Communication Research and Practice

ISSN: 2204-1451 (Print) 2206-3374 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrp20

Intercultural communication: Where we’ve been,

where we’re going, issues we face

Stephen M. Croucher, Mélodine Sommier & Diyako Rahmani

To cite this article: Stephen M. Croucher, Mélodine Sommier & Diyako Rahmani (2015)
Intercultural communication: Where we’ve been, where we’re going, issues we face,
Communication Research and Practice, 1:1, 71-87, DOI: 10.1080/22041451.2015.1042422

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2015.1042422

Published online: 01 May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14932

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcrp20
Communication Research and Practice, 2015
Vol. 1, No. 1, 71–87, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2015.1042422

Intercultural communication: Where we’ve been, where we’re going,

issues we face
Stephen M. Croucher*, Mélodine Sommier and Diyako Rahmani

Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

The purpose of this review is to critically analyze the state of intercultural commu-
nication literature. This review has three purposes. First, this review summarizes where
the discipline has been, paying close attention to the discipline’s history and some key
areas of research. Second, this review discusses where the discipline is going, with an
emphasis on how the discipline is expanding into new contextual areas of research.
Finally, the review presents challenges, issues, and areas for future discussion for
intercultural communication.
Keywords: intercultural communication; identity; competence; adaptation; health care;
social media

Introduction
When considering the term ‘intercultural’ itself, it is impossible to deny its complexity.
Intercultural communication has typically been defined as communication between indi-
viduals from different national cultures. However, the field of intercultural communication
has grown considerably since its early beginnings. In the first systematic review of
intercultural communication theories the International and Intercultural Communication
Annual (Gudykunst, 1983), a group of researchers theorized about the interpersonal
communication between people from different cultures. These initial theories were fol-
lowed up in 1988 in a follow-up publication (Kim & Gudykunst) by empirical support
and research on communication between people from different cultures. This early
intercultural communication theory building, supported by previous work by the likes
of Hall, Trager, and many others, laid the groundwork for the discipline today. However,
the discipline has drastically changed since then.
Today intercultural communication as a discipline includes more theories than ever
before, an increasing focus on studying the intercultural in different contexts, and an
increasing debate as to what is the ‘intercultural’. To this end, this essay presents an
overview of the state of the intercultural communication discipline. The purpose of this
essay is three fold: first, it reviews where we have been as a discipline; second it discusses
where we are going as a discipline, with a focus on how researchers are increasingly
borrowing constructs and theories from other disciplines; and third it identifies key issues,
challenges, and opportunities in intercultural communication.

Where we’ve been: development of the discipline

Global communication, diplomacy, and business after World War II created a need for
practical frameworks of communication not solely based on linguistics (Leeds-Hurwitz,

*Corresponding author. Email: stephen.m.croucher@jyu.fi

© 2015 Australian and New Zealand Communication Association

72 S.M. Croucher et al.

1990). The first steps in came from Whorf (1940) and Freudian psycho-analytical theory.
Then the work of Edward T. Hall revolutionized the field with the publication of The
Silent Language (1959). After this book, it took 10 years for the field to find its way into
communication departments. The first official university class and workshop was offered
at Pittsburgh University in the late 1960s (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1978). In 1970, the
International Communication Association (ICA) founded an intercultural communication
division, and the Speech Communication Association, National Communication
Association (NCA) did the same in 1975. These were key steps in developing the field,
as these helped produce textbooks, journals, and other academic items that developed the
discipline (Rogers, Hart, & Miike, 2002). After the 1980s intercultural communication
became more developed, as researchers defined and developed theories and measurement
scales to investigate cross-cultural characteristics of different nations and cultures.
Intercultural communication evolved in different ways in different countries. This
evolution has been dependent on social and political mainstreams of different countries
and societies where intercultural programs have been institutionalized. Due to the multi-
cultural nature of the US society, integration, and intercultural understanding was a great
motivation for universities to develop intercultural communication programs. However in
Japan, the need for communicative skills in English language and business provided a
necessity to offer intercultural communication in these departments (Rogers et al., 2002).
Recently, more programs have been established in China, Taiwan, and Singapore. This
new tradition of intercultural communication tries to differentiate cultural characteristics
of Asian countries and redefine western-based paradigms of intercultural communication,
mainly influenced by US scholars (Kim, 2010).
Intercultural communication as a relatively new field of study is an answer to the
communication complexities of a modern world with a wide range of cultural character-
istics. To that end, the field has approached research from various perspectives. While it is
impossible to review all areas of intercultural communication in this essay, we outline and
briefly review three key areas of research that have been the focus of intercultural
researchers: identity, intercultural communication competence, and adaptation. Within
each of these areas of research we identify and describe key theories that have shaped
intercultural communication.

Intercultural communication and identity

There are two ways to approach identity in intercultural communication: the traditional
and the modern (Banks & Banks, 1995). The traditional paradigm posits communication
is an internal source of conflict and identity stress during which the communicator tries to
reduce fear and anxiety (Hall, 1992). Identity is a multidimensional notion consisting of
psychological and social factors (Merino & Tileagă, 2011), and negotiated until commu-
nicators reach mutual understanding and agreement on identity (Ting-Toomey, 1993).
However, the modern paradigm supposes identity is an animated and dynamic notion,
whose (multi)form is dependent on social context and time (Hoffman, 1989). Under the
influence of these two approaches to identity, scholars have proposed different types of
identity, such as ethnic (Khakimova, Zhang, & Hall, 2012; Phinney & Ong, 2007; Ting-
Toomey et al., 2000), sexual (Koller, 2012; Motschenbacher, 2013), gender (Back, 2014;
Hall & LaFrance, 2012), personal (Fost, 2013; Herat, 2014), religious (Koschmann,
2013), and political identity (Nisbet & Myers, 2010), to mention a few. Nevertheless,
for space purposes, what follows is a review of the most cited identity theories.
 Communication Research and Practice 73

Social Identity Theory (SIT) is made up of both personal and social identities.
Personal identity deals with identity characteristics, which are personal and not related
to cultural and social groups. However, individuals keep and accentuate the identity that
link them to special desired groups, and strengthen their positive self-image (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979). While communicating at the intergroup level, people accentuate distinc-
tiveness in favour of their in-groups and when the distinctiveness (i.e. identity) of a
special group becomes salient, the group members’ attitudes and behaviours are affected
by this identity (McKinley, Mastro, & Warber, 2014). SIT’s primary process is categor-
ization, which implies individuals categorize others according to the groups they belong to
and further ‘SIT argues that in-group/out-group designations affects self-esteem, inter-
group relationships, and under certain conditions intergroup conflict’ (Roozen &
Shulman, 2014, p. 166). Empirical studies have supported SIT findings (Fein &
Spencer, 1997; Hertel & Kerr, 2001).
Cultural identity is the discursive stress individuals put on their emotional connected-
ness to or affiliation with a culture (Moriizumi, 2011). Culture is a set of shared meanings,
symbols, and norms. The level to which one is the core member of a culture is the level to
which one understands the symbols of the culture and follows the norms. Cultural identity
has two interrelated dimensions: value and salience (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Value refers to
the expectations necessary for one’s evaluation of cultural identity and salience is the level
to which the members of the culture feel strong affiliation with that culture. Cultural
identity is influenced by the extent of acculturation experienced and generation, cultural
needs and values, the divergent situations, and the environments of various cultural
communities (Collier, 1988). Studies on cultural identity have been conducted in relation
to a broad array of contexts, such as brand choosing (Chattaraman, Lennon, & Rudd,
2010), cultural stereotype and persuasion (Collier, 1988), and political representation of
national identity and minority groups (Chen & Collier, 2012), to name a few.
Face is ‘a claimed sense of favorable social self-worth that a person wants others to
have of her or him’ (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998, p. 187). Social interactions embed
conflict situations when the individuals need to save lost face because of the factors such
as attacking or teasing. Face Negotiation Theory (FNT) explains how various elements
contribute to manage these conflicts (Kirschbaum, 2012). According to Ting-Toomey and
Kurogi (1998), face and facework (the communicative behavior individuals do to save
their face) are universal, yet vary according to different cultures. Research has shown
differences between cultures high in collectivism and those high in individualism, in that
the former ones use other-oriented face-saving and other-face approval-enhancement
strategies as their conflict management style while individualist ones use more cases of
self-oriented face-saving and self-face approval-seeking. Studies of face negotiation
theory have covered different fields such as health communication (Kirschbaum, 2012),
interpersonal and intercultural conflict (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Zhang, Ting-
Toomey, & Oetzel, 2014), online media studies (Lim, Vadrevu, Chan, & Basnyat,
2012), and organizational conflict management (Oetzel, Meares, Myers, & Lara, 2003).
Ethnolinguistic Identity theory (ELIT) is a social psychological approach dealing with
the ‘variables and mechanisms involved in maintenance of an ethnic language in different
social setting’ (Giles & Johnson, 1987, p. 69). The original form of the theory concerned
explaining the interethnic setting in which a specific groups of individuals choose a
specific language strategy and at the same time it tried to study the reason a group of
people choose a different strategy than the other group, i.e. they diverge to the out-group
language instead of accentuating their own language. This theory predicts ‘if an individual
perceives high in-group identification, cognitive alternatives to in-group status, strong
74 S.M. Croucher et al.

group vitality, and hard, close boundaries, intergroup differentiation will occur’ (Abrams,
O’Connor, & Giles, 2002, p. 230). Studies in this field have investigated various subjects
such as media studies (Vincze & Freynet, 2014; Vincze & Holley, 2013), nation-building
and minority integration (Bekus, 2014; Olsen & Olsen, 2010), multilingualism and
language policy (Brownie, 2012), and education (Taylor-Leech & Liddicoat, 2014), to
mention just a few.

Intercultural communication competence

Researchers have defined intercultural communication competence in various ways. A
widely-accepted definition is that competent communication is ‘interaction that is per-
ceived as affective in fulfilling certain rewarding objectives in a way that is also appro-
priate to the context in which the interaction occurs’ (Spitzberg, 1988, p. 68). The key
elements in competence are ‘effectiveness’ and ‘appropriateness’ (Kealey, 1990; Stahl,
2001). Effectiveness is the ability to reach the intended goals through interaction with
other participants or the environment, and appropriateness is the ability to communicate in
a way that leads to the desired goals (Lakey & Canary, 2002). According to Spitzberg and
Cupach (1984), intercultural competence has four major components: knowledge, affec-
tive, psychomotor, and situational. Based on these four components, Shuang (2014)
introduced three processes for intercultural competence, which include affective (dealing
with the emotions during a communication), behavioral (dealing with proper intercultural
behavior), and cognitive processes (dealing with contextual requirements and intercultural
awareness).
Intercultural competence can be affected by various factors. Cultural sensitivity,
defined as the motivation to accept and respect intercultural differences can positively
affect competence (Lakey & Canary, 2002), communication skills, knowledge, behavior
(Wiseman, 2002), and gender (Lee, Fredenburg, Belcher, & Cleveland, 1999) are among
those factors. Competence is a key element in any communication interaction (Lakey &
Canary, 2002) and it has been studied widely in relation to different fields of commu-
nication such as business (de Oñate & Amador, 2013; Matveev, 2004), workplace
communication (Keyton et al., 2013), and education (Crook, 2014). Competence is linked
to different communication theories. Although it is beyond the scope of this essay to
review all the theories related to intercultural competence, the most frequently cited ones
are anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) (Gudykunst, 1993), Face negotiation theory
(FNT) (Ting-Toomey, 1988), Cultural identity theory (Collier, 1988), and Identity man-
agement theory (Cupach & Imahori, 1993). FNT and cultural identity theory have already
been discussed, so what follows is a brief review of identity management theory
and AUM.
Based on Berger and Calabrese’s (1975) uncertainty reduction theory (URT),
Gudykunst (1993) proposed his AUM theory. According to this theory, to have effective
intercultural communication, it is essential to overcome and manage uncertainty and
anxiety. One of the most important notions in this theory is ‘stranger’ who is an individual
conceptually unfamiliar. Therefore, during an intercultural communication, the individual
experiences anxiety along with uncertainty (Neuliep, 2012). Anxiety is the result of
negative expectations the stranger has about the host culture. On the other hand, uncer-
tainty is the result of the stranger’s reluctance about the hosts’ behavior and feedback
(Gudykunst, 1998). Higher levels of uncertainty will result in a lack of accuracy in
interpretation of the host and higher levels of anxiety will end up in limited prediction
of host behavior and fundamental attribution error (Gudykunst, 1993). Mindfulness and
 Communication Research and Practice 75

self-awareness can reduce the level of anxiety and bring about effective communication
(Gudykunst, 1998), but intercultural communication apprehension and ethnocentrism
have negative effects (Neuliep, 2012). AUM can be a proper ground for adjustment
programs whose aim is to help expatriates (strangers) adapt to conditions in a new
(host) culture (Gudykunst, 1998).
Identity management theory (IMT) describes the process in which individuals enact,
negotiate, and manage their different identities in intercultural communication. SIT
proposes members of low status groups try to improve their socially negative identity to
gain a positive social identity and IMT as a form of facework (Brown & Levinson, 1978)
is an answer to these negative identities (Blanz, Mummendey, Mielke, & Klink, 1998).
IMT postulates this enactment is practiced through different strategies the individuals
chooses (Ellemers, 1993). For example, individuals can use mobility to integrate into the
out-group, creativity to avoid confrontation with the out-group or competition to confront
the out-group through strengthening in-group identity (Vincze & Holley, 2013). Blanz
et al. (1998) proposed four different identity management strategies out of the two
dichotomies of the individual/collective distinction and the behavioral/cognitive distinc-
tion. The research on IMT has linked it to other fields such as organizational studies
(Lagrande & Milburn, 2003), intercultural friendship (Lee, 2008), and online studies
(Roy, 2012).

Adaptation
The process of cultural adaptation is of paramount concern for researchers, policy makers,
communities, nations, and for individuals. Scholars have produced a rich body of work on
how this process takes place, identified positive and negative effects of the process, and
offered various critiques and alternatives to current adaptation models. In intercultural
communication, two models have received the most attention (support, critique, and been
cited the most): Berry’s (2003) acculturation strategies, and Kim’s (1988, 2001) cross-
cultural adaptation model. Both of these models emphasize different acculturation paths
newcomers can follow in a new cultural environment. Acculturation has been defined as a
multidimensional process where distinct cultures come into contact. During this process
cultural learning occurs through which a process cultural change occurs.
Berry’s model presents four strategies a newcomer can choose when encountering a
new culture. The choice of strategy depends on the desire to maintain the native or
heritage culture, and the desire to adopt the dominant culture (Berry, 2003, 2006). The
four strategies are assimilation, separation, marginalization, and integration. Assimilation
is when a newcomer decreases the significance of their original culture and attempts to
identify with the new culture. Separation is when the newcomer keeps the original culture
and avoids interaction with the new culture. Marginalization is when the newcomer shows
little interest in either culture. Integration is when the newcomer shows interest in keeping
their original culture but also learning the new culture.
Researchers have shown this model to be applicable in a variety of immigrant settings:
Korean Americans (Lee, Sobal, & Frongillo, 2003), Vietnamese Americans (Pham &
Harris, 2001), and others (see Sam & Berry, 2006). However, various researchers have
criticized Berry’s model for its dichotomous approach (desire to maintain the heritage or
adopt the dominant culture) (Phinney, Horencyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001; Ward, 2008).
Researchers have criticized how researchers have tested immigrant samples as a priori,
such as using a sample mean, or a midpoint on a range of possible scores as cut-off points
to determine a particular strategy (Giang & Wittig, 2006). The use of these methods
76 S.M. Croucher et al.

suggest equal numbers of participants will be placed in each of Berry’s categories due to
methodological decisions, which means not all the categories may exist as expressed
(Rudmin, 2003; Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008). Another critique regards the margin-
alization strategy. Del Pilar and Udasco (2004) questioned if it was practical to believe
individuals would want to ‘lose’ their culture and not adopt a new culture and be without
a culture.
The other model often studied in communication is Kim’s (1988, 2001) cross-cultural
adaptation model. Kim (2001) defined cultural adaptation as “the dynamic process by
which individuals, upon relocating to new, unfamiliar, or changed environments, establish
(or reestablish) and maintain relatively stable, reciprocal, and functional relationships with
those environments (p. 31). This process is a multi-step process, involving the encultura-
tion, deculturation, and acculturation of newcomers to a culture, where the ultimate goal is
assimilation into the new culture. Some recent research has supported Kim’s model
(McKay-Semmler & Kim, 2014; McKay-Semmler, Semmler, & Kim, 2014). However,
other studies have shown how immigrants to a new culture are often not able to, or are
unwilling to culturally adapt for a multitude of reasons, thus questioning aspects of Kim’s
theory (Croucher, 2013a, 2009, 2008; Croucher & Cronn-Mills, 2011; Kramer, 2000;
Sandel & Liang, 2010). In fact, Kramer (2000) described adaptation as thus, “adaptation
goes to the core of a psychological restructuration. This amounts to nothing less than the
total hegemonic control of identity” (p. 196). Instead of cultural adaptation, Kramer
(2000, 2003) proposed cultural fusion, where newcomers blend together elements from
their native and new culture, as a more integrative and less hegemonic approach to
represent the balance between host and immigrant groups.
Intercultural communication as a discipline has focused on various fields of study and
contexts. Questions of adaptation, competence, identity, and a plethora of other key issues
will remain integral to the discipline as it continues to develop. However, the discipline is
also reaching out into other areas of study, which require our attention. The following
section outlines some lines of inquiry that have recently emerged within intercultural
communication.

Where we’re going: intercultural communication and health care

Intercultural and health communication are faced with similar communication challenges
(i.e. verbal and non-verbal communication, politeness and face-saving, power distance,
and uncertainty avoidance) and therefore strongly benefit from one another’s expertise.
This is why many intercultural and health communication researchers are and will
increasingly work with one another’s theories and models.
Healthcare and intercultural communication commonly conjure up feelings of anxiety,
stress, and uncertainty. Both situations combined can be especially difficult to deal with
for patients as well as healthcare providers (Ulrey & Amason, 2001). In addition to the
inherent stress of intercultural healthcare situations, studies have identified many specific
intercultural issues that affect healthcare quality. Mendoza (Alexander et al., 2014, p. 52)
for instance pointed out that, ‘one can easily track health disparities by race, class,
gender’. In other words, differences between cultural backgrounds can affect the quality
of health services one receives. Such disparities can exist for different reasons.
Discrimination and prejudice are significant aspects that affect not only immigrants but
also native populations. Studies have for instance revealed healthcare disparities in the
United States between African-American and Hispanic populations, and white middle-
class patients (Johnson, Saha, Arbelaez, Beach, & Cooper, 2004). Quality of healthcare
 Communication Research and Practice 77

services can also be affected by differences in the way medicine, illness, and care are
understood and approached by patients and health practitioners. Differences in commu-
nication styles and language abilities constitute another main obstacle to receiving and
seeking proper treatment (Viswanath & Ackerson, 2011).
Ways in which medicine is understood by patients and healthcare staff can affect
expectations regarding the diagnosis and treatment they receive or provide. Intercultural
communication can be of great help to identify such differences as they can be unnoticed
or minimized by practitioners who see the Western biomedical approach as the normal
medical approach (Hanssen & Alpers, 2010). Studies have suggested medical ethnocentr-
ism can result in incorrect diagnoses if, for instance, symptoms are not described in ways
expected by healthcare providers. Hanssen and Alpers (2010, para. 64) for instance
highlighted the risk of diagnosing ‘ethnic minority patients’ culture rather than their
mental illness because their “normal” way of behaving and expressing themselves at
times can be very different’.
Differences in approaching medicine and treatment are intertwined with differences
in communicative repertoires. Studies have examined how pain is expressed in differ-
ent cultures as some value internalizing pain while others value openly expressing it. In
intercultural healthcare settings, such variety can create difficulties in assessing the
level of pain patients are in. Dealing with such challenges creates stress for staff,
leading to frustration, prejudices, and wrong diagnoses or treatment (Hanssen &
Pedersen, 2013).
Communication is central to building rapport between patients and healthcare provi-
ders. Miscommunication or poor communication can impede the development of relation-
ships and hinder the healing process. Specifically, lack of trust has been shown to affect
patients’ willingness to thoroughly follow treatment (Santos & Amaro, 2011). In cases
when there is no common language, translators can be used to convey information though
raising numerous problems. Looking at the situation in Norway, Hanssen and Alpers
(2010) have found word for word translations do not solve much as patients often need
broader cultural knowledge about the health system and procedures to come. This high-
lights the need for more cultural brokerage in healthcare, which goes hand in hand with a
patient-centered approach where patients’ narratives, needs and expectations orient the
healthcare process (Lo, 2010). Overall, developing healthcare practitioners’ intercultural
sensitivity toward different expectations and needs is a pressing issue to enhance health-
care in intercultural settings (Gunaratnam, 2007). Research indicates isolated efforts to
deal with challenges of intercultural health communication are not enough to provide
long-term solutions and ease healthcare providers’ stress and difficulties (Spence, 2001).
For this reason, more research is needed to explore ways to train staff, and identify and
address patients’ difficulties.

Intercultural communication and social media

Similarly, social media and intercultural communication share relevant research interests,
especially regarding identity, acculturation and integration, and relations between culture
and power. One main question is put forth when looking at social media from an
intercultural communication viewpoint: to what extent do issues encountered in face-to-
face situations translate into online communication (Johnson & Callahan, 2013)?
Exploring ways in which people craft their identities online provides relevant answers
to this question.
78 S.M. Croucher et al.

Processes of self-presentation in face-to-face and online contexts share the idea that
individuals are active in expressing varying identities according to different contextual
cues (Bouvier, 2012). Intercultural studies have investigated the extent to which indivi-
duals use traditional identity categories such as nationality or ethnicity in social media. A
common assumption is virtual spaces can allow individuals to open and renew the scope
of available identity categorizations (McEwan & Sobre-Denton, 2011). Results however
depict a mixed picture. On the one hand, current processes of globalization seem to create
‘cultural spaces independent of traditional geographical or ethnic identifications’ (Johnson
& Callahan, 2013, p. 319) whereby the relevance of national identification is downplayed
and the importance of one’s lifestyle is enhanced (Bouvier, 2012). On the other hand,
studies have shown traditional models of self-categorization are still used for various
reasons.
Immigrants’ and minorities’ use of social media illustrate this latter aspect. Studies
indicate they can use social/new media to, for instance, retain their cultural heritage
(Hopkins, 2008), magnify their cultural identity (Grasmuck, Martin, & Zhao, 2009), or
develop one’s sense of belonging to a community (Croucher & Cronn-Mills, 2011). The
ways in which minorities use social media to express and negotiate identities are related to
the acculturation process. Discrepancies exist among studies that have examined the
relation between one’s integration and use of ethnic social media. However, results
indicate that in the long term being a regular user of ethnic social media and online
platforms impede one’s acculturation process and complicate one’s integration into the
host society (Croucher & Cronn-Mills, 2011). In the first stages, however, using virtual
ethnic communities can help immigrants go through the acculturation process by provid-
ing emotional support, which tends to decrease stress associated with living in a new
environment (Ye, 2006). As the use of social media increases, online and offline worlds
are more and more intertwined and online behaviors hold consequences in individuals’
offline lives (Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008). Therefore, more research should examine
the effects of social media use on various aspects of the acculturation processes, including
but not limited to, one’s willingness to adapt and one’s relation with the host society
(Croucher, 2011).
Discussions about online identification processes highlight how culture is con-
structed and negotiated by individuals and institutions. Social media are relevant to
examine the interplay between use of culture and power relations. Chen and Dai (2012)
argued Western cultural references are overly present in the online world (i.e. linguis-
tically through the use of English, materially through the use of programs, or through
references to popular culture). The absence of face-to-face interaction does not imply
absence of cultural signifiers: these are embedded in social media and brought up by
individuals who use cultural representations in different ways. As Bouvier (2012)
pointed out, social media can be used to escape from power relations existing in the
offline world, but are also likely to reproduce them. For this reason, examining ‘who
makes culture relevant to whom in which context for which purpose’ (Piller, 2011, p.
174) in social media can inform us about the cultural references powerful and domi-
nant in society at that same time.
Most aspects related to social media and intercultural communication have been
scarcely researched. Shuter (2012), argued new media studies are the next frontier in
intercultural communication, and urged for more research to keep theories and analyses in
touch with current evolutions.
 Communication Research and Practice 79

Issues we face
In Alexander et al.’s (2014) conversation about the key issues and urgencies facing
intercultural communication, the authors pointed out numerous trajectories for the field
of intercultural communication. Similarly, we see four key issues as crucial to the future of
intercultural communication: a debate over terminology, the debate over social learning
versus communibiology, the spread of intercultural communication to less studied cul-
tures, and the place of critical views in intercultural communication.

Debates over terminology

In Alexander et al.’s (2014) conversation about the key issues and urgencies facing inter-
cultural communication, an issue brought forth was the very definition of intercultural
communication. The conceptual domain of the field is broad and includes many sub-
disciplines. As the field continues to diversify, a key issue is to consider the very nature of
what is “intercultural communication”. A glance at any intercultural communication text-
books and articles will reveal multiple definitions of intercultural communication that often
share similar characteristics, with many differences. Alexander et al. (2014) pointed out that
these definitional differences show the depth and breadth of intercultural communication.
However, the authors assert that the discipline may need to decide whether a standard
definition is preferable or not to numerous definitions, as the discipline continues to make
sense of culture, sociology, psychology, and other aspects of human communication.

Communibiological approach
A significant body of research in intercultural communication is conducted from a social
learning/situation approach. From this approach, researchers have argued context, culture,
and situation have significant affects on our approaches to communication. Thus, our
environment significantly influences who we are and how we communicate (Hall, 1959;
Pederson, Tkachuk, & Allen, 2008). However, researchers in communication are increasingly
turning to biology to understand differences in communication. The communibiological
approach asserts biological predispositions have higher predictive power than situational/
social learning (Beatty & McCroskey, 1998; Beatty, McCroskey, & Heisel, 1998;
McCroskey, Heisel, & Richmond, 2001). While this approach to research is controversial,
with many seeing the push toward biological indicators as unwarranted, we believe inter-
cultural communication researchers will increasingly explore the validity of the communi-
biological approach to better understand cultural difference, particularly in cross-cultural
communication studies (Croucher, 2013a; Jung & McCroskey, 2004). As researchers increas-
ingly criticize (and call for abandoning) the work of Hofstede (1980, 2001) as being generic,
hegemonic, not applying to culture, for having flawed assumptions, for being inconsistent,
lacking empirical evidence and transparency (Baskerville, 2003; Fougère & Moulettes, 2007;
McSweeney, 2002; Signorini, Wiesemes, & Murphy, 2009), we believe intercultural
researchers will (and should) look for new ways to understand similarities and differences
between groups. The communibiological approach may be one such approach.

Spread of research to less studied cultures

One of the main issues intercultural communication studies need to address is the spread
and localization of less-studied cultures. Currently, intercultural communication is highly
80 S.M. Croucher et al.

United States and East-Asian centric (Kim, 2010). Not only are most of the studies in the
field conducted in an American (US-based) or East-Asian context, but also most of the
scales have been designed by American researchers and primarily for the American (US)
culture (Gudykunst, 2002). This has limited generalizations and theories derived from this
line of research. To build a more comprehensive theory of communication it is necessary
to study different cultures in different parts of the world and consequently it is important
to modify the current scales and measurement devices to adapt to these less-studied
cultures (Croucher, 2013a). There are, for example, few studies done in the Middle
Eastern, African, or Central Asian contexts, which show intercultural communication’s
limited knowledge of communication outside of a US-Asian context. Future work will
more than likely strive to fill these research voids.

Critical views in intercultural communication

Since the early 2000s, culture has become increasingly pervasive across disciplines as
well as everyday discourses. This culturalist orientation, whereby ‘[c]ulture – or rather
cultural differences – is now held to be the main explanations for the way the human
world functions’ (Breidenbach & Nyíri, 2009, p. 9) highlights the need to question and
identify ways in which culture is used. Using critical perspectives in intercultural
communication is therefore likely to keep on developing in the near future as a
response to the seemingly unproblematic use of culture in a world filled with growing
inequalities.
Critical intercultural communication examines the same core concepts mentioned
in this article (i.e. identity, competence, adaptation) but associating them to particular
contexts, historical backgrounds, and power relations. Similarly, culture is regarded
as permeated by power structures that have evolved throughout history and affect the
intersection between race, gender, social class, and nationality (Halualani, Mendoza,
& Drzewiecka, 2009). These evolutions in conceptualizing core concepts used in
intercultural communication open up new perspectives for future research in the
field.
A strong tenet of critical views is its emphasis on investigating specific contexts. This
is a clear break from the nation-based approach to culture, which has been predominant in
the field since the 1980s (Moon, 1996). The contextual focus of critical intercultural
research corresponds to the interdisciplinary evolution of the field discussed in this article.
More and more, researchers are looking to combine critical views in intercultural com-
munication with other fields such as media studies (Sommier, 2014), identity negotiation
in online environments (Wagener, 2014), or intercultural competence in education
(Dervin, Paatela-Nieminen, Kuoppala, & Riitaoja, 2012) to name a few. Critical inter-
cultural communication is likely to keep on expanding because it offers relevant analytical
tools and research orientations to develop the field and position it as a significant actor to
respond to challenges faced by societies and individuals across the world.
The possible trajectories that the field of intercultural communication may take in
the future highlight its multifaceted nature. Such diversity has marked the history of
the discipline, which has grown immensely over the last decades, renewing its scope
and developing new theories. Challenges in defining its identity and core concepts
have made intercultural communication a very dynamic field bursting with new ideas
and approaches. As such, ways in which the field could grow in the near future are
manifold; it is certain however that intercultural communication will indeed keep on
developing.
 Communication Research and Practice 81

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Stephen Croucher, PhD, is a Professor of Intercultural Communication at the University of
Jyväskylä, Finland. His present research interests include immigrant cultural adaptation, organiza-
tional dissent, integrated threat theory, and religion and communication. He has published widely on
issues related to cultural adaptation and organizational communication. He is the co-author (with
Daniel Cronn-Mills) of Understanding Communication Research Methods: A theoretical and
practical approach (Routledge, 2015), co-editor (with Tina Harris) of Religion and
Communication: An anthology of extensions in theory, research, and method (Peter Lang, 2012),
co-author (with Daniel Cronn-Mills) of Religious Misperceptions: The case of Muslims and
Christians in France and Britain (Hampton Press, 2011), and author of Looking beyond the hijab
(Hampton Press, 2008). Currently he is working on two books: Understanding communication
theory: A practical approach (Routledge, 2016), and Global Perspectives on Intercultural
Communication (Routledge, 2017).
Mélodine Sommier, M.A., is a doctoral student in Intercultural Communication at the University of
Jyväskylä, Finland. Her present research interests include discourses of culture, critical approaches
to intercultural communication, and immigration and integration issues. Her doctoral thesis focuses
on the cultural resonance of discourses of secularism in news media.
Diyako Rahmani, MA, is a PhD student of intercultural communication at the University of
Jyväskylä, Finland. His main area of research is concentrated on the communication traits among
the minority groups especially Kurdistan.

References
Abrams, J., O’Connor, J., & Giles, H. (2002). Identity and intergroup communication. In
W.B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook on international and intercultural communica-
tion (pp. 225−240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alexander, B. K., Arasaratnam, L. A., Durham, A., Flores, L., Leeds-Hurwitz, W., Mendoza, S. L.
. . . Halualani, R. (2014). Identifying key intercultural urgencies, issues, and challenges in
today’s world: Connecting our scholarship to dynamic contexts and historical moments.
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 7, 38–67. doi:10.1080/
17513057.2014.869527
Back, M. (2014). ‘They say I’m like that but they don’t know me’: Transcultural discourses of
masculinity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 9, 104–118. doi:10.1080/
17447143.2013.857343
Banks, A., & Banks, S. R. (1995). Cultural identity, resistance, and “good theory”: Implications for
intercultural communication theory from Gypsy culture. Howard Journal of Communications,
6, 146–163. doi:10.1080/10646179509361693
Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
28, 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00048-4
Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Interpersonal communication as tempermental expression: A
communibiological paradigm. In J.C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.),
Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 41–67). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication apprehension as tempera-
mental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs, 65, 197–219.
doi:10.1080/03637759809376448
Bekus, N. (2014). Ethnic identity in post-soviet Belarus: Ethnolinguistic survival as an argument in
the political struggle. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 35, 43–58.
doi:10.1080/01434632.2013.845197
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a
developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1,
99–112. doi:10.1111/hcre.1975.1.issue-2
82 S.M. Croucher et al.

Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K.M. Chun, P. Balls Organista, &
G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research
(pp. 17–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Berry, J. W. (2006). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocultural groups in Canada.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 719–734. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.004
Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., Mielke, R., & Klink, A. (1998). Responding to negative social identity:
A taxonomy of identity management strategies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28,
697–729.
Bouvier, G. (2012). How Facebook users select identity categories for self-presentation. Journal of
Multicultural Discourses, 7(1), 37–57. doi:10.1080/17447143.2011.652781
Breidenbach, J., & Nyíri, P. (2009). Seeing culture everywhere: From genocide to consumer habits.
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody
(Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–289). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brownie, J. (2012). Multilingualism and identity on Mussau. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language, 214, 67–84.
Chattaraman, V., Lennon, S. J., & Rudd, N. A. (2010). Social identity salience: Effects on identity-
based brand choices of Hispanic consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 263–284.
doi:10.1002/mar.v27:3
Chen, G. M., & Dai, X. (2012). New media and asymmetry in cultural identity negotiation. In P.H.
Cheong, J. N. Martin, & L. Macfadyen (Eds.), New media and intercultural communication:
Identity, community and politics (pp. 123–138). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Chen, Y., & Collier, M. J. (2012). Intercultural identity positioning: Interview discourses from two
identity-based nonprofit organizations. Journal of International & Intercultural
Communication, 5, 43–63. doi:10.1080/17513057.2011.631215
Collier, M. (1988). A comparison of conversations among and between domestic culture groups:
How intra- and intercultural competencies vary. Communication Quarterly, 36, 122–144.
doi:10.1080/01463378809369714
Crook, B. (2014). Teaching intercultural communication with an idiot abroad. Communication
Teacher, 28, 9–13. doi:10.1080/17404622.2013.839044
Croucher, S. M. (2008). French-Muslims and the hijab: An analysis of identity and the Islamic veil
in France. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37, 199–213. doi:10.1080/
17475750903135408
Croucher, S. M. (2009). French-Muslim reactions to the law banning religious symbols in schools:
A mixed methods analysis. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2, 1–15.
doi:10.1080/17513050802567031
Croucher, S. M. (2011). Social networking and cultural adaptation: A theoretical model. Journal of
International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 259–264. doi:10.1080/
17513057.2011.598046
Croucher, S. M. (2013). Integrated threat theory and acceptance of immigrant assimilation: An
analysis of Muslim immigration in western Europe. Communication Monographs, 80, 46–62.
doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.739704
Croucher, S. M., & Cronn-Mills, D. (2011). Religious misperceptions: The case of Muslims and
Christians in France and Britain. New York, NY: Hampton Press.
Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Identity management theory: Communication competence
in intercultural episodes and relationships. In R.L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural
communication competence (pp. 112–131). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
de Oñate, M. L., & Amador, M. V. (2013). The intercultural component in business English
textbooks. Iberica, 26, 171–194.
Del Pilar, J. A., & Udasco, J. O. (2004). Marginality theory: The lack of construct validity. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 3–15. doi:10.1177/0739986303261813
Dervin, F., Paatela-Nieminen, M., Kuoppala, K., & Riitaoja, A. (2012). Multicultural education in
Finland: Renewed intercultural competences to the rescue? International Journal of
Multicultural Education, 14(3), 1–13.
Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies.
European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27–57. doi:10.1080/14792779343000013
 Communication Research and Practice 83

Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through
derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31–44. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.73.1.31
Fost, J. (2013). The extended self, functional constancy, and personal identity. Linguistic &
Philosophical Investigations, 12, 47–66.
Fougère, M., & Moulettes, A. (2007). The construction of the modern West and the backward rest:
Studying the discourse of Hofstede’s culture’s consequences. Journal of Multicultural
Discourses, 2, 1–19. doi:10.2167/md051.0
Giang, M. T., & Wittig, M. A. (2006). Implications of adolescents’ acculturation strategies for
personal and collective self-esteem. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12,
725–739. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.12.4.725
Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach to
language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 68, 69–99.
Grasmuck, S., Martin, J., & Zhao, S. (2009). Ethno‐racial identity displays on Facebook. Journal of
Computer‐Mediated Communication, 15, 158–188. doi:10.1111/jcmc.2009.15.issue-1
Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (1983). International and intercultural communication annual (Vol. VII).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1993). Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup communication:
An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) perspective. In R.L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.),
Intercultural communication theory (pp. 33−71). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Applying anxiety\uncertainty management (AUM) Theory to intercultural
adjustment training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 227–250. doi:10.1016/
S0147-1767(98)00005-4
Gudykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of international and intercultural
communication (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1978). The intercultural communication workshop: Foundations,
development and affects. Communication, 7, 72–92.
Gunaratnam, Y. (2007). Intercultural palliative care: Do we need cultural competence? International
Journal of Palliative Nursing, 13, 470–477. doi:10.12968/ijpn.2007.13.10.27477
Hall, B. J. (1992). Theories of culture and communication. Communication Theory, 2, 50−70.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00028.x
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, J., & LaFrance, B. (2012). “That’s gay”: Sexual prejudice, gender identity, norms, and
homophobic communication. Communication Quarterly, 60, 35–58. doi:10.1080/
01463373.2012.641833
Halualani, R. T., Mendoza, S. L., & Drzewiecka, J. A. (2009). ‘Critical’ junctures in intercultural
communication studies: A review. The Review of Communication, 9(1), 17–35.
Hanssen, I., & Alpers, L. (2010). Interpreters in intercultural health care settings: Health profes-
sionals’ and professional interpreters’ cultural knowledge, and their reciprocal perception and
collaboration. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 23.
Hanssen, I., & Pedersen, G. (2013). Pain relief, spiritual needs, and family support: Three central
areas in intercultural palliative care. Palliative and Supportive Care, 11, 523–530. doi:10.1017/
S1478951513000102
Herat, M. (2014). Avoiding the reaper: Notions of death in Sri Lankan obituaries. International
Journal of Language Studies, 8(3), 117–144.
Hertel, G., & Kerr, N. L. (2001). Priming in-group favoritism: The impact of normative scripts in the
minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 316–324.
doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1447
Hoffman, D. M. (1989). Self and culture revisited: Culture acquisition among Iranians in the United
States. Ethos, 17, 32−49. doi:10.1525/eth.1989.17.1.02a00020
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
Hopkins, L. (2008). Muslim Turks and anti-Muslim discourse. Australian Journal of
Communication, 35(1), 41–55.
84 S.M. Croucher et al.

Johnson, J. L., & Callahan, C. (2013). Minority cultures and social media: Magnifying garifuna.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 42, 319–339. doi:10.1080/
17475759.2013.842608
Johnson, R. L., Saha, S., Arbelaez, J. J., Beach, M. C., & Cooper, L. A. (2004). Racial and ethnic
differences in patient perceptions of bias and cultural competence in health care. Journal of
General Internal Medicine, 19, 101–110. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30262.x
Jung, H. Y., & McCroskey, J. C. (2004). Communication apprehension in a first language and self-
perceived competence as predictors of communication apprehension in a second language: A
study of speakers of English as a second language. Communication Quarterly, 52, 170–181.
doi:10.1080/01463370409370188
Kealey, D. J. (1990). Cross-cultural effectiveness: A study of Canadian technical advisors overseas.
Quebec: Canadian International Development Agency.
Keyton, J., Caputo, J. M., Ford, E. A., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T. . . . Wu, C. (2013).
Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviors. International Journal of Business
Communication, 50, 152–169. doi:10.1177/0021943612474990
Khakimova, L., Zhang, Y., & Hall, J. A. (2012). Conflict management styles: The role of ethnic
identity and self-construal among young male Arabs and Americans. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 41, 37–57. doi:10.1080/17475759.2011.617772
Kim, M.-S. (2010). Intercultural communication in Asia: Current state and future prospects. Asian
Journal of Communication, 20, 166–180. doi:10.1080/01292981003693351
Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-
cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kirschbaum, K. (2012). Physician communication in the operating room: Expanding application of
face-negotiation theory to the health communication context. Health Communication, 27,
292–301. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.585449
Koller, V. (2012). How to analyse collective identity in discourse-textual and contextual parameters.
Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 5, 19–38.
Koschmann, M. A. (2013). Human rights collaboration and the communicative practice of religious
identity. Journal of Communication & Religion, 36, 107–133.
Kramer, E. M. (2000). Cultural fusion and the defense of difference. In M.K. Asante & E. Min
(Eds.), Socio-cultural conflict between African Americans and Korean Americans (pp. 183–230).
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Kramer, E. M. (2003). Cosmopoly: Occidentalism and the new world order. In E.M. Kramer (Ed.),
The emerging monoculture: Assimilation and the “model minority” (pp. 234–291). Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Lagrande, S., & Milburn, T. (2003). “Keeping it real:” identity management strategies used by teens
in conversation. Communication Studies, 54, 230–247. doi:10.1080/10510970309363282
Lakey, S. G., & Canary, D. J. (2002). Actor goal achievement and sensitivity to partner as critical
factors in understanding interpersonal communication competence and conflict strategies.
Communication Monographs, 69, 217–235. doi:10.1080/03637750216542
Lee, A. M., Fredenburg, K., Belcher, D., & Cleveland, N. (1999). Gender differences in children’s
conceptions of competence and motivation in physical education. Sport, Education & Society, 4,
161–174. doi:10.1080/1357332990040204
Lee, P.-W. (2008). Stages and transitions of relational identity formation in intercultural friendship:
Implications for identity management theory. Journal of International and Intercultural
Communication, 1, 51–69. doi:10.1080/17513050701690918
Lee, S., Sobal, J., & Frongillo, E. (2003). Comparison of models of acculturation: The case of
Korean Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 282–296. doi:10.1177/
0022022103034003003
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1990). Notes in the history of intercultural communication: The foreign service
institute and the mandate for intercultural training. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 262–281.
doi:10.1080/00335639009383919
Lim, S. S., Vadrevu, S., Chan, Y. H., & Basnyat, I. (2012). Facework on Facebook: The online
publicness of juvenile delinquents and youths-at-risk. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 56, 346–361. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.705198
 Communication Research and Practice 85

Lo, M.-C. M. (2010). Cultural brokerage: Creating linkages between voices of lifeworld and
medicine in cross-cultural clinical settings. Health: an Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social
Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 14, 484–504. doi:10.1177/1363459309360795
Matveev, A. V. (2004). Describing intercultural communication competence: In-depth interviews
with American and Russian managers. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5,
55–62.
McCroskey, J. C., Heisel, A. D., & Richmond, V. P. (2001). Eysenck’s BIG THREE and commu-
nication traits: Three correlational studies. Communication Monographs, 68, 360−366.
doi:10.1080/03637750128068
McEwan, B., & Sobre-Denton, M. (2011). Virtual cosmopolitanism: Constructing third cultures and
transmitting social and cultural capital through social media. Journal of International and
Intercultural Communication, 4, 252–258. doi:10.1080/17513057.2011.598044
McKay-Semmler, K., & Kim, Y. Y. (2014). Cross-cultural adaptation of Hispanic youth: A study of
communication patterns, functional fitness, and psychological health. Communication
Monographs, 81, 133–156. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.870346
McKay-Semmler, K., Semmler, S. M., & Kim, Y. Y. (2014). Local news media cultivation of host
receptivity in Plainstown. Human Communication Research, 40, 188–208. doi:10.1111/
hcre.2014.40.issue-2
McKinley, C. J., Mastro, D., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Social identity theory as a framework for
understanding the effects of exposure to positive media images of self and other on intergroup
outcomes. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1049–1068.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A
triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89–118. doi:10.1177/
0018726702055001602
Merino, M., & Tileagă, C. (2011). The construction of ethnic minority identity: A discursive
psychological approach to ethnic self-definition in action. Discourse & Society, 22, 86–101.
doi:10.1177/0957926510382834
Moon, D. G. (1996). Concepts of “culture”: Implications for intercultural communication research.
Communication Quarterly, 44(1), 70–84. doi:10.1080/01463379609370001
Moriizumi, S. (2011). Constructing multifaceted cultural identity theory: Beyond dichotomization of
individualism-collectivism. China Media Research, 7(2), 17–25.
Motschenbacher, H. (2013). ‘Now everybody can wear a skirt’: Linguistic constructions of non-
heteronormativity at Eurovision Song Contest press conferences. Discourse & Society, 24,
590–614. doi:10.1177/0957926513486167
Neuliep, J. W. (2012). The relationship among intercultural communication apprehension, ethno-
centrism, uncertainty reduction, and communication satisfaction during initial intercultural
interaction: An extension of anxiety and uncertainty management (AUM) theory. Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 41, 1–16. doi:10.1080/17475759.2011.623239
Nisbet, E. C., & Myers, T. A. (2010). Challenging the state: Transnational TV and political identity
in the Middle East. Political Communication, 27, 347–36. doi:10.1080/10584609.2010.516801
Oetzel, J., Meares, M., Myers, K. K., & Lara, E. (2003). Interpersonal conflict in organization:
Explaining conflict styles via face-negotiation theory. Communication Research Reports, 20,
106–115.
Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural
empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30, 599–62.
doi:10.1177/0093650203257841
Olsen, K., & Olsen, H. (2010). Language use, attitude, and linguistic identity among Palestinian
students in East Jerusalem. International Multilingual Research Journal, 4, 31–54. doi:10.1080/
19313150903501018
Pederson, J., Tkachuk, H., & Allen, M. (2008). How perceived situational frequency and situational
importance affect communication apprehension: A cross cultural analysis. Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 37, 189–198. doi:10.1080/17475750903135374
Pham, T. B., & Harris, R. J. (2001). Acculturation strategies among Vietnamese-Americans.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 279–300. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(01)
00004-9
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and
well-being: An introduction perspective. Journal of Social Issue, 75, 493−510. doi:10.1111/
0022-4537.00225
86 S.M. Croucher et al.

Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current
status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271–281. doi:10.1037/
0022-0167.54.3.271
Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Rogers, E. M., Hart, W. B., & Miike, Y. (2002). Edward T. Hall and the history of intercultural
communication: The United States and Japan. Keio Communication Review, 24, 3−26.
Roozen, B., & Shulman, H. C. (2014). Tuning in to the RTLM: Tracking the evolution of language
alongside the Rwandan genocide using social identity theory. Journal of Language & Social
Psychology, 33, 165–182. doi:10.1177/0261927X13513765
Roy, S. (2012). Multiple ‘faces’ of Indian identity: A comparative critical analysis of identity
management on Facebook by Asian Indians living in India and the US. China Media
Research, 8(4), 6–14.
Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation,
integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3–37. doi:10.1037/
1089-2680.7.1.3
Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sandel, T. L., & Liang, C.-H. (2010). Taiwan’s fifth ethnic group: A study of the acculturation and
cultural fusion of women who have married into families in Taiwan. Journal of International
and Intercultural Communication, 3, 249–275. doi:10.1080/17513057.2010.487218
Santos, S., & Amaro, K. V. (2011). Intercultural communication issues during medical consultation:
The case of Huichol people in Mexico. Cuadernos Interculturales, 9, 257–271.
Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2008). Testing Berry’s model of acculturation: A confirmatory
latent class approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 275–285.
doi:10.1037/a0012818
Shuang, L. (2014). Becoming intercultural: Exposure to foreign cultures and intercultural compe-
tence. China Media Research, 10(3), 7–14.
Shuter, R. (2012). Intercultural new media studies: The next frontier in intercultural communication.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41, 219–237. doi:10.1080/
17475759.2012.728761
Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R., & Murphy, R. (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for exploring
intercultural learning: A critique of Hofstede’s cultural difference model. Teaching in Higher
Education, 14, 253–264. doi:10.1080/13562510902898825
Sommier, M. (2014). The concept of culture in media studies: A critical review of academic
literature. InMedia, 5, Retrieved from http://inmedia.revues.org/768
Spence, D. G. (2001). Prejudice, paradox, and possibility: Nursing people from cultures other than
one’s own. Journal of Transcultural Nursing: Official Journal of the Transcultural Nursing
Society/Transcultural Nursing Society, 12, 100–106. doi:10.1177/104365960101200203
Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In
C. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication (pp. 67−105). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). A model of intercultural communication competence. In L. Samovar &
R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed., pp. 375–387). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Stahl, G. K. (2001). Using assessment centers as tools for global leadership development: An
exploratory study. In M.E. Mendenhall, T. M. Kühlmann, & G. K. Stahl (Eds.), Developing
global business leaders: Policies, processes and innovations (pp. 197–210). Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks-Cole.
Taylor-Leech, K., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). Macro-language planning for multilingual education:
focus on programmes and provision. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15, 353–360.
doi:10.1080/14664208.2014.927956
 Communication Research and Practice 87

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflicts: A face-negotiation theory. In Y.Y. Kim & W. B.

Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213−238). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1993). Communicative resourcefulness: An identity negotiation perspective. In
R.L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 72–111).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In W.B.
Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 211–233). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated
face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.
doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00004-2
Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K. K., Shapiro, R. B., Garcia, W., Wright, T. J., & Oetzel, J. (2000).
Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four US ethnic groups. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 47–81. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00023-1
Ulrey, K. L., & Amason, P. (2001). Intercultural communication between patients and health care
providers: An exploration of intercultural communication effectiveness, cultural sensitivity,
stress, and anxiety. Journal of Health Communication, 13, 449–463. doi:10.1207/
S15327027HC1304_06
Vincze, L., & Freynet, N. (2014). Objective vitality as moderator of ethnolinguistic identity
gratifications. Communication Research Reports, 31, 117–123. doi:10.1080/
08824096.2013.846258
Vincze, L., & Holley, P. (2013). Making news between cultures: Ethnolinguistic identity and
journalism in four minority language daily newspapers. Communication Reports, 26, 61–72.
doi:10.1080/08934215.2013.790982
Viswanath, K., & Ackerson, L. K. (2011). Race, ethnicity, language, social class, and health
communication inequalities: A nationally-representative cross-sectional study. PLoS One, 6(1),
145–150.
Wagener, A. (2014). Creating identity and building bridges between cultures: The case of 9gag.
International Journal of Communication, 8, 2488–2502.
Ward, C. (2008). Thinking outside the Berry boxes: New perspectives on identity, acculturation and
intercultural relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 105–114.
Whorf, B. L. (1940). Linguistics as an exact science. J.B. Carrol (Ed.), Language, thought and
reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, 1956 (pp. 220−232). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Wiseman, R. L. (2002). Intercultural communication competence. In W.B. Gudykunst & B. Mody
(Eds.), Handbook on international and intercultural communication (pp. 207−224). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ye, J. (2006). An examination of acculturative stress, interpersonal social support, and use of online
ethnic social groups among Chinese international students. Howard Journal of
Communications, 17, 1–20. doi:10.1080/10646170500487764
Zhang, Q., Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014). Linking emotion to the conflict face-
negotiation theory: A U.S.-China investigation of the mediating effects of anger, compassion,
and guilt in interpersonal conflict. Human Communication Research, 40, 373–395. doi:10.1111/
hcre.2014.40.issue-3
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empower-
ment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816–1836. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2008.02.012