

Kline, K. N. (2007). Cultural Sensitivity and Health Promotion: Assessing Breast Cancer
Education Pamphlets Designed for African American Women. Health Communication,
21(1), 85-96. doi:10.1080/10410230701283454

Knutson, T. J., & Posirisuk, S. (2006). Thai Relational Development and Rhetorical Sensitivity
as Potential Contributors to Intercultural Communication Effectiveness: JAI YEN YEN.
Journal Of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(3), 205-217.
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE RESEARCH 11
Moriarty, S. E., & Rohe, L. (1992). Cultural Palettes: An Exercise in Sensitivity for Designers.
Journalism Educator, 46(4), 32-37.

Okabe, R. (2007). The Concept of Rhetorical Competence and Sensitivity Revisited: From
Western and Eastern Perspectives. China Media Research, 3(4), 74-81.

Qingwen, D., Day, K. D., & Collao, C. M. (2008). Overcoming Ethnocentrism through
Developing Intercultural Communication Sensitivity and Multiculturalism. Human
Communication, 11(1), 27-38.

Tamam, E. (2010). Examining Chen and Starosta's Model of Intercultural Sensitivity in a
Multiracial Collectivistic Country. Journal Of Intercultural Communication Research,
39(3), 173-183. doi:10.1080/17475759.2010.534860