|
|
|
|
Perhaps one of the most documented theories in intercultural communication to date is anxiety-uncertainty management theory. I have placed this in the website, rather than the book, as it is well-documented in other introductions to theory. In this theory, William Gudykunst (1988, 1993, 1995) argues that the fundamental thing that leads to effective intercultural communication is the reduction uncertainty and anxiety. Building upon uncertainty reduction theory (see Chapter 7), Gudykunst, concluded that attributional confidence—one’s ability to predict or explain the other (the reverse of uncertainty)—was not enough to predict our behaviors in intercultural interactions. This cognitive aspect ignores the feelings of anxiety, that is, the apprehension and stress that often occur in intercultural interaction. Gudykunst proposes that as one grows more confident of attributions of others and has reduced anxiety, one will be better able to adapt to a new culture and will be more effective in intercultural communication. By effectiveness, Gudykunst refers to the likelihood that the message you send to another will be accurately received. If we are mindful in intercultural interactions, we will be more aware of our communication choices and of the other person in the interaction and better able to create new categories for thought and behavior. Gudykunst (1988) borrowed elements from URT research (liking, perceived similarity, shared communication networks, self-monitoring) and from intercultural literature (ethnolinguistic vitality, positive expectations, second-language competence, tolerance for ambiguity) to predict our attributional confidence and anxiety in an interaction. His research led him to find new variables that predict our uncertainty and anxiety in communication, first (1993) breaking the variables into areas of knowledge, motivation and skills, and later (1995) including several variables each in areas of self and self-concept, motivation to interact with strangers, reactions to strangers, social categorization of self and strangers, situational processes, and connections with strangers. [For a brief and very clear summary of the current state of the theory, see Gudykunst, 2002, pp. 185-186]. Each of these categories contains several variables. For example, variables regarding reactions to strangers include the rigidity of one’s attitudes and one’s ability to tolerate ambiguity, empathize with strangers, and adapt behavior to strangers. His 1995 version of the theory includes 47 separate predictions and then demonstrates how Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural variability leads to differences in each prediction between cultures, for a total of 94 axioms, with many more possibility (for example, only one of the four dimensions is used to modify each of the first 47 axioms). These variables are what Gudykunst calls “superficial causes.” These influence one’s ability to manage uncertainty and anxiety (the “basic causes”). These, finally, influence one’s communication effectiveness (2002) and adaptation (1988). Importantly, Gudykunst feels that ultimately, one’s ability to manage uncertainty and anxiety are the only variables that directly influence effectiveness. The other variables are important only as they influence these two factors. Over time, perhaps in response to critiques of his theory (Baldwin, 1994; Sunnafrank, 1990; Witte, 1993), Gudykunst has modified the theory. First, he suggests that managing uncertainty and anxiety may be more important than these traits, themselves. Some of you who read this chapter will be better able to find ways to reduce your anxiety or uncertainty than others. Second, he distinguishes between attributional confidence and attributional accuracy. While the first discusses one’s ability to make predictions or explanations about the other, it does not ask whether these are accurate. One could have stereotypical attributions that are quite mistaken. Finally, Gudykunst suggests there are thresholds of uncertainty and anxiety. If you have no uncertainty or anxiety about an interaction, you will be bored and may not pursue the interaction. If either is too high, you may “stress out” and leave the interaction. You want uncertainty and anxiety to be at a minimum level, but not so high as to make you feel uncomfortable. References
|