Running head: CULTURAL BARRIERS THAT CHALLENGE COMMUNICATION

Understanding Cultural Barriers that Challenge

Effective Communication
Samantha E. Schultz
Northern Michigan University

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 2

Abstract
This research paper will concentrate primarily on the subject of intercultural communication with
references to cross-cultural communication in an effort to identify and explain the specific causes
of cultural barriers that challenge effective intercultural communication. In particular, I will
distinguish the fields of intercultural and cross-cultural communication, analyze and discuss the
three dimensional causes of cultural barriers and, encourage awareness and comprehension of the
necessary components for effective intercultural communication. The coming paragraphs will
incorporate cultural research from both fields to examine the degrees of significance within the
cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions, followed by an overview of intercultural
competencies to apply when integrating communications across cultures. The purpose of this
paper is to pinpoint how attaining intercultural communication competence (IC Competence) is
characterized via the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. As the world continues to
magnify so effortlessly in numbers, it becomes increasingly vital to comprehend the importance
of cross-cultural preparation in order to ensure intercultural communication effectiveness in
various contexts and expectations.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 3

The most powerful tool used by humans to transform the planet is, unquestionably, the
instrument of communication. Communication has empowered the creation of countless unique
world cultures, and as we move further into the 21st century, globalization reveals the need to
continuously integrate communications across cultures. Yet, the conceptualization of culture is
complex for its meaning is interpreted differently by each individual. Culture is often defined as
the shared assumptions, values and beliefs of a group of people which result in characteristic
behaviors (Stubbs, 2010). Such behaviors are recognizable during intercultural communication
(IC), which is an interaction composed of two people (or two groups) from diverse cultures
communicating to negotiate a common meaning (Ting-Toomey, 1999). However, inconsistencies
that surface during IC act as barriers that create vulnerabilities for miscommunications to
transpire. Generating awareness and understanding of cultural barriers can help prevent
intercultural communicators from encountering them. Therefore, cultural barriers in
intercultural communication arise from group differences in cognition (e.g., fundamental
epistemologies, values, norms, etc.), affect (e.g., types and levels of emotional expressivity), and
patterns of behavior (e.g., language, customs, communication styles, etc.) (Mcgovern &
Spencers-Rodgers, 2002).
Effective IC is achieved in large part by understanding that communication is
fundamentally shaped by the influence of culture on cognition, affect, and behavior. Due to the
vast differences displayed by each culture, it becomes a task not to succumb to the concepts of
ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the idea of seeing ones own culture as being the center of the
universe and seeing other cultures as being insignificant or, even inferior. This mindset evolves
from judging other cultures from the perspective of ones own culture, and it is a toxic view to
apply. When encountering the differences of another culture, to avoid ethnocentrism and adverse

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 4

assumptions (e.g., stereotyping, prejudices, cultural relativism, etc.,) it helps to raise awareness
of cultural diversity to diminish such negative judgements that can promote cultural barriers in
communication. Developing the capabilities to communicate acceptably and appropriately is no
simple task, however, it remains imperative for avoiding miscommunications that so effortlessly
arise during intercultural communication interactions. Maximizing comprehension of the
cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions while applying intercultural knowledge
components in appropriate contexts can help prepare individuals to cultivate effective
intercultural communication competence (ICC). A competent communicator is effective in
ones ability to achieve ones goals, and appropriate in ones ability to exhibit behavior that is
accepted as well as expected in a given situation (Arasaratnam, 2009). The components of ICC
include motivation, knowledge, and skills. By motivating ourselves to develop a tolerance and
understanding for the ambiguous attributes of other cultures, we can increase our knowledge of
cultural similarities and differences, adjust our attitudes, and implement skills that will assist in
communicating successfully across cultures.
Breaking down the cultural barriers to effective communication is certainly rewarding,
yet it can be a frustrating task because individual and/or group differences are learned and
conditioned via culturally-specific communicative patterns. Each culture has a distinctive
context, value system and communication style. Guiding fundamentals within the cognitive
dimension are composed of cultural influences such as epistemologies, values and norms, all in
which collectively effect how culture impacts interpretation of meaning and perception. Cultural
influences within the cognitive realm are typically learned as individuals develop linguistic
skills. However, cultural influences are also fostered and strengthened via socialization and
societal impact. Values and beliefs are critical aspects to a culture for they reflect the most

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 5

prominent concerns and ideas held by a certain cultural group. And norms act as essential
guidelines with a basis in morality of how we should or should not behave (Gudykunst, 2004).
Intercultural communication has shown to fail when communicators hold distinctive values and
do not acknowledge that culturally shaped values are different from beliefs and thoughts
(Nordby, 2008).
The operationalization of cognition endorses meaning about a culture according to its
governing values, beliefs, and norms. Within the cognitive dimension, an assortment of
framework perspectives can be applied to all studied cultures to generate information about how
cultural values directly impact cognition. Cultural values offer comprehensive guidelines about
what are acceptable means for attaining outcomes in different situations (Gudykunst et al., 1996).
Frameworks play a vital role in classifying cultures by comparing the variances among group
values, as well as helping to make future predictions about cultures. Geert Hofstedes six
dimensions of culture is an essential theoretical framework designed for cross-cultural
communication, a related field to IC, which compares and contrasts between two different
cultures. Hofstedes cultural dimensions theory is based off extensive studies that examined
value differences among national societies in over 40 countries (Taras et al., 2010). The six
dimensions of culture recognize the preferences and differences among an array of cultures by
classifying them on contextual scales. Hofstedes six dimensions of culture depict where cultural
values diverge. The dimensions include: Power Distance, Uncertainty/Avoidance,
Individualistic/Collectivistic, Masculinity/Femininity, Long Term/ Short Term Orientation, &
Indulgence/Restraint. These dimensions represent a culture as a whole and do not reflect the
individuals of a culture.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 6

Power distance (PD) is the degree to which people are comfortable with and accepting of
inequality in distribution of power in a society. In very high power distance cultures, the lower
level person will unfailingly defer to the higher level person, and feel relatively ok with that as it
is the natural order (Sweetman, 2012). And conversely, in low power distance cultures,
everyone expects to be listened to regardless of rank or background, and they will reject leaders
whom they perceive as autocratic or patronizing (Sweetman, 2012). In regards to acceptance or
rejection of change, Hofstede identifies uncertainty avoidance (UA) as a cultures degree of
tolerance or comfort for ambiguity, uncertainty, and unstructured situations. Countries with high
UA consist of Greece, Belgium, Russia, Italy, Korea, and Mexico. Countries with low UA
include the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, India, China, and Indonesia.
According to Hofstede in 2011, individualistic and collectivistic cultures are opposite
concepts determined by whether priority is placed over personal goals or group goals.
Individualists value the goals, needs, and rights of the individual over the goals, responsibilities,
and obligations of the group, whereas collectivists value the goals, responsibilities, and
obligations of the group over the goals, needs, and rights of the individual (Cai & Fink, 2002).
Individualism Index scores are identified for 76 countries, with data indicating that individualism
triumphs in developed and Western countries whereas collectivism prevails in less developed and
Eastern countries. Japan, however, occupies a central position on the individualistic/collectivistic
scale. Masculinity and Femininity are opposites that classify a culture on the division of
emotional roles amid women and men; masculine societies have different social gender roles for
men and women, and less so in feminine cultures. Masculine societies encourage the idea that
men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; and women are
supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life, yet in feminine

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 7

societies, these gender roles overlap and both men and women are supposed to be modest,
tender, and concerned with the quality of life (Hofstede, 2001). Masculinity is high in Japan,
Italy, and Mexico, and in German speaking countries, whereas femininity is more prevalent in
Nordic countries and the Netherlands.
Long term orientation (LTO) and short term orientation (STO) are based off a time
perspective, being that LTO and STO focus on a cultures priorities in terms of the past, present,
and/or future. LT oriented cultures are focused on planning for the future and perseverance
efforts. On the contrary, short term cultures are very much past and present time-oriented. Lastly,
indulgence and restraint is associated to the joys of life, and is based off gratification and control.
Indulgence is the gratification of basic drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint,
however, regulates gratification of basic human desires through strict social norms. Hofstedes
six dimensions are crucial for visualizing how cultures are classified and structured in regard to
the differences determined by societal values, beliefs, and norms. In general, the cultural
influences that embody the cognitive realm are proven factors that powerfully motivate mental
reasoning and meaning interpretation. Deepening ones understanding of the cognitive influences
can better enable acceptance for differences that surface during intercultural communication
engagements.
Affect or affective fundamentals of culture are related to types and levels of emotional
expressivity. Affect describes the ability to which individuals belonging to different cultures are
able to form a connection with others on an emotional level. Affect defines how feelings are
structured and conveyed to understand the meaning of intercultural discourses (Carbaugh, 2007).
Understanding the levels of emotion displayed by given cultures helps dismiss potential
assumptions and judgements made by observing a persons emotional behavior. Additionally,

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 8

evidence has suggested that the ability to emotionally relate to others and feel a sense of
affiliation with people from culturally diverse backgrounds is related to intercultural
communication competence (Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005; Arasaratnam, 2006). Both universal
and culturally relative characteristics exist in regard to communicating emotion across cultures.
Culture essentially defines who can express emotions as well as in addition to the circumstances
under which they may be expressed and to what degree of expression (Samovar, 1997). Despite
the aspects of diversity that exist within each culture, studies reveal seven primary emotions that
are recognized as universal facial expressions across cultures. The universal expressions include
sadness, anger, disgust, fear, interest, surprise, and happiness. Although such emotions show to
be universally recognized, cultural influence can impact interpretation of emotions in terms of
how they should be expressed.
Contrasting cultures generally regulate the display of emotions in distinct ways and this
can produce unwanted cultural barriers in communication. Each culture functions under its own
unique codes of emotional expression or suppression. Cultures across the globe all possess
certain display rules, enforced to help identify which types of emotion are socially acceptable
within the contexts of a given society. Emotion is manifested in all cultures but the way it is
displayed consistently differs. Emotional expression and emotional suppression are indicators of
cultural influence on communicating emotion. Emotional expression refers to the degree in
which people are free to express their emotions regardless of the ramifications. Suppression
refers to the control of emotions exercised by people in accordance with cultural influence
(Triandis, 2000). Whether a cultural group is invested in emotional expression or suppression
largely depends on its display rules.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 9

Display rules manage the acceptable emotions of a culture and the intensity of emotional
demonstrations. In several Asian countries such as China, Japan, Taiwan, or Korea, display
rules are derived from Confucian principles and strong collective social relationships (Samovar,
1997). In this given orientation, it is imperative to nurture proper social relationships. Samovar
continues to explain how displaying emotions such as anger, disagreement, or contempt in
public situations is normally viewed as improper. Instead, emotions are masked to save face and
maintain the social relationship (Yun, 1994). In comparison, in certain Middle-Eastern cultures,
display rules assert for loud, prolonged, and typically anguishing behaviors when expressing
emotions such as anger or grief. Given such conflicting codes of acceptable expression between
certain Asian and Middle East countries, imagine the countless differences in display rules that
exist within every world culture.
Display rules help to culturally define the levels of acceptable emotional expression
within a society. Cultural influence on emotional affect is significant and requires a precise
understanding in order to recognize how emotional codes differ between different cultures. In
addition, the ability to interpret the dynamics of cross-cultural display rules is crucial to
maintaining social relationships among cultures. And furthermore, awareness and comprehension
of culturally-specific rules of emotion are ever more necessary. Increased knowledge about
diverse rules helps to avoid the creation of assumptions and judgements that result from
ambiguity surrounding the emotions expressed by a specific culture.
The third and final category of culture that impacts effective communication is behavior.
Patterns of behavior are uniquely valuable for they represent the most visibly recognizable
characteristics of a given culture. Behavioral patterns encompass the areas of language, cultural
customs, and communication styles, but also intertwine factors of cognition and affect as well.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 10

Cultural barriers to effective communication are exceptionally vulnerable to these particular

differences in behavior across cultures. Linguistic differences are obvious barriers for there is no
such thing as a universal language for all cultures. However, languages are similar in the sense
that to a degree, they can be translated to reveal an idea of the general meaning of a message.
Humans learn linguistic patterns as they develop and such patterns are heavily endorsed by the
specific cultural environments in which they are born in.
From the research and writings of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, a dual
theoretical hypothesis was later developed from their findings to further pinpoint the link
between language, thought, and culture. According to Sapir in 1928, it can be argued that the
speakers of different languages see different worlds, (i.e., the way in people perceive the world
around them, including their natural and social environments, which is essentially dictated by
their language.) Whorf in 1940 argued that people who speak different languages are directed to
different types of observations; therefore, they are not equivalent as observers and must arrive at
somewhat different worldviews. Thus, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis indicates that language has a
direct impact on the worldview of the speaker. From this theory, the relationship between
language and culture can then be divided between linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity.
Linguistic determinism refers to the idea that if we do not have a word for something, we cannot
think about it. Linguistic relativity explains that differences among language must be reflected in
the differences in the worldview of the speakers.
Additional research on the link between language and culture implies that the reason for
vocabularic and grammatical diversity amid two distinct cultures is because languages reflect
nonverbal elements of a certain culture (Neuliep, 2006). Moreover, it is believed that predisposed
cultural features such as geographic, climatic, kinesics, spatial and proxemics are all emphasized

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 11

and accented into the language of a culture. The current beliefs on the connection amid language
and culture as specified above are also considered to be indicators of how culture is, in part,
shaped by language. Sapir and Whorf agreed on the notion of it being our culture that determines
the way in which we categorize our thoughts about the world and our experiences in it.
Along with language, cultural customs, too, impact the communication between two
cultures. Social and cultural customs can be understood as the ideas, traditional behaviors, and
practices of a particular group. Social customs are exercised by people in a given culture, which
promote an overall understanding of the way of life for that society. Customs are broad elements
of cultural etiquette and they are largely expressed in ways that include but are not limited to
clothing, art, food, architecture, beliefs, traditions, mannerisms, family and relationships, etc.
Differences among all cultures are reflected in their customs and diversity within each group
must be recognized or misunderstandings over unfamiliar behaviors could certainly ensue.
Culturally-specific customs can greatly influence intercultural communication engagements and
promote the occurrence of cultural barriers.
Each culture exemplifies particular customs and these customs are essentially learned an
observed when two different cultures interact and expose their diverse practices. There is not a
universal list that can prepare individuals for the various customs unique to each culture.
Although there are similarities pertaining to certain customs in several cultures, no two cultures
will share an identical understanding in terms of cultural practices, traditions and customs.
Therefore, it is vital to increase awareness of the demonstrated differences in intercultural
interactions to recognize which actions are employed based off the influence of cultural customs.
This type of awareness and understanding can help increase knowledge of cross-cultural

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 12

customs, and work to clear up confusion that may arise from the diversity that exists within
every culture and its customs.
Though language and customs intensely influence behavior, styles of communication
play a crucial role in the behavioral process as well. Communication styles refer to the various
ways to communicate (i.e., language, verbal and nonverbal, expressivity, etc.,) and the
comprehensive patterns that are understood by those within a specific culture. To formulate a
clearer idea on culture and the broad range of communication styles, it helps to identify between
Edward T. Halls conceptualization of high-context (HC) and low-context (LC) cultures. These
distinct concepts explain the variances in communication across cultures. They are classified as
either high or low in terms of the style of communication they typically display. According to
Hall, HC communication occurs when the majority of the true meaning of message is either
embedded in the physical context or internalized within the communicators. HC communication
tends to avoid placing meaning in coded, explicit message transmissions. Conversely, LC
communication acts as the opposite in which meaning is directly embedded into the explicit code
itself. This type of communication displays a more straight-forward approach to communicating
the precise meaning of a message between communicators. Examples of high-context cultures
include Arab countries, many Asian countries, Latin America, and the Mediterranean. Examples
of low-context cultures are the United States, Canada, UK, Germany, the Netherlands and
Scandinavian countries (Dingemans, 2010).
In accordance with the conceptual understanding of HC and LC cultures, knowing verbal
and nonverbal communication styles also becomes imperative for overcoming cultural barriers to
effective communication. Nonverbal communication styles do not translate across all cultures,
and this commonly leads to misunderstanding when encountered via intercultural

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 13

communication. Nonverbal kinesics are behaviors often displayed via eye contact, head nodding,
listening and/or interrupting, gestures and body language, expression, and use of humor, smiling,
and laughing (Carteret, 2011). While some cultures might exhibit certain nonverbal behaviors
and see them as harmless, other cultures might find them to be insulting, or misleading. It is
helpful to recognize which types of nonverbal behavior are most appropriate and suitable given
the communicative opponent and cultural context as well. However, the differences among each
culture conflict in various ways and such assumptions made about cultures and their nonverbal
preferences should be understood as informative generalizations at most unless proven
otherwise. Still, awareness of acceptable and unacceptable nonverbal behaviors is encouraged for
it will be most beneficial to apply when attempting to avoid misunderstandings in intercultural
communication.
As far as verbal behaviors in cross-cultural communication styles, they range greatly
depending on the particular culture. However, the issues that arise from a lack of understanding
surrounding communication styles requires for a more organized structuring of identifiable styles
across cultures. William B. Gudykunst and Stella Ting-Toomey identify four verbal crosscultural communication styles that justify the communicative behaviors among different cultures.
These specific verbal communication styles include (1) direct and indirect, (2) elaborate,
exacting and succinct, (3) personal and contextual, and (4) instrumental and affective. A direct
style implements explicit expressions of intention. An indirect style is one where the speakers
intention is either hidden or hinted at throughout the conversation. The second group of distinct
styles is between elaborate, exacting and succinct. In an elaborate style, expression of flashy and
embellished language is emphasized. Exacting refers to the precise amount of information
required; no more or no less information than what is needed is provided in the conversation.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 14

Succinct styles concentrates on meaning based off the uses of concise statements,
understatements, and even silence. The third group is personal and contextual styles. Personal
style stresses the importance of personhood and is often linked to low-context cultures.
Contextual style considerably highlights an individuals role identity and status, also associated
to high-context cultures. Lastly, instrumental style is employed as sender-based and goaloutcome based, and affective on the other hand is receiver and process oriented. The four crosscultural communication styles help to nurture cultural sensitivity when engaging in intercultural
communication with cultures who employ distinctive styles.
Comprehension of both verbal and nonverbal cross-cultural communication styles along
with the influences of language and cultural customs is essential for intercultural communicate to
flow more smoothly. When awareness of conflicting styles is acknowledged, communication is
more effective between cultures. The major influences within patterns of behavior reveal to be
immensely critical to the identity of a particular culture and understanding that culture as well.
Individuals must meet the challenges of language barriers, unfamiliar customs and practices,
and cultural variations in verbal and non-verbal communication styles in order to achieve
successful intercultural under-standing (Dodd, 1995; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988; Kim, 1986;
Wiseman & Koester, 1993). Behavioral differences encountered via intercultural communication
must never be underestimated or overlooked because such differences resemble the make-up of a
culture and disregarding that can lead to ineffective communication.
Overall, there is a general consensus that IC competence can be characterized in terms of
three dimensions, namely cognitive, affective, and behavioural (Cui & Van den Berg 1991; Sercu
2004; Spitzberg 1991). The three dimensions and the significant factors within each of them
collectively guide the values and beliefs, emotions and patterns of behavior generally exhibited

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 15

by a given culture. Such influences of each dimension shows to shape the way in which people
belonging to a particular culture communicate, and the preferences they hold in regard to
communication. By formally recognizing the valued characteristics that govern each dimension,
the degree to which you are able to effectively adapt your verbal and nonverbal messages to the
appropriate culture context extensively increases. Central factors to IC competence such as
cultural knowledge and aware-ness, communication skills, and tolerance for ambiguity, strongly
impact the favorability of intergroup contacts (Giles & Johnson, 1981; Gudykunst, 1986; Lustig
& Koester, 1996). Furthermore, deepening ones awareness of self and awareness of others is
necessary for overcoming cultural barriers to effective communication. Increased awareness of
cultural differences can also encourage the dismissal of ethnocentrisms. Matsumoto et al., (2005)
states how understanding the differences among cultures and appreciating their origin and
meaning to others lives does not mean that one has to like those differences, or accept them for
oneself nevertheless, what is important are not the conclusions we arrive at, but the process by
which we arrive at them.
In conclusion, the beauty of culture lies within the idea that we are not all the same, and it
is our differences that cater to the make-up of our unique cultural identities. However, the
difficulty associated with culture is that communication becomes ever more perplexing given the
differences employed in each group. Though understanding the characteristics of every cultural
group may seem impossible but it can improve via cross-cultural understanding. By embracing
intercultural interactions and ICC components such as knowledge, motivation, and skills
(mindfulness, cognitive flexibility, etc.,) then the more we will be able to look past the elements
of cultural diversity that seem to separate us. It is at that point that we will truly be able to
connect on a universal level of understanding.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 16

References
Adler, N. J. (1986). Communicating across cultural barriers. International dimensions of
organizational behaviour, 50-75.
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2006). Further testing of a new model of intercultural communication
competence. Communication Research Reports, 23, 93 - 99.
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2009). The development of a new instrument of intercultural communication
competence. Journal of Intercultural Communication, (20).
Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence:
Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 137-163.
Burke, C. S., Pierce, L. G., & Salas, E. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding adaptability: A
prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments (Vol. 6). Emerald Group
Publishing.
Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists.
Communication Monographs, 69(1), 67-87.
Carbaugh, D. (2007). Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural
encounters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 167-182.
Cui, G., & van den Berg, S. (1991). Testing the construct validity of intercultural effectiveness.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 227-241.
Dodd, C. H. (1995). Dynamics of intercultural communication (4th ed.). Madison: Brown &
Benchmark.
Dong, Q., Day, K. D., & Collao, C. M. (2008). Overcoming ethnocentrism through developing
intercultural communication sensitivity and multiculturalism. Human Communication, 11(1),
27-38.
Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov, Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind. Revised and Expanded 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill USA, 2010
Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. Turner, & H.
Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 199243). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1988). Strangers and hosts: An uncertainty reduction
based theory of intercultural adaptation. In Y. Y. Kim, & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Crosscultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp. 106139). Newbury Park: Sage.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 17

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and affective communication. The
American Behavioral Scientist, 31(3), 384.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K. and Heyman, S.
(1996), The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism, Self Construals, and
Individual Values on Communication Styles Across Cultures. Human Communication
Research, 22: 510543. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings
in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.
Hsu, Cho-Yun (1994) Development of the State-Society Relationship in Early China in: L.
Vandermeersch (ed.) La societe civile face a lEtat dans les traditions chinoise, japonaise,
coreenne et vietnamienne. Paris: EFEO, Etudes thematiques 3, pp. 1-16.
Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (1996). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication
across cultures. New York: Harper Collins.
Matsumoto, D., Wallbott, H. G., & Scherer, K. R. (2005). Emotion and intercultural
communication. Handbook of applied linguistics, 7.
Neuliep, J. W. (2006). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage Publications.
Nordby, H. (2008). Values, cultural identity and communication: A Perspective from philosophy
of language. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 17(6).
Samovar, L. A. (1997). Cultural influences on emotional expression: implications for
intercultural communication. Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory,
applications, and contexts, 451.
Sercu, L. (2004). Assessing intercultural competence: A framework for systemic test
development in foreign language education and beyond. Intercultural Education, 15, 73-89.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1991). An examination of trait measures of interpersonal competence.
Communication Reports, 4, 22-30.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., & McGovern, T. (2002). Attitudes toward the culturally different: The role
of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes, and
perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(6), 609-631.
Stubbs, J. (2010). The Influence of Culture Upon Communication.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture's consequences: a
three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

SCHULTZ 18

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across culture. The Guilford Communication Series,

310.
Triandis, H. C. (2000). Culture and conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 145152.