147 KNUTSON Thai Cultural Values: Smiles and Sawasdee as Implications for Intercultural Communication Effectiveness Thomas J. Knutson Abstract The Kingdom of Thailand provides a unique set of cultural values with which to facilitate effective intercultural communication. The highest Thaicultural values are associated with Social harmony, a condition antecedent to intercultural communication competence. Thais place great emphasis on communication behaviors designed to establish, enhance, and preserve compatibility and congeniality among all people in the Kingdom, including foreigners. This paper presents an ethnographic report of a series of Thai’ communication episodes, analyzes them metaphorically, and summarizes the results of Programmatic social scientific research Kvectigating Thai culture and communication patterns. An apparent connection between Thai cultural values and the theory of rhetorical Sensitivity suggests instructional strategies for implementing intercultural communication effective- ness. My introduction to Thailand was as a tourist over fifteen years ago. While my initial visit lasted only ten days, it was an extraordinary learning experience, which rated a continuing fascination with the Kingdom's culture and people. The i emphasis on social harmony as a paramount value profoundly influenced my behavior and the enormous celebration ofjoy or sanukin all things has always been remembered. Since my first visit, | have returned to Thailand twenty times as a visiting professor at several Thai universities. Without exception, these adventures have created an abiding appreciation of the unique Thai ability to establish friendship and civility. It has been a great honor to meet so many Thai people from all walks of life and an even greater honor to have made so many Thai friends, My attraction to Thailand was inspired by my observations of the kind, quiet and considerate behaviors displayed by Thai people in the conduct of their cay interpersonal relationships. | had never witnessed such civility and tact on such a regular basis, and these observations created a desire to understand and learn more about Thai culture. Trained as a behavioral scientist in the United Sisteeiinny initial inquiries proved both frustrating and confusing. Looking for cause effect, trying to isolate objectively the characteristics of Thai culture, and attempting to quantify my observations proved bewildering. The Thai people | met were all eager to assist, but their kindness was coupled with amazement that someone would try to understand the obvious. I eventually proclaimed my fear of never understanding Thai culture to one of my intelligent and charming Thai graduate students. She smiled and responded, “Oh, you are so different from us. You should enjoy the moment and savor the good. laybe you think too much.” | smiled in response, but inside | was furious that such a good student would make such an anti-intellectual comment. | resolved to carry on with my investigations sure in the knowledge that scientific methods would een at least some insight and understanding. Then | rediscovered Oliver's (1971) famous Thomas J. Knutson (Ph.D., University of Indiana, 1: '970) is a Professor of Communication Studies at California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819-6070.148 Journal of intercultural Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004 comment about the futility of using Western measurement techniques to describe and understand Asian communication patterns: “It would resemble trying to measure the salinity of water with a ruler” (p. 3). | realized that an exclusive reliance on my Western taping and procedures would be insufficient to enable even the most cursory comprehension of Thai culture. This paper, therefore, relates a series of selective vignettes describing Thai interpersonal communication episodes. These incidents are then interpreted in light of Thai cultural values through the use of metaphoric analysis. Finally, the paper summarizes social scientific research on Thai communication behaviors and concludes with suggestions for future research. In other words, the paper reports a combination of ethnographic and scientific examination in recognition of the distinction between Thai and U.S. American epistemology. Selected Thai Communication Vignettes The following select vignettes provide grist for the cognitive mill in the attempt to understand and grasp the unique operations of Thai culture and interpersonal behavior. They represent only a few of the many lovely experiences I've been privileged to have with Thai people and, while certainly not intended as an exhaustive explanation, they are nonetheless representative of my life in Thailand . These vignettes also form a foundation for the subsequent meta- phoric and social scientific analyses intended to reveal more specifically the manner in which the unique Thai communication behaviors can benefit instruction in intercultural communication effectiveness. This combination of ethnographic and social scientific ee, appears to be an appropriate means to cope with the profound distinctions between Thai and U.S. American cultural preferences. ‘On my first trip to Bangkok University, a lovely campus located on Rama \V near Klong Toey, | conducted my first doctoral seminar, a night class meeting from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. At the time, | was eng, on the campus, of Assumption University, another beautiful campus in Ramkt amhaeng, ut an hour away from Bangkok University. When the class ended, | left the building ‘only to encounter one of Bangkok's monsoon storms. The rain was intense and | was ° unable to locate a taxi for the ride back to Assumption University. | was also minus an umbrella, a necessary implement for the season. As | searched the streets futilely for transportation, my clothing was thoroughly drenched. Suddenly, a young Thai undergraduate student (identifiable by his Bangkok University uniform) approached me, smiled, and asked where | wanted to go. When | informed him that | needed to return to Assumption University, he explained that | was on the wong side of the street. He conducted me across the busy Rama |V thoroughfare and installed me under an awning while he searched for a taxi. He rushed back and forth through the traffic with no luck. After about ten minutes, he returned to me soaking wet, with a hot coffee. He told me to drink the coffee and stay warm while he continued to search for a taxi. | was amazed at his kindness and the sincere display of assistance to a confused foreigner. At last a taxi stopped in front of my shelter under the awning. The student, now completely wet with his drenched hair falling over his forehead, emerged from the back seat with a triumphant smile. He said, "The driver will take you to Assumption University, adjarn (a Thai honorific displaying respect to an older person ink you for allowing me to assist you." | got into the taxi and the driver pulled away, leaving the drenched student behind, smiling and waving gleefully. | never got the student's name, but vowed to look for him on the149 KNUTSON Bangkok University campus. | never found him. When I've told this story to other Thais, they smile knowingly, and say it's enough to return his favor by helping others whenever you have the opportunity. Another vignette displays the unique Thai willingness to establish harmony and understanding. Several years ago, | left the United States for an extended posting in Thailand after bidding farewell to Paul, my close friend seriously ill with AIDS. We maintained contact through faxes and letters since the Thai computer systems were not yet fully developed. Paul's messages ceased suddenly and another of our friends wrote to me and informed me of Paul's death. A few days passed following the news of Paul's Passing and I was about to take a taxi to downtown Bangkok, a formidable trip given Bangkok's legendary traffic problems. Before leaving campus, | asked the driver to ‘Stop at my office so that I could collect my mail to read on the long trip downtown. I returned to the taxi, my mail in hand, and the driver proceeded on the journey. As | inspected the large bundle of mail, | discovered a letter from Paul, written a few days before he died. My fingers trembled as | opened the envelope and read Paul's words, his last to me. His poignant message moved me deeply and the tears came to my eyes. We were stopped at a red light when suddenly the taxi driver, a man | had never met, reached over the seat to hand me a Paper tissue. He smiled and said, "I know you have the trouble. | was homesick too when | was in Saudi Arabia. You will be okay soon." The driver could not possibly have known the contents of Paul's letter, but he did notice my emotional reaction in the reflection of the rear view mirror. The driver was obviously inspired to reduce my sadness and reinforce some degree of pleasantness through his beautiful display of empathy. His gesture touched me in ways science cannot explain. Another anecdote gives further insight into the Thai sensitivity for receivers in their conversations. A group of us traveled South of Bangkok to Pattaya, a resort town on the banks of the Gulf of Thailand. Our roup consisted of about five farang (the Thai word for Caucasian foreigner) and a similar number of Thai people. We established ourselves at a table on the patio of a lovely restaurant in the late afternoon to watch the sunset. We drank several Kloster beers, a brand named after a German brew, but made in Thailand. As the gorgeous sunset enveloped the patio, we ordered another round of beer. The Thai waiter appeared, a tray on his shoulder hep ten ice cold Kloster beers. The waiter Etpped and fell. The beers cascaded off the tray and smashed onto the rock patio floor with a great crash. The waiter was on his knees in the middle of the beer and broken bottles when he looked up and said with a huge smile, "Oh, so sorry. No more Kloster. You like Sing (Singha is the most popular beer sold in Thailand)?" The waiter was more concerned about our thirst and enjoyment than he was about the relatively minor predicament of breaking the last ten bottles of Kloster beer. His receiver orientation was happily acknowledged as we continued to drink Singha until the wee hours much to the obvious enjoyment of the waiter. He was there to bid us farewell as we left the patio and thanked fi profusely for his hospitality. Needless to say, there was a handsome gratuity left on the table for him, something that would have been too direct to hand him personally. When in Thailand, | cwayante my partner's family in their home located near Srikhorapum, close to the bodian border. Phan, my partner, studies in the United States and has been unable to visit his family for over seven years due to visa complications. Phan's family are rice farmers and live in circumstances most Americans would describe as primitive, although the love and kindness they display is far beyond what most people have witnessed. Theisd Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004 trip to Sriknorapum, requires a lengthy train ride of about eight hours, followed by a long bus ride. Last summer, my close friend Somsak, a Commander in the Royal Thai Navy, offered to accompany me as a guide and translator. We arrived unannounced in the village and were greeted with enthusiastic smiles and conversation. Phan's family prepared a feast and we talked about so many topics, most of which involved Phan and life in the States. We sat on the floor and ate sticky rice, fish, and vegetables all served in the Issan style with hot spices. Gifts and photographs were exchanged and the unique Thai hospitality was evident in everything we did. Upon departure, Phan's mother and sister took my hands in theirs and told me how happy they were that | accepted them and their meager way of life. | reacted with astonishment and told them it was | who was privileged to be accepted by them, a foreigner so far from home. Phan's Mom produced a large bag of rice, gave it to me, and said that it would sustain me on the long trip back to Bangkok. The bag of rice was large enough to feed the family for at least a month. We climbed on the old bus and drove down the dusty dirt road. | watched out the back windowas the entire village, led by Phan's family, waved until we could no longer see them, our eyes moist with tears, but our faces smiling displaying the bittersweet emotions of joy at the visit and sorrow at the departure. We took the night train back to Bangkok and arrived at Haulongporm, the main train station, at five o'clock in the morning. Somsak and | were exhausted from the journey and decided to take a taxi to the Skytrain, Bangkok's new and incredibly efficient urban transportation system. We arrived at the Siam Square station at 5:30 a.m., the heat in Bangkok already oppressive and the humidity equally dreadful. As we climbed up the long staircase to the platform, it felt as if we were walking through Jello. At the top of the stairs, we discovered a gate barred our entrance. We were confused, tired, and dismayed at this predicament when a uniformed security guard rushed over to us and exclaimed, "Oh, so sorry for you. Train not open. Six o'clock train come. Please, come here and sit down. Go to sleep and | wake you when train come." As he led us toa small bench, | was quite mentally dwarfed by the guard's kindness and concer for our welfare. In the States, someone undoubtedly would have pointed to a sign and questioned our ability to read. Metaphoric Analysis The metaphor, often used in rhetorical and communication studies, emerged as an initial tool to guide investigation into Thai culture and language behavior. A metaphor, as Foss (1989) explained, “. . . consists of a {uxtapos ition of two terms normally regarded as belonging to different classes of experience” (p. 360). Metaphors, with their designation of comparable attributes, provided ameans of investigation comparable with the Thai view of relationships. St. Clair (2001) observed, “Metaphors not only pervade language, they also provide cognitive topologies that dissect how one views the world” (p. 145). The persuasive impact of metaphors (Sopory & Dillard, 2002) can be seen as a method of creating culturally specific means of worldview, a view supported by the nature of the relationship between language and reality. Ellery (2001) observed that metaphors explain “.. . a great deal about how the world is perceived by a culture""(p. 35). Metaphors contain assumptions and evaluations about reality in ways that prescribe appropriate behavior among members of a culture sharing the language.151 KNUTSON Amara Pongsapich (1998) invited several Thai scholars to comment on the Thai worldview in a way reflecting the “. . . cognition and perception of Thai and not Western people” (p. 11). This emic approach provided considerable insight into the manner in which Thais create their social and cultural reality. Although the various writers presented different topics and methods, the most frequent conclusion held that the Thai worldview is firmly anchored in the harmony and smoothness of interpersonal relations. Thailand's cultural hierarchy identifies the respective positions of Thai people and influences the s and forms of appropriate harmonious behavior. This harmony extends to the academic pursuit of knowledge. Hongladarom (2002) observed that Thai academicians, ".. . seek truth only to the extent that it does not disrupt social continuity or hierarchy” (p. 85). The role of knowledge in Thai culture operates to maintain social hierarchy and reinforce social status, conditions that"... are put on a higher level than truth, and trump truth in the case of conflicts" (Hongladarom, p. 87). The consequences of disrupting social harmony are described as". . . tantamount to character suicide" (Hongladarom, p. 85). The role of politeness, essential to Thai culture, requires people to behave in ways others find appealing and to avoid bothering or imposing on others. For example, in arecent study of Thai computer-mediated ‘communication, Hongladarom and Hongladarom (2003) reported a strong adherence to the politeness principle as evidenced by the Thai participants’ comments that, ".. . attempt to avoid confrontations and make the addressee feel that he or she is part of the community" (p. 14). The emphasis on social harmony and the strong consideration of the needs and interests of the receiver in social interaction gives Thai culture its distinctive quality of politeness and friendliness. The phrase “Land of Smile" is often used to promote Thai social harmony and the use of “heart” or jaiis the most frequent metaphor in the Thai language. In order to comprehend and appreciate Thai culture and worldview, an understanding of the heart or jai metaphor is imperative. Indeed, Moore (1992) wrote an entire book devoted to listing and explaining over 4,000 Thai phrases alluding to jai or the heart. Unlike the Western dichotomy of heart and mind, however, the Thai language makes no such distinction. As Moore (1992) noticed, “In Thailand, the consequences of the post-Enlightenment tradition did not split mind and heart into separate orbits of perception” (p. 15). The Thai language uses jai to refer to both heart and mind. Given the socio-emotional emphasis of the Thai on social harmony, the metaphor of the heart takes on great importance to an understanding of the Thai worldview, the heart and the mind are one. Nisbett (2003) recently clarified matters when he acknowledged, *... that two utterly different approaches to the world have maintained themselves for thousands of years” (p. xx). Thais and U.S. Americans indeed have clearly distinct ways of perceiving and adapting to the world around them. The Aristotelian influence pervades Western scholarship and a combination of Buddhism and Confucianism reflects the Thai notion of wisdom and learning. As a result, one would expect to find differences in what is considered important and, indeed, measurable and predictable. As Nisbett (2003) put it so aptly, the East and the West differ in “Habits of organizing the world, with Westerners preferring categories and Easterners being more likely to emphasize relations! ips” (p. 45). This observation reinforces the notion that Thais are much more interested in satisfying interpersonal relationships than they are in taking apart various social phenomena to ‘determine the ingredients, thus destroying the essence of the relationship. Hence, the meaning of jai as both heart and mind152 Journal of intercultural Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004 makes a great deal of sense from the Thai perspective. The Thai “both/and” approach stands in stark contrast to the Western “either/or” dialectic. Social Scientific Analyses My initial examination of the differences between Thai and U.S. American cultural values was based on my reading and experience in Thailand. In a work published in ABAC Journal, Assumption University’s quarterly academic review (Knutson, 1994), | found, perhaps not surprisingly, that the most profound differences between Thai and U.S. American culture involved the values associated with interpersonal relationships. Thais preferred an emphasis on social harmony in their daily activities, while U.S. Americans embraced a direct and assertive individualism. When faced with problems, U.S. Americans consider the facts and convey evidence to support their solution without much consideration for environmental concerns or social relationships. Perhaps this tendency can be attributable to the implications stemming from the U.S. American distinction between heart and mind. Facts are facts and this empirical information pervades discussion among U.S. Americans. - In contrast, Thais stress the preservation of the relationship and the other's self respect in all social intercourse, a condition clearly recognizable in the frequent use of the heart or jai metaphor in the Thai language. The Thai heart expression jai yen refers to the ability to remain calm in difficult situations and is the “... core cognition behind the behavioral pattern of the everyday life social interactions of the Thai” (Komin, 1991, p. 148). Another Thai heart expression, jai dii, alludes to a state of goodness and performing tasks for others before a request is made. Yet another Thai heart phrase, mii kae jai, describes giving help to friends and is the opposite of egotistical selfishness. A good friend is called phuen ruam jai, translated simply to English as “good friend heart,” while maan hua jai or “devil heart,” labels someone who destroys love and friendship. Social harmony) is valued by the Thais and the expression of conflict is discouraged. This relationship orientation is best described by the Thai heart phrase kreng jai, referring to the desire to be “... self-effacing, respectful, and extremely considerate as well as the wish to avoid embarrassing others or intruding or imposing upon them” (Fieg, 1989, p. 43). Perhaps the most difficult Thai value for non-Thais to understand (Roongrengsuke & Chansuthus, 1998), kreng jai signifies the Thai desire to avoid at all costs creating discomfort or annoyance for other people. The initial research to understand the Thai worldview raised more questions than answers, but it definitely reinforced the profound differences between Thai and U.S. American culture. Thai and U.S. American cultural values are maximally different, but different in a way that can be partially understood and learned. | concluded optimistically, “An understanding of the variations between the two cultures can reduce ethnocentrism and develop the empathy needed for people of both countries to engage in substantial and meaningful intercultural communication” (Knutson, 1994, p. 26). : The next study focused on the role of communication apprehension as it operates in Thailand and the identification of cultural norms influencing the development of Thai communication behavior (Knutson, Hwang, & Vivatananukul, 1995). This social scientific investigation found, among other things, the following developmental characteristics of Thai communication aviors:153 KNUTSON Thais are less likely than U.S. American youngsters to ich 5 te fer ey eon 2 Participate in ai parents discourage children's verbal communication more American parents; hhanus, Thai youngsters are quiet in the presence of older people; Thai young people seldom disagree with older people; Thai teachers seldom encourage students to express their Opinions in class; In Thailand, “quiet” is considered a virtue. While these findings regarding cultural norms for communication are reasonably sound, the results with respect to communication apprehension were viewed with suspicion. The Thai sample displayed significantly more commun- ication apprehension than the U.S. American sample, but this result obtained largely due to ethnocentric measurement artifact and cultural misunderstanding. There was a naive assumption that the relative silence of Thai people and their parsimonious use of words to express themselves could be ascribed to apprehension. Moreover, the term “apprehension” was probably misunderstood by the Thai participants in the study due to a lack of contextual cues presented, e instrument used to measure communication apprehension, PRCA-24 (McCroskey, 1982), focuses exclusively on sender communication, while the Thai, with their emphasis on social harmony, emphasize a more receiver interpersonal orientation. Furthermore, silence, a condition most often associated with communication apprehension in the West, is considered a sign of respect in Thailand (Smutkupt & Barna, 1976). Thus, although the cultural norms associated with the development of Thai communication behavior are probably accurate, the communication apprehension construct failed to apply in Thailand. As a consequence of the Knutson, et al. (1995) study, conceptual adjustments were made and a different approach was employed to assess Thai communication behavior. The eee to Communicate (WTC) construct, a measurement of an individual's predisposition to communicate more or less in a variety of situations, was employed (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). The WTC seemed more complementary to Thai cultural values since it measures both context and receiver elements. As hypothesized, the Thai respondents displayed ponies willingness to communicate than the U.S. American sample. Given the Thai emphasis on social harmony and the avoidance of conflict, this result was not unexpected. The results of this study pointed to a poterrianty valuable characteristic of intercultural communication competence. ie relative reluctance to engage in communication can be attributed to a cautious concern for receivers in interpersonal communication episodes. The Thai penchant for pleasant and harmonious interaction produces less willingness to initiate conversations, perhaps interpreted as a useful antecedent condition to effective intercultural communication encounters. Sriussadaporn- Charoenngam & Jablin (1999) found that Thais characterize successful communicators as knowing“. . . howto communicate so as to avoid conflict with others, display respect, control their emotions, tactfulness, modesty and politeness, and know the appropriate Pronouns to use in addressing others” (p. 409). The profound receiver orientation of Thais, more than any other single factor, probably influences them to a slow development of the confidence necessary to initiate messages appropriately. The finding of a relatively low Thai willingness to communicate influenced Knutson, et al. (2002) to conclude, “A sincere desire to relate to receivers, coupled with a genuine reluctance to avoid154 Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004 interpersonal harm could probably contribute substantially to more effective interpersonal and intercultural communication” (p. 11). The relative unwillingness of Thais to communicate was demonstrated most poignantly subsequent to the publication of the WTC study. My dear Thai friend, Somsak, the Commander in the Royal Thai Navy mentioned earlier as my companion on the trip to Srikhorapum, came to Sacramento to visit Phan and me. We took him on the obligatory tours of Northern California, showing him the various sights and attractions. In the mountains near Sacramento, it began to snow, a furious blizzard. We were stopped on Echo Summit at an overlook when a van containing several Thai tourists entered the parking lot. Upon hearing the Thai language, | remarked to Somsak and Phan that the snow brought luck and that they could converse with the Thai tourists in their native language. | was quite surprised at their reaction, a swift and rather abrupt refusal to approach their fellow countrymen. Somsak allowed as how it would be appropriate for me to talk with the Thai tourists, but he and Phan would not initiate a conversation. Both Somsak and Phan recognized my surprise and confusion at their behavior. We spent the next hour driving down the mountain engaged in intense conversation about the event. | proclaimed that U.S. Americans typically strike up conversations wherever they meet in the world. it struck me as peculiar that a similar condition failed to present among Thais meeting in a foreign land. Somsak and Phan explained that, although they all were Thai, this condition was insufficient to inspire a conversation. Since Somsak and Phan did not know the occupants of the van, they were unable to use the proper pronouns in Thai and, consequently, decided against a conversation that may have produced embarrassment or loss of face. Their reluctance to introduce themselves was not based on apprehension or shyness, but upon a strong commitment to social harmony and an equally strong affirmation of Thai kre! jai, an unwillingness to disturb others. Their explanation convinced me of the profound cultural differences obtaining between Thai and U.S. American values. The episode on Echo Summit motivated considerable introspection and curiosity, conditions that led me to associate Somsak and Phan’s behavior with thetorical sensitivity, a construct created by Hart and Burks 1972). Rhetorically sensitive people combine concern for self with concem for others ina situational perspective. The theory of rhetorical sensitivity focuses on message trans- mission, a central concern of communication scholars, and places considerable importance on adapting messages to a receiver orientation. Hart and Burks (1972) argued that rhetorical sensitivity affords an opportunity to“. . . facilitate human understanding and to effect social cohesion” (p. 75). The message flexibility required to display rhetorical sensitivity May contribute to an avoidance of the misattributions frequently ending in conflict during intercultural communi- cation episodes (Ting-Toomey, 1998). Hart, Carlson, and Eadie (1980) sug- gested that variations in message flexibility could be seen as“. . . a function of Specific . . . cultural forces impinging upon people” (p, 19). Our earlier work (Knutson, et al., 1995), indicated strongly the potential value of using the theory of rhetorical sensitivity to study and identify the cultural norms influencing intercultural communication competence. These observations inspired a cross-cultural study comparing Thai and U.S. American rhetorical sensitivity (Knutson, Komolsevin, Chatiketu, & Smith, 2003). Since the Thai cultural value of social harmony is consistent with meaningful aspects of rhetorical sensitivity, we felt that Thais would display significantly greater rhetorical sensitivity than U.S. Americans. Contrary to this notion, however, U.S. Americans exhibited higher rhetorical sensitivity than thei) KNUTSON Thais. The difficulties associated with the valid and reliable measurement of thetorical sensitivity had been noted before (Daly, Vangelisti, & Daughton, 1987; Dowling & Bliss, 1984; Martin & Rubin, 1993) and our study also suffered from confounding measurement. The items employed to measure rhetorical sensitivity were incompatible with Thai cultural values and pointed to necessa adjustments in order to measure the concept in a Thai setting. Even with the measurement problems, however, the results were not without heuristic vaiue. The Thai participants may use a form of rhetorical reflection in the initial stages of a relationship upon which to build the subsequent rhetorical sensitivity necessary for effective intercultural communication. We concluded, “Thai people may display rhetorical sensitivity if a psychological commitment [between and among the conversational participants] develops over time” (p. 75). Even with the measurement problems and methodological issues presented in this study, however, the theory of rhetorical sensitivity remains a robust tool for use in the continuation of efforts to identify those Thai characteristics producing capable and competent intercultural communication. Thai cultural values present characteristics extraordinarily compatible with the flexibility required by thetorically sensitive people, and rhetorically sensitive people display the characteristics necessary for effective intercultural communication. As a consequence of the Knutson, et al. (2003) study, the measurement of rhetorical sensitivity was refined to assess accurately the operation of the theory in Thailand. Knutson, Komolsevin, Kaweewong, and Smith (2002) verified the previously reported dimensions of rhetorical sensitivity and presented a new instrument, THAIRHETSEN, for use in Thailand. The new measurement includes many of the Thai jai metaphors in the recognition of the connection between language and culture. For example, a Thai maxim, jai khao jai rao (their heart, our heart), roughly equivalent to the Golden Rule, is used as one of the items to measure rhetorical sensitivity. Thais value collaboration (both/and) as a display of rhetorical sensitivity (your benefits and my benefits) rather than the either/or dialectic (your benefits or my benefits) characteristic of the West. Research employing THAIRHETSEN is currently underway to determine the Thai charac- teristics of rhetorical sensitivity. Rather than measuring the initial Thai rhetorical predisposition, this research focuses on the development of the concept across time. Since Knutson et al. (2003) demonstrated the isomorphic relationship between rhetorical sensitivity and communication competence, it is hoped that the improved measurement precision of THAIRHETSEN will yield identification of those precise rhetorically sensitive behaviors that produce intercultural communication competence and effectiveness. Once these behaviors are known, they can be incorporated into lessons inculcating appropriate, effective, and successful intercultural communication. Conclusion Although the social scientific studies to learn more about Thai culture are currently incomplete, the previous findings give some cause for optimism in the quest to identify communication behaviors leading to intercultural understanding and effectiveness. The combined ethnographic and social scientific approaches afford procedures likely to surmount the cultural differences. Additionally, the cooperation of Thai and U.S. American researchers can also contribute to a mutual understanding of the variables necessary to understand and appreciate the differences, differences that are not dangerous, and differences that may eventually result in effective intercultural communication. The hope is high, the156 Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004 work continues, and perhaps one day soon, we can offer more specific advice on how to accomplish the important task of intercultural consideration and cooperation. References Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A .L., & Daughton, S.M. (1987). The nature and correlates of conversational sensitivity. Human Communication Research, 14, Dowling, S., & Bliss, LS. (1984). Cognitive complexity, rhetorical sensitivity: Contributing factors in clinical skill. Journal of Communication Disorders, 17, 9-17. Foss, S. K. Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (2 ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Ellery, C. (2001). Elastic language: Form stretches toward meaning. Intercultural Communication Studies, 10, 33-46. Hart, R. P., & Burks, D. M. (1972). Rhetorical sensitivity and social interaction. Speech Monographs, 39, 75-91. Hart, R. P., Carlson, R.E., & Eadie, W. F. (1980). Attitudes toward communication and the assessment of rhetorical sensitivity. Communication Monographs, 47, 1-22. Hongladarom, S. (2002). Cross-cultural epistemic practices. Social Epistemology, 16, 83-92. Hongladarom, K., & Hongladarom, S. (2003). Political ideology in Thai computer-mediated communication. Retrieved October 1, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://pioneer. netsery chula.ac.th/-hsomiWeb/politeness. pdf Knutson, T. J. (1994). Comparison of Thai and U.S. American cultural “Mai pen rai” versus “just do it." ABAC Journal, 14, 1-38. Knutson, T. J., Hwang, J. C., & Vivatananukul, M. (1995). A comparison of communication apprehension between Thai and USA student samples: Identification of different cultural norms governing interpersonal communication behaviors. Journal of the National Research Council of Thailand, 27, 21-46. Knutson, T. J., Komolsevin, R., Chatiketu, P., & Smith, V. R. (2002). A comparison of Thai and U.S. American willingness to communicate. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31, 3-12. Knutson, T. J., Komolsevin, R., Chatiketu, P., & Smith, V.R. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of Thai and US American rhetorical sensitivity: Implications for intercultural communication effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 63-78. Knutson, T. J., Komolsevin, R., Kaweewong, B., & Smith, V. R. (2002, July). Development of an Instrument to Measure Thai Rhetorical Sensitivity. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Seoul, Korea. Komin, S. (1991). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioral values: pattems, Bangk jational Institute of Development Administration, Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1993). Development of a communication flexibility measure. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 171-178, McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4" ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. . McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.151 KNUTSON Moore, C. G. (1992). Heart talk: Say what you feel in Thai (2 ed.) Bangkok: Heaven Lake Press. “ Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient india and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think Gifferently . . and why. New York: The Free Press. Pongsapich, A. (Ed.). (1998). Traditional and changing That world view, Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. Roongrengsuke, S., & Chansuthus, D. (1998). Conflict management in Thailand. In K. Leung & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia Pacific. Singapore: John Wiley. Smutkupt, S., & Barna, L. (1976). Impact of non-verbal communication in an intercultural setting: Thailand. In F. Casmir (Ed.), International and intercultural communication annual. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association. Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 382-419. Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam, N., & Jablin, J. F. (1999). An exploratory study of communication competence in Thai organizations. The Journal of Business Communication, 36, 382-418. St. Clair, R. N. (2001). Figurative language, frame analysis and concept formation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 10, 141-154. Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). intercultural conflict competence. In J. K. Marting, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Received: February 27, 2004 Accepted: June 3, 2004