Intercultural Communication on the Flight

Deck: A Review of Studies in Aviation

Simon Cookson(&)

Aviation Management Department, J. F. Oberlin University,

3758 Tokiwa-Machi, Machida-shi, Tokyo 194-0294, Japan
scookson@obirin.ac.jp

Abstract. It has become evident in recent decades that many airline accidents
have been at least partly caused by cultural factors. The first section of this paper
reviews definitions of culture, which within aviation is typically divided into
national, organizational and professional culture. The second section summa-
rizes approaches in the study of intercultural communication that are relevant to
airline flight operations, including the limitations of each approach. The third
section describes eight studies that investigated intercultural communication in
airline contexts in a variety of countries. The paper highlights the need for
further research into the effects of culture on flight deck interaction in mono-
cultural airlines compared with multicultural airlines. Although this review
covers studies in civil aviation, it is relevant to other contexts in which small
multicultural teams operate in high-risk environments, such as space missions.

Keywords: Airline accident
Intercultural communication
National culture

Organizational culture
Professional culture

1 Introduction

In recent decades, awareness has grown that many airline accidents have been at least
partly caused by cultural factors [1]. It has been suggested that culture influenced the
communication and decision-making of flight crews in all of the following accidents:
JAL Flight 8054, Anchorage, in 1977; Avianca Flight 052, New York, in 1990; KAL
Flight 801, Guam, in 1997; KAL Flight 8509, London, in 1999; and Asiana Flight 214,
San Francisco, in 2014 [2–4].
In order to better understand how culture impacts airline operations, this paper
presents a review of intercultural communication research in the aviation context. The
first section gives definitions of culture, which, in aviation, is typically divided into the
constructs of national, organizational and professional culture. The second section
outlines theoretical approaches in the study of intercultural communication that have
been applied to aviation. The final section reviews research projects that investigated
intercultural communication in a range of civil aviation contexts.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

N. Stanton (Ed.): AHFE 2018, AISC 786, pp. 78–90, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93885-1_8
 Intercultural Communication on the Flight Deck 79

2 What is Culture?
2.1 Definitions of Culture
Culture is all around us, pervading our lives and informing our thoughts, words and
actions. It is inherently difficult to define, and has been described as “one of the two or
three most complicated words in the English language” [5]. From the numerous def-
initions that have been formulated, certain key characteristics may be identified:
• culture is “a shared system of meanings” that “dictates what we pay attention to,
how we act and what we value” [6]
• culture is “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the mem-
bers of one human group from another” [7]
• culture is “an active process by which people make sense of their lives” [8]
• culture is “the common denominator that makes the actions of individuals intelli-
gible to other members of their society” [9]
• culture “consists of the values the members of a given group hold, the languages
they speak, the symbols they revere, the norms they follow, and the material goods
they create, from tools to clothing” [10]
• culture is “the way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles
dilemmas” [11]
• culture provides “pre-set and agreed upon solutions” allowing people to effectively
communicate and coordinate actions with other group members [12]
• culture is transmitted from older to younger group members and is shared by all, or
nearly all, members of a social group [13]
Common to many descriptions is the sense of culture being shared by the members
of a social group. This is reflected in the Federal Aviation Administration’s definition
of culture as “the norms, attitudes, values, and practices that members of a nation,
organization, profession, or other group of people share” [14].

2.2 National, Organizational and Professional Culture

Intercultural researchers have noted numerous categories of people that may be dis-
tinguished by their culture: a nation; a region; an ethnic group; a religion; men or
women; young or old people; a social class; a profession or occupation; a work
organization; and a family [15, 16]. Within aviation, research on culture initially
focused on the national level but subsequently embraced organizations and professions.
Helmreich and Merritt, in a seminal study of the effects of culture in aviation and
medicine, divided culture into three constructs: national, organizational and profes-
sional culture [1]. This approach has proven to be conceptually attractive, but there are
several qualifications. Firstly, constructs such as national, organizational and profes-
sional culture are not directly observable or measurable. Secondly, cultural variability
exists within social groups, and “individual members of a culture do not always reflect
the norms of the culture, either in values or behavior” [17]. Thirdly, individuals may
belong to several social groups and switch between different operational cultures
depending on the situation.
80 S. Cookson

3 Approaches in Intercultural Communication

This section summarizes five approaches in intercultural communication that have been
applied to aviation contexts. Some limitations of each approach are noted.

3.1 Hall’s Intercultural Communication

The anthropologist Edward T. Hall studied “what people do and the hidden rules that
govern people”, and suggested that people remain largely unaware of this “hidden
culture” because it operates below the level of consciousness [18]. Hall focused on
intercultural communication between members of different cultural groups, in contrast
to previous research that investigated one cultural group at a time or made cross-
cultural comparisons of communication patterns in different cultural groups.
Several of Hall’s concepts are relevant to aviation: high-context and low-context;
monochronic and polychronic time; and action chains. In high-context cultures (e.g.
Japan), people have deep relationships and share information using simple messages
rich in meaning, whereas in low-context cultures (e.g. America), people are not bonded
so tightly and there is less distinction between insiders and outsiders [19]. Monochronic
people like doing one thing at a time and are vulnerable to interruptions, while poly-
chronic people prefer doing several activities at once [20]. When monochronic and
polychronic people work on the same action chain (or sequence of actions) misun-
derstandings may occur because monochronic people tend to focus on completing
tasks, while polychronic people emphasize human relations.
Hall’s assumptions were criticized by Hutchins, Holder and Pérez, who claimed
much of the work was “based on rather dated and oversimplified models of the role of
cultural and linguistic knowledge in thought” [21]. Scollon et al. suggested applying
the concepts of high- and low-context to situations rather than cultures, noting that
people depend on context for meaning more in some situations than in others [22].

3.2 Hymes’ Ethnography of Communication

Ethnography of communication (EOC) is a field linking linguistics and anthropology
that was established by the linguistic anthropologist Dell Hymes. Initially called
ethnography of speaking, Hymes broadened the scope to include nonvocal commu-
nication (e.g. whistling) and nonverbal communication (e.g. silence and gestures) [23].
EOC is a framework for analyzing naturally occurring interaction in the context in
which it emerges. A key principle is that culture and communication are inseparable.1
EOC concepts relevant to aviation include: speech acts, speech events and speech
situations; the SPEAKING framework; personal address and silence; communicative
competence; speech community and community of practice; and code switching.
Ethnography can provide insights not captured by other research methods, but it “is
resource intensive, requires considerable expertise, and may be subject to observer

1
Hall expressed a similar sentiment when he observed that “culture is communication and
communication is culture” [24].
 Intercultural Communication on the Flight Deck 81

variability” [25]. In aviation the resource requirements include access to flight decks,
which for security reasons has become increasingly difficult, while the expertise covers
fields such as piloting, human factors, anthropology, language and culture.

3.3 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

The social psychologist Geert Hofstede investigated differences in national culture in a
research program starting in the 1960s. Applying factor analysis to data from surveys
of 88,000 workers in over 70 countries, four cultural dimensions were identified: power
distance; individualism-collectivism; masculinity-femininity; and uncertainty avoid-
ance [26]. Later studies identified two more dimensions: long term versus short term
orientation; and indulgence-restraint [27]. With easy-to-comprehend scores for each
country on each dimension, seemingly validated by the huge amount of input data, this
research has been influential in many fields including aviation.
Hofstede’s main focus was on national cultural differences, but he also conducted a
study of organizational culture in Denmark and the Netherlands [28]. In addition,
Hofstede did preliminary work on plotting the positions of countries on graphs com-
bining pairs of cultural dimensions. This basic country cluster analysis was later
developed by other researchers such as Ronen and Shenkar and in the GLOBE (Global
Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) research project [29].
The limitations of Hofstede’s research have been widely documented outside
aviation [30–33]. Within aviation, his approach has been criticized on numerous
counts: the absence of data regarding intra-country variability in the dimensions; the
methodology used to determine the probes; the problem of translation effects in cross-
cultural surveys; and the fundamental issue of how survey responses relate to cockpit
operations [21]. Hofstede acknowledged that his studies did not capture variation
within national populations [34]. This is an important limitation when applying Hof-
stede’s data to airline interactions involving dyads, triads or small groups.

3.4 Trompenaars’ Cultural Dimensions

During the 1980s and 1990s the management consultant Fons Trompenaars conducted
surveys of companies operating in 50 countries. From this data he developed a cultural
framework with seven dimensions: universalism-particularism; individualism-
communitarianism; neutral-affective; specific-diffuse; achievement-ascription; sequen-
tial versus synchronic time; and inner- versus outer-directed [35]. Trompenaars’
research mainly focused on differences in national culture but also addressed, albeit in a
limited way, regional differences in national culture.
Trompenaars’ use of survey data to identify cultural differences is open to the
criticisms leveled at Hofstede. Guirdham observed that while each of Trompenaars’
dimensions is described as a continuum, in practice they are treated as dichotomies
[36]. Furthermore, the dimensions are not conceptually distinct, and Hofstede claimed
only two could be confirmed statistically [37]. There is also overlap with other
approaches: individualism-communitarianism is similar to Hofstede’s individualism-
collectivism; and specific-diffuse corresponds closely to Hall’s high- and low-context.
82 S. Cookson

3.5 Politeness and Face Negotiation Theories

Politeness theory was first formulated in 1978 by Penelope Brown and Stephen
Levinson and presented as a set of universal concepts. One of the central concepts is
face, defined as “the projected image of one’s self in a relational situation” [38]. Face
negotiation theory, developed by Stella Ting-Toomey, draws on multiple sources
including Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. A fundamental idea, linking this
theory to the work of Hall, Hofstede and Trompenaars, is that “people from
collectivistic/high-context cultures are noticeably different in the way they manage face
and conflict situations than people from individualistic/low-context cultures” [39].
Politeness theory has been criticized for the lack of attention given to nonverbal
communication, and for emphasizing threats to a listener’s face at the expense of
threats to a speaker’s face [40]. The main criticism, though, concerns the cross-cultural
validity of the theory, with scholars pointing out national, ethnic and gender differences
in politeness strategies [36]. As originally conceived, face negotiation theory, was
founded on the differing perceptions of people from individualistic and collectivistic
cultures. However, Ting-Toomey has acknowledged deficiencies in the concepts of
individualism and collectivism [41].

4 Studies of Intercultural Communication in Aviation

The following paragraphs review eight research projects that, at least in part, investi-
gated intercultural communication in aviation contexts. All the studies involved
national culture; four were related to professional culture; and two addressed organi-
zational culture. The first four studies included surveys drawing on Hofstede’s
framework. The others used a range of methodologies: mixed methods (surveys,
interviews and focus groups); ethnography; speech act coding; and scenario-based
analysis.

4.1 Airline Crew Attitudes in Multiple Countries

Using test items and methodology adapted from Hofstede, Robert Helmreich’s team at
the University of Texas conducted a series of surveys of the attitudes of airline crew.
Surveys of more than 15,000 airline pilots and cabin attendants in over 20 countries
were supplemented by observations and interviews [1]. Two instruments were used for
the surveys: the Cockpit Management Attitudes Questionnaire (CMAQ) and the Flight
Management Attitudes Questionnaire (FMAQ). The CMAQ included questions about
briefings, communication styles, decision-making, crew coordination, authority,
monitoring, fatigue and crew experience. This tool, having been “designed by Amer-
ican researchers and psychometrically refined for American pilots”, was not suitable for
detecting differences in national culture [42]. To remedy the deficiency, they developed
the FMAQ, which incorporated items from Hofstede’s Work Values Survey and the
CMAQ, as well as other questions designed to “capture Hofstede’s dimensions within
the aviation environment” [43].
 Intercultural Communication on the Flight Deck 83

This large-scale research project generated a range of findings. Using the FMAQ
survey data, the researchers were able to replicate two of Hofstede’s dimensions: power
distance and individualism-collectivism. They concluded that “national culture exerts
an influence on cockpit behavior over and above the professional culture of pilots”
[44]. This study was, however, based on a restricted set of responses: only airlines with
a dominant national culture were used and all participants were male pilots of the same
nationality as their airline. Another notable finding was that, for almost all countries
studied, the pilot scores were higher for power distance and individualism than the
country scores originally reported by Hofstede. In addition, hierarchical cluster anal-
yses were conducted to discover which countries formed clusters.
Although the main focus of the project was national culture, these studies also
provided some insight into organizational and professional cultures. Many researchers
have been influenced by this project, and the findings fed directly into airline crew
resource management (CRM) training programs in the 1990s [45].

4.2 Airline Pilot and Manager Attitudes in Taiwan

In the 1990s, using a modified version of the FMAQ instrument developed by
Helmreich (based in turn on Hofstede’s dimensions), Professor Hung-Sying Jing sur-
veyed approximately 1,000 pilots and managers at airlines in Taiwan, including a
significant number of foreign pilots. The results highlighted differences between Chi-
nese and foreign pilots in attitudes to interpersonal relations and authority. Believing
these differences could not be adequately explained by uni-dimensional concepts such
as power distance, Jing developed a framework to account for interpersonal relations
and authority in Chinese culture [46]. The framework included a “differentiated order
model” with four levels of intimacy: kin, acquaintance, fellow and alien.
Jing used the differentiated order model to analyze accidents such as the 1995 crash
of a TransAsia Airways ATR72 aircraft in Taiwan. Immediately before the crash, the
captain (pilot not flying) was talking to a cabin attendant in the cockpit, which dis-
rupted communications with ATC and distracted him from monitoring the aircraft’s
status. Jing suggested that the captain regarded the cabin attendant as an acquaintance
but considered the air traffic controller to be a stranger, adding that “Every Chinese
person would be inclined by instinct to attend to a friend first, not the stranger” [47].2
This research highlights the impact that cultural factors can have on flight deck
communications, and it echoes Hall’s description of the emphasis placed by poly-
chronic people on personal relations.

4.3 Pilot Attitudes at Airlines in Norway

In Norway Mjøs conducted a survey of pilots at three airlines and received 242 usable
responses [48]. The variables included cultural indices (based on Hofstede’s four
original dimensions), social climate, barriers to communication, and operational

2
The accident context was unusual: it occurred on New Year’s Eve; there were no passengers; and the
captain was junior to the first officer in terms of previous air force service.
84 S. Cookson

problems experienced in the previous year. This survey identified differences between
the airlines, with the pilots of one company, who were almost all from a military
background, being more experienced and scoring higher on power distance and mas-
culinity. The pilots of all three airlines had higher mean scores for individuality and
masculinity than the national scores reported by Hofstede, indicating that the cultural
dimensions for a professional group within a country may differ from the national
characteristics. This led Mjøs to caution against using national cultural dimension data
in studies that compare aviation safety records in different countries.

4.4 Pilot Decision-Making in a Large Multicultural Airline

Scott conducted a mixed methods study of the influence of national culture on pilot
decision-making on the flight deck [49]. The study took place at a large multicultural
airline in the Middle East and included individual interviews, focus group interviews
and a survey of pilot attitudes. A 40-item questionnaire was used for the survey,
covering decision-making, culture, language and behavior, with some questions drawn
from previous studies by Hofstede as well as Helmreich and Merritt. There were 613
usable responses and 66 countries were represented.
Some of the survey findings related to specific aspects of language use on the flight
deck. Approximately 60% of participants thought that communication problems occur
as a result of culture, with pronunciation cited as an example. Scott concluded that
communication was a “major factor on the flight deck, especially if pilots were from
different cultures” [50]. In addition, the interview data indicated that “pilots from non-
English speaking cultures often struggled with communications in an English-driven
aviation world” and suggested that “pilots from Asia, the Far East, parts of Europe and
South America sometimes did not have sufficient command of the English language”
[51]. Another interesting survey finding, echoing Dahlstrom and Heemstra, was that
more than 80% of participants said that pilot professional culture was for them a
stronger influence on the flight deck than national culture [52].

4.5 Cockpit Communications in Airlines in the Asia-Pacific Region

Hutchins, Nomura and Holder carried out an ethnographic study that investigated the
impact of culture on cockpit communication and interaction at three airlines in the
Asia-Pacific region [53]. The study included flight deck and simulator observations, as
well as interviews with airline personnel. An interesting aspect of this research is that it
identified specific differences in cockpit practice (e.g. how checklists and charts were
actually used) between airlines in different countries. However, since only a limited
number of airlines were involved, it is not clear to what extent the variation was due to
national culture as opposed to organizational culture. For instance, the Japanese pilots
in the study annotated their charts whereas the New Zealand pilots were not allowed to
do so, but it is possible that other New Zealand airlines permit chart annotation.
 Intercultural Communication on the Flight Deck 85

4.6 Communications Between Korean ATC and Foreign Pilots

Kim and Elder reported on a mixed methods research project that examined the con-
struct of radiotelephony communication in the Korean aviation context [54, 55]. Data
was collected using the following methods: observations of ATC centers; audio
recordings of radio communications between Korean ATC and foreign pilots; surveys
of Korean pilots and controllers; and interviews and focus groups with Korean pilots
and controllers. Data collection took place between 2007 and 2009, during the early
stages of the implementation of the ICAO language proficiency program.
Although not explicitly addressing national culture, this project has implications for
intercultural communication between pilots and controllers from different countries.
One clear finding was that participants did not accept that the limited English profi-
ciency of non-native speakers (NNSs) was a main contributing factor to accidents, but
instead believed it was “one of a complex array of factors contributing to problems in
radiotelephony communication” [56]. The authors noted communication problems
exhibited by both native English speakers (NESs) and NNSs. The problems of NESs
included: non-adherence to standard phraseology; excessive use of plain English; a
range of accents and expressions; and a fast rate of speech. The main problem with
NNSs was first language (L1) interference with accents, although some proficient
English speakers also tended to overuse plain English [57, 58].
Kim and Elder concluded that “communication in the aviation context is a complex
matter and that responsibilities for its success (or failure) are shared across participants,
regardless of their language background” [59]. To promote greater communicative
responsibility by both NESs and NNSs, they advocated the approach of English as a
lingua franca (ELF) and recommended specific communicative strategies such as
simplifying speech and avoiding redundant information.

4.7 The Use of Mitigated Speech by US Airline Crews

Linde drew on Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory to investigate the use of
mitigated speech in intra-cockpit communications [60]. A mitigated form of speech
was defined as “one which expresses a given propositional content in such a way as to
avoid giving offense” [61]. This was part of a larger study that used speech act coding
to analyze transcript data from accidents involving US airlines in the 1970s and 1980s
[62]. The main thrust of Linde’s research concerned how the use of mitigated speech
varied with social status (e.g. captain versus first officer) or operational context (e.g.
emergencies or other in-flight problems). She developed a scale for quantifying miti-
gation, which airline pilots and non-aviation analysts applied to transcripts.
Some findings related to national and professional cultures. Firstly, the results
suggested that regional dialects within the United States might be associated with
significant differences in the use of mitigated speech. In other words, there was
empirical evidence, albeit limited, for variation within a national culture. Secondly,
there were “systematic differences” in the “rhetorical conventions” of the pilots com-
pared with the analysts. Linde cited examples of indirect requests using “want”, such as
“You want me to fly it Bob?”, which were considered less mitigated by pilots than
analysts. Linde concluded that within the pilot professional culture this strategy had
86 S. Cookson

become conventionalized to the point that its social force was direct, while it was
interpreted as indirect and mitigated in the academic professional culture of the
analysts.3

4.8 Intra-cockpit Communication Strategies in the US and Europe

Fischer and Orasanu reported a series of four studies that investigated intra-cockpit
communication strategies used by pilots to mitigate errors made by other pilots [64].
Participants were given different flight scenarios, in which either the captain or first
officer had made an error, and were asked what request they would make to resolve the
problem. The studies examined whether the communications were affected by two
variables: the level of risk in the scenario and the level of face-threat involved in
resolving the error. One study investigated the influence of national culture on com-
munication strategies by comparing pilots from the USA and three European countries.
The findings indicated that, for both Americans and Europeans, the preferred
communication strategy of captains was to give a command, while first officers pre-
ferred hints. However, status differences between US captains and first officers were
more pronounced, with European captains more likely to give hints and European first
officers more likely to issue commands than their American counterparts. This finding
was contrary to the authors’ expectations and in contrast with previous research on
attitudes towards leadership. The authors suggested that the discrepancy was due to
differences in methodology between their scenario-based studies and earlier research
that used surveys to elicit pilot attitudes [65, 66].

5 Conclusion

Culture is a complex web of concepts, for which numerous definitions and perspectives
have been developed. Within aviation, the constructs of national, organizational and
professional culture have gained widespread acceptance. This paper outlines five
approaches in intercultural communication that have been used to investigate these
constructs in aviation contexts. The most influential has been Hofstede’s approach,
with standardized national scores for each dimension lending themselves to quantita-
tive research. There are, however, significant limitations to Hofstede’s framework. By
contrast, Hall’s concepts have not been widely applied, in part due to the lack of
measurement tools that would facilitate quantitative studies.
Eight sets of research are described that investigated aspects of intercultural
communication on the flight deck. Some apparently contradictory findings have been
reported. For instance, Helmreich’s FMAQ data indicated that national culture had a
stronger influence on flight deck behavior than pilot professional culture, whereas in
Scott’s study most participants said professional culture had more effect than national
culture. These findings underscore the importance of the research context: Helmreich’s

3
Linde noted that “the use of indirect speech acts for mitigation is extremely complex” and
emphasized the importance of understanding the communication context [63]
 Intercultural Communication on the Flight Deck 87

study (conducted in the 1990s) was in effect an investigation of monocultural airlines,

while Scott studied pilots at a multicultural airline (in 2010).
Bearing in mind the safety issues noted in the introduction, one clear area for future
research is a comparative study of the effects of culture on flight deck interactions in
monocultural versus multicultural airlines. Using multiple approaches to investigate
intercultural communication would provide different perspectives and allow the
building of a nuanced picture of the impact of culture on pilot communications in these
contexts. Due consideration should be given, though, to the limitations of each research
methodology, some of which have been noted in this review.

References
1. Helmreich, R.L., Merritt, A.C.: Culture at Work in Aviation and Medicine: National,
Organizational and Professional Influences. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham (1998)
2. Strauch, B.: Can cultural differences lead to accidents? Team cultural differences and
sociotechnical system operations. Hum. Factors 52(2), 246–263 (2010)
3. Chow, S., Yortsos, S., Meshkati, N.: Asiana Airlines Flight 214: investigating cockpit
automation and culture issues in aviation safety. Aviat. Psychol. Appl. Hum. Factors 4(2),
113–121 (2014)
4. Ragan, P.H.: Cross-cultural communication in aviation. In: Ahmad, K., Rogers, M. (eds.)
Evidence-Based LSP: Translation, Text and Terminology, pp. 119–141. Peter Lang, Bern
(2007)
5. Williams, R.: Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford University Press,
New York (1985). Original work published 1976, p. 87
6. Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C.: Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd edn, p. 13. Nicholas Brealey, London (1997)
7. Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Abridged edn, p. 21. Sage, Newbury Park (1982)
8. Pennycook, A.: The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, p. 61.
Longman, Harlow (1994)
9. Haviland, W.A., Prins, H.E.L., McBride, B., Walrath, D.: Cultural Anthropology: The
Human Challenge, 15th edn, p. 31. Cengage Learning, Boston (2016)
10. Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum, R.P.: Introduction to Sociology, 5th edn, p. 52.
W. W. Norton & Company Inc., New York (2005)
11. Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C.: Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd edn, p. 6. Nicholas Brealey, London (1997)
12. Usunier, J.-C.: International and Cross-Cultural Management Research, p. 16. Sage, London
(1998)
13. Adler, N.J., Gundersen, A.: International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 5th edn.
Thomson/South-Western, Mason (2008)
14. Federal Aviation Administration: The Interfaces between Flightcrews and Modern Flight
Deck Systems, p. 117. FAA, Washington, D.C. (1996)
15. Hofstede, G.: Business Cultures. UNESCO. Courier 47(4), 12–16 (1994)
16. Lewis, R.D.: When Cultures Collide: Managing Successfully across Cultures, New edn.
Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London (1999)
88 S. Cookson

17. Maznevski, M., Peterson, M.F.: Societal values, social interpretation, and multinational
teams. In: Grandrose, C.S., Oskamp, S. (eds.), Cross-Cultural Work Groups: Claremont
Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, pp. 61–89. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1997). p. 66
18. Hall, E.T.: The Silent Language. Anchor Books, New York (1990). Original work published
1959, p. 32
19. Hall, E.T.: Beyond Culture. Anchor Books, New York (1976)
20. Hall, E.T.: The Dance of Life. Anchor Books, New York (1983)
21. Hutchins E., Holder B.E., Pérez R.A.: Culture and Flight Deck Operations. Paper prepared
for Boeing by University of California San Diego, Research Agreement 22-5003 (2002)
22. Scollon, R., Scollon, S.W., Jones, R.H.: Intercultural Communication: A Discourse
Approach, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester (2012)
23. Hymes, D.H.: Models of the interaction of language and social life. In: Gumperz, J.J.,
Hymes, D. (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication,
pp. 35–71. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York (1972)
24. Hall, E.T.: The Silent Language. Anchor Books, New York (1990). Original work published
1959, p. 186
25. Strauch, B.: Can cultural differences lead to accidents? Team cultural differences and
sociotechnical system operations. Hum. Factors 52(2), 246–263 (2010), p. 259
26. Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Sage, Beverley Hills (1980)
27. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2010)
28. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D., Sanders, G.: Measuring organizational cultures: a
qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Adm. Sci. Q. 35(2), 286–316 (1990)
29. Hodgetts, R.M., Luthans, F., Doh, J.: International Management: Culture, Strategy and
Behavior, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2005)
30. McSweeney, B.: Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a
triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Hum. Relat. 55(1), 89–117 (2002)
31. Ailon, G.: Mirror, mirror on the wall: culture’s consequences in a value test of its own
design. Acad. Manage. Rev. 33(4), 885–904 (2008)
32. Aritz, J., Walker, R.C.: Cognitive organization and identity maintenance in multicultural
teams: a discourse analysis of decision-making meetings. J. Bus. Commun. 47(1), 20–41
(2010)
33. Nakata, C.: Beyond Hofstede: Culture Frameworks for Global Marketing and Management.
Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2009)
34. Hofstede, G.: The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. J. Int. Bus.
Stud. 14(2), 75–89 (1983)
35. Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C.: Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd edn, p. 13. Nicholas Brealey, London (1997)
36. Guirdham, M.: Communicating across Cultures at Work, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke (2005)
37. Hofstede, G.: Riding the waves of commerce: a test of Trompenaars’ “Model” of national
culture differences. Int. J. Intercultural Relat. 20(2), 189–198 (1996)
38. Ting-Toomey, S.: Face-negotiation theory. In: Griffin, E. (ed.) A First Look at Commu-
nication Theory, 8th edn., pp. 407– 420. McGraw-Hill, New York (2012). p. 407
39. Ting-Toomey, S.: Face-negotiation theory. In: Griffin, E. (ed.) A First Look at Commu-
nication Theory, 8th edn., pp. 407– 420. McGraw-Hill, New York (2012). p. 410
40. Goldsmith, D.: Politeness Theory. In: Littlejohn, S.W., Foss, K.A. (eds.) Encyclopedia of
Communication Theory, pp. 754–756. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2009)
 Intercultural Communication on the Flight Deck 89

41. Ting-Toomey, S.: Face-Negotiation Theory. In: Griffin, E. (ed.) A First Look at
Communication Theory, 8th edn, pp. 407–420. McGraw-Hill, New York (2012)
42. Merritt, A.C., Helmreich, R.L.: Human factors on the flight deck: the influence of national
culture. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 27(1), 5–24 (1996). p. 23
43. Merritt, A.C.: Culture in the Cockpit: Do Hofstede’s Dimensions Replicate? J. Cross Cult.
Psychol. 31(283–301), 285 (2000)
44. Merritt, A.C.: Culture in the Cockpit: Do Hofstede’s Dimensions Replicate? J. Cross Cult.
Psychol. 31(283–301), 283 (2000)
45. Maurino, D.E., Murray, P.S.: Crew Resource Management. In: Wise, J.A., Hopkin, V.D.,
Garland, D.J. (eds.) Handbook of Aviation Human Factors, 2nd edn., pp. 10-1–10-20. CRC
Press, Boca Raton (2010)
46. Jing, H.-S., Batteau, A.: The Dragon in the Cockpit: How Aviation Concepts Conflict with
Chinese Value Systems. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham (2015)
47. Jing, H.-S., Batteau, A.: The Dragon in the Cockpit: How Aviation Concepts Conflict with
Chinese Value Systems. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham (2015). p. 30
48. Mjøs, K.: Basic cultural elements affecting the team function on the flight deck. Int. J. Aviat.
Psychol. 14(2), 151–169 (2004)
49. Scott, S.: The Effects of Culture on Decision-Making in the Flight Deck Environment
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Automotive
Engineering, Coventry University, UK (2013)
50. Scott, S.: The Effects of Culture on Decision-Making in the Flight Deck Environment
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Automotive
Engineering, Coventry University, UK (2013). p. 261
51. Scott, S.: The Effects of Culture on Decision-Making in the Flight Deck Environment
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Automotive
Engineering, Coventry University, UK (2013). p. 262
52. Dahlstrom, N., Heemstra, L.R.: Beyond multi-culture: when increasing diversity dissolves
differences. In: Strohschneider, S., Heiman, R. (eds.) Kultur und Sicheres Handeln, pp. 79–
97. Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft, Frankfurt (2009)
53. Hutchins, E., Nomura, S., Holder, B.: The ecology of language practices in worldwide
airline flight deck operations: the case of Japanese airlines. In: International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics, Seattle, WA (2006)
54. Kim, H., Elder, C.: Interrogating the construct of aviation english: feedback from test takers
in Korea. Lang. Testing 32(2), 129–149 (2015)
55. Kim, H., Elder, C.: Understanding aviation English as a Lingua Franca: perceptions of
Korean aviation personnel. Aust. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 32(3), 23.1–23.17 (2009)
56. Kim, H., Elder, C.: Understanding aviation English as a Lingua Franca: perceptions of
Korean aviation personnel. Aust. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 32(3), 23.1–23.17 (2009). p. 23.2
57. Kim, H.: Exploring the construct of radiotelephony communication: a critique of the ICAO
English testing policy from the perspective of Korean aviation experts. Papers Lang. Test.
Assess. 2(2), 103–110 (2013)
58. Kim, H., Elder, C.: Understanding aviation English as a Lingua Franca: perceptions of
Korean aviation personnel. Aust. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 32(3), 23.1–23.17 (2009)
59. Kim, H., Elder, C.: Understanding aviation English as a Lingua Franca: perceptions of
Korean aviation personnel. Aust. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 32(3), 23.1–23.17 (2009). p. 23.14
60. Linde, C.: The quantitative study of communicational success: politeness and accidents in
aviation discourse. In: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of
America, Seattle, Washington, 27–30 December 1985 (1985)
90 S. Cookson

61. Linde, C.: The quantitative study of communicational success: politeness and accidents in
aviation discourse. In: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of
America, Seattle, Washington, 27–30 December 1985 (1985). p. 4
62. Goguen, J., Linde, C., Murphy, M.: Crew Communications as a Factor in Aviation
Accidents. NASA, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California (1986)
63. Linde, C.: The Quantitative Study of Communicational Success: Politeness and Accidents in
Aviation Discourse. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of
America, Seattle, Washington, 27–30 December 1985 (1985), p. 8
64. Fischer, U., Orasanu, J.: Cultural diversity and crew communication. In: Paper presented at
50th Astronautical Congress in Amsterdam, October (1999)
65. Fischer, U.: Cultural Variability in Crew Discourse. Final Report on Cooperative Agreement
No. NCC 2-933 (2000)
66. Merritt, A.C.: Culture in the cockpit: do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate? J. Cross Cult.
Psychol. 31, 283–301 (2000)