Intercultural misunderstandings: causes and solutions
Intercultural misunderstandings and conflicts - complex phenomena that include culture, perception, identity, ethnocentrism, relationships, trust-building and conflict management. Development of a methodology for the prevention of intercultural failures.
| Рубрика | Психология |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 23.03.2021 |
| Размер файла | 43,5 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
Trust creates a paradox: To be able to trust, one must be willing to take the risk of trusting (Rawlins 1983; Rempel and Holmes 1986; Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna 1985). When one risks revealing hidden information about oneself to another person, then one risks being wrong because the other person could use that information against one. But if one fails to take that risk, one can never build trustful relationships with others (Rawlins 1983; Rempel and Holmes 1986; Rempel et al 1985). Tolerance of vulnerability is the degree of trust one places in another person to accept information one discloses without that person hurting one or the relationship (Rawlins 1983). At the same time, trust creates greater tolerance for divergent behavior and communication because a trusted person is given the benefit of the doubt. In fact, one may even make excuses for the behavior and communication of the other as is explained above by the principles of rationalization and cognitive consistency (Adler et al 2013; DeVito 2015; Gamble and Gamble 2012). Trust, thus, means that both interactors need to be open and practice self-disclosure to reduce the hidden area of the Johari Window and reduce uncertainty.Conflicts
Conflicts are perceived disagreements and goal interference. They involve cognition and how the interlocutors define the context within which the conflict occurs (Roloff & Wright 2013). According to Rahim (2002), a conflict is "an interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities (i.e. individual, group, organization, etc.)" (p. 207). In other words, a conflict can also arise due to differences in communication and meaning. Such differences can include low vs. high context communication styles (Imahori 2010) or monochronic vs. polychronic behavior (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel 2007). So cultural differences can result in misperceptions and misunderstandings and lead to conflicts in addition to individual, personal differences. After all, conflicts also arise between individuals from the same culture.
One category of conflicts are pseudo-conflicts which usually involve, among other causes, misunderstandings (Bruner & Tagiuri 1954; Krippendorff & Bermejo 2009). Misunderstandings resemble pseudo-conflicts and can, thus, escalate into real conflicts. Pseudo-conflicts are usually resolved when people realize no conflict actually exists (Gamble & Gamble 2012); otherwise, they could escalate into real conflicts. This means, that it is also important for misunderstandings to be clarified if they do occur or, even better, to prevent them from appearing in the first place. Otherwise, real conflicts can erupt and ending them may be difficult because conflicts are fairly complex (Canary & Lakey 2006; Caughlin & Vangelisit 2006; Roloff & Wright 2013) even without the added element of culture. As conflicts escalate, new issues can arise. At the same time, the different frames of the conflict parties create fragmented communication that ignores the concerns of one's counterpart (Roloff & Wright 2013; Sillars 2010). Thus, conflicts often involve a variety of goals and goal incompatibility, incoherent and paradoxical action, escalating arguments and topic shifts, perceptual differences, and cognitive biases (Roloff & Wright 2013). People rarely take the other's perspective, but quickly infer what intentions and actions mean without any real knowledge, i.e. faulty attribution (Sillars, Roberts, Leonard, & Dun 2000). Framing is critical to how the conflict parties view each other, their relationship, and the conflict task. Framing directs the attention and steers the focus to what is at stake in a conflict. That is why framing is important in understanding (pseudo) conflicts.
Culture includes preferred means of handling specific situations (Chen & Starosta, 1998; Lustig & Koester, 2013; Samovar et al, 2013). That is why Goffman (1974) notes that the meaning of frames is to be found in culture; hence, explaining why different cultures communicate and manage conflicts differently due to the different frames people have internalized. In fact, people are more willing to accept a particular interpretation if they have existing schemata and frames for specific situations. Frames highlight certain information to make the situation more understandable by selecting specific problem definitions, speculating about a probable cause, coming to a certain evaluation, and stimulating a particular reaction (Entman 1993). Drake and Donohue (1996) found that if the interlocutors can achieve convergence of their individual frames, then this increases the frequency of agreement, i.e. convergence in meaning. Shared personal values could provide a means of overcoming differences (Lee 2014).
Frame convergence increases the focus, control, positive social attribution and integrativeness of the interlocutors (Drake & Donohue 1996). In line with the Social Exchange Theory, the interlocutors may consider their personal relationship to be more important than maintaining or escalating the conflict. That is why it is so important to establish good relationships based on mutual trust because then the interactors might realize that misunderstandings and misperceptions exist because they communicate openly about the conflict due to that trust and are willing to self-disclose, i.e. the Johari Window.
People usually feel more relaxed and comfortable when they are with someone they trust (Adler et al. 2013; DeVito 2015; Gamble & Gamble 2012). A trustful relationship produces greater tolerance for divergent behavior due to attribution, rationalization, and cognitive consistency as noted above. This provides an opportunity to deescalate a (pseudo) conflict. Successful de-escalation of conflicts requires empathy, putting oneself in the position of the other, mutual tolerance, a positive attitude, and alternative coping mechanisms (Roloff & Ifert 2000). According to Roloff and Wright (2013), people want to understand their social environment. That is why it is important to think about what is going on during a conflict, i.e. applying cognition. Conflicts also require self-monitoring and self-regulatory behavior to adjust the communication of the interactors if the conflicts are to be managed properly (Canary & Lakey 2006; Canary & Spitzberg 1987; Roloff & Wrigth 2013), i.e. metacognition and social metacognition.
Intercultural communication competence and conflict resolution
While there is disagreement on conceptualizing and measuring intercultural communication competence, there is agreement on its fundamental characteristics (Lustig & Koester 2013). According to Chen and Starosta (1998), intercultural communication competence is the ability to effectively and appropriately communicate to achieve a desired response in a specific environment, i.e. intercultural communication sensitivity. Cultural awareness is the foundation for intercultural communication sensitivity. The more experience one has with cultural difference, the more competent one is in intercultural situations (Dong, Day, & Collaco, 2008). Proficiency in foreign languages tends to increase intercultural communication competence as well because such proficiency increases the likelihood that at least the denotative meaning is shared among the interlocutors (Greenholtz 2000). Hence, Dong et al. (2008) conclude that people need to interact and communicate with members of another culture in order to increase their intercultural communication competence (i.e. social metacognition). Intercultural communication competence seems to "promote an individual's ability to respect cultural differences, foster multiple cultural identities, and maintain multicultural coexistence...[which] may enable individuals to be successful in the diverse cultural environment" (Dong et al. 2008: 32).
The competent communicator not only knows how to interact effectively and appropriately, but also how to fulfill her/his own communication goals while using this ability, i.e. adroitness (Chen & Starosta 1998). One, thus, needs to properly perceive one's own behavior/communication and the intentions and behavior/communication of others. That is, one ought to be able to behave/communicate in a manner that is appropriate and perceived as appropriate by others. One also needs to monitor one's own behavior/communication and that of others while at the same time properly decoding the other's behavior/communication, intentions. In return, one needs to possibly adjust one's behavior/communication if it should prove to be necessary. And one has to be aware of how one's subsequent behavior/communication is perceived by others so that one can react/ communicate appropriately again if need be (i.e. adroitness).
According to the Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory (Gudykunst 2005), people have a certain degree of anxiety, i.e. stress, in encounters with strangers. When the encounter is of an intercultural nature, people tend to be very aware of the cultural differences. In fact, they tend to overemphasize the relevance of culture and ignore individual differences. But when people are mindful, they will have better conscious control of their own communication (Gudykunst 2005). Mindfulness refers to cognition, monitoring, and controlling one's own behavior and communication so that it is effective in specific situations with specific individuals because the communicator does not apply general, stereotypical categories (e.g. schemata, scripts, frames). Instead, the effective communicator individualizes the categories so that the categories provide a better fit (Gudykunst 2005).
Thus, knowledge and awareness of cultural differences are important in understanding differences in meaning, i.e. cognition. The more one knows of one's counterpart and her/his culture, the better one can decode her/his behavior and communication (Chen & Starosta 1998; Lustig & Koester 2013; Samovar et al. 2013). Furthermore, selfawareness and self-monitoring help reveal how one communicates, i.e. metacognition. Metacognition refers to monitoring and controlling one's cognitive processes so as to improve their effectiveness (Brown 1978, 1987; Flavel 1979, 1987; Frith 2012). Veeman, Van Hout-Wolters, and Afflerbach (2006) point out that metacognition relies on cognition. So specific knowledge of another person and another culture is needed to properly apply metacognition. By monitoring how the other person reacts to one's own behavior and communication, one can adjust one's own behavior/communication to the reaction of the other person (social metacognition) by applying cognition.
Social metacognition can help manage conflicts effectively because it permits conflicting parties to see the conflict from the perspective of the other party to better isolate and predict the possible behavior/communication of the other and adjust one's own behavior/communication accordingly (Frith 2012; Jost, Kruglanski, & Nelson 1998). To reach convergence in meaning, it is necessary to put oneself in the position of one's counterpart and attempt to perceive one's own behavior/communication from the perspective of one's counterpart. This calls for familiarity, i.e. cognition, of one's counterpart because familiarity fosters mutual self-disclosure and trust which creates better predictability (Frith 2012; Jost et al. 1998). And it requires self- and other-monitoring to properly adjust one's behavior/communication, i.e. social metacognition.
According to Veeman et al. (2006), metacognition (and social metacognition) is most effective if it is learned in the context in which it is to be used, i.e. real world situations. According to Frith (2012), metacognition can be developed through interaction and a willingness to communicate with others about the reasons for one's own actions and perceptions as well as listening to the reasons of one's counterpart presents to explain her or his actions, i.e. practice self-disclosure. This enables people to overcome their lack of direct access to the underlying cognitive processes in themselves and others. Thus, permitting a more accurate image of what the others are seeing and thinking (Frith 2012).
According to Keysar, Hayakawa, and An (2012), framing seems to disappear when it is encountered in a second language. A second language seems to provide greater cognitive and emotional distance allowing people to interpret and evaluate messages less biased. This is probably because most people tend to process a second language less automatically than they do their native language. Consequently, people are more deliberate in their cognition which affects their decision making process; thus, creating decisions that are more systematic and involving more intense monitoring/self-awareness and control to see how one's message is being perceived by the other, i.e. (social metacognition) (Keysar et al 2012). People should also enter any encounter with interlocutors from other cultures with as few preconceived attitudes and frames as possible because existing attitudes and frames are often the basis for future attitudes (Song & Ewoldson 2015). Hence, explaining why people are unlikely to change existing attitudes and frames if they have preconceived attitudes and are intolerant of others. New information can be negated if prior attitudes are held with a high degree of confidence, i.e. the Selective Exposure Theory (Hart, Albarracin, Eagly, Brechan, Lindberg, & Merrill 2009; Sullivan 2009) and the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger 1957).
A mismatch of people's implicit and explicit attitudes seems to encourage people to use more elaborate information processes (Song & Ewoldson, 2015). Song and Ewoldson (2015) note that divergent information which is transmitted by trusted people "has a stronger influence on a person's perception of the validity or certainty of attitudinal- ly relevant beliefs than that same information presented by the media" (p. 35). All the more reason to build and maintain a trustful relationship since it encourages constructive interaction due to self-disclosure and trust building.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it is apparent that awareness and monitoring one's own behavior and communication as well as that of one's counterpart are important elements which can help reduce misunderstandings and misperceptions because they consider knowledge that is required for effective communication; thus, permitting greater convergence in meaning. They also hone perception in that they expand the range and awareness of schemata, scripts, and frames. They also permit more accurate self-monitoring and other-monitoring. This is, however, only improved through the constructive interaction with one's counterpart because the interaction with the help of cognition and metacognition allows one to see if and how one's own behavior and communication are being perceived by one's counterpart. This interaction also involves self-monitoring and readjusting one's behavior and communication to correct misunderstandings and misperceptions - both in oneself and in one's counterpart. But here as well, it is necessary to interact and communicate with one's counterpart to discover if one's own communication and self-evaluation is being perceived and interpreted as intended by one's counterpart as Frith (2012) points out. This should then increase predictability which is also an important component of trust. Trust requires, on the one hand, a tolerance of vulnerability because one does not know what one's counterpart will do with the disclosed information. But without self-disclosure, trust cannot be built. And, on the other hand, trust creates a tolerance for greater divergence because with trust, one tends to give one's counterpart the benefit of the doubt through rationalization and cognitive consistency. Trust helps build stronger relationships because trust reduces uncertainty and anxiety and increases predictability. Predictability permits one to attune one's messages to one's counterpart because one knows how one's counterpart will react to a given message. Trust also increases the likelihood of both interlocutors practicing more self-disclosure. This increased mutual self-disclosure increases cognition, i.e. one gains more knowledge of one's counterpart's behavior and communication; thus, increasing shared meaning and resulting in greater convergence of meaning while also reducing uncertainty and anxiety. With more knowledge, it is possible to improve self-monitoring and controlling one's own behavior and communication, i.e. metacognition, as Veeman et al (2006) note. And with more knowledge of one's counterpart, one will be able to improve one's ability to predict the behavior and reaction of one's counterpart, i.e. social metacognition. This, in turn, will improve the overall communication and provide a more harmonious relationship with fewer misunderstandings and misperceptions; hence, deescalating or even preventing (pseudo) conflicts.
References
1. Abelson, R. P. (1981) Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist 36(7), 715--729. Adler, R. B., Rodman, G., & du Prй, A. (2013) Understanding human communication (12h ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973) Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt.
3. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975) Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research 1, 99--112.
4. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005) Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994) Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Pychological Review 101(4), 568--586. doi: 10.1037/0033- 295X.101.4.568.
7. Brown, A. L. (1978) Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed).), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 77-- 165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Brown, A. L. (1987) Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65--116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Bruner, J. S., & Tagiuri, R. (1954) The perception of people. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology Vol. 1 (pp. 634--654). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10. Canary, D. J., & Lakey, S. G. (2006) Managing conflict in a competent manner: A mindful look at events that matter. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 185--210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987) Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research 14, 93--118.
12. Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2006) Conflict in dating and romantic relationships. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 129--157). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage.
13. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
14. Cole, M., & Schribner, S. (1974) Culture and thought: A psychological introduction. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
15. Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988) Cultural identities: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories of intercultural communication (pp. 94--120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16. Combs, A. W., & Snygg, D. (1959) Individual behavior (rev. ed.). New York, NY : Harper & Row.
17. DeFleur, M. L. Kearney, P., Plax, T., & DeFleur, M. H. (2013) Fundamentals of human communication: Social science in everyday life (4th ed.). New York, N.Y.: McGraw Hill.
18. DeVito, J. A. (2015) The interpersonal communication book (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
19. Doise, W. (1986) Levels of explanation in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Dong, Q., Day, K. D., & Collaco, C. M. (2008) Overcoming ethnocentrism through developing intercultural communication sensitivity and multiculturalism. Human Communication 11(1), 27--38.
21. Drake, L. E., & Donohue, W. A. (1996) Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution. Communication Research 23 (3), 297--322. doi: 10.1177/009365096023003003
22. Entman, R. M. (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4), 51--58. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
23. Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(1), 31--44.
24. Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
25. Fisher, G. (1997) Mindsets: The role of culture and perception in international relations. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
26. Flavel, J. H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34, 906--911.
27. Flavel, J. H. (1987) Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21--29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Florack, A., Scarabis, M. C., & Gosejohann, S. (2005) The effects of self-image threat on the judgment of out-group targets. Swiss Journal of Psychology 64(2), 87--101.
29. Frith, C. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367, 2213--2223. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0123
30. Gamble, T. K, & Gamble, M. (2012). Communication works (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
31. Frodeman, R. (2010) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. New York, NY : Oxford University Press.
32. Gagnon, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1996). Discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 77--94.
33. Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. (2012) Communication works (11th ed.). New York, NY : McGraw-Hill.
34. Giles, H., Coupland J., & Coupland, N. (1991) Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequences. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Context of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1--68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Greenholtz, J. (2000) Accessing cross-cultural competence in transnational education: The intercultural development inventory. Higher Education in Europe 25(3), 411--416.
37. Gudykunst, W. B. (ed.). (1988) Language and ethnic identity. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
38. Gudykunst, W. B. (2005) Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Hall, E. T. (1976) Beyond culture. New York, NY : Doubleday.
40. Hamacheck, D. (1992) Encounters with the self (3ri ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
41. Hart, W., Albarracin, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009) Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin 135(4), 555--588. doi: 10.1037/a0015701.
42. Hewes, D. E., & Planalp, S. (1987) The individual's place in communication science. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 146--183. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43. Imahori, T. T. (2010) The great cultural divide in international business communication: High and low-context communication. In M. B. Hinner (Ed.), The interface of Business and culture (pp. 249--265). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
44. Jandt, F. E. (2013) An introduction to intercultural communication; Identities in a global community (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Nelson, T. O. (1998) Social metacognition: An expansionist review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2(2), 137--154. doi: 10.1207/s/15327957pspr0202_6.
46. Keltikangas, J. (1990) The stability of self-concept during adolescence and early adulthood: A six year follow-up study. Journal of General Psychology 117, 361--369.
47. Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S., & An, S. G. (2012) The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science 23(6), 661--668. doi:
48. 10.1177/0956797611432178.
49. Klopf. D. W. (1998) Intercultural encounters: The fundamentals of intercultural communication (4th ed.). Englewood, CO: Morton Publishing Company.
50. Krippendorff, K., & Bermejo, F. (2009) On communicating. New York, NY: Routledge.
51. Kuypers, J. A. (2009) Framing analysis. In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism: Perspectives in action (pp. 181--204). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
52. Lee, P. S., N. (2014) A study on Chinese-American cultural differences in interpersonal conflict management. In M. B. Hinner (Ed.), Chinese culture in a cross-cultural comparison (pp. 441-- 461). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
53. Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955) The Johari Window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.
54. Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2013) Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures. Boston, MA: Pearson.
55. Mitchell, A. A. (1982) Models of memory: Implications for measuring knowledge structures. Advances in Consumer Research 9: 45--51.
56. Mittelstrass, J. (2003) Transdisziplinaritдt - wissenschaftliche Zukunft und institutionelle Wirklichkeit. Constance: Universitдtsverlag Konstanz.
57. Mokiy, V. S. (2013) Methodology of transdisplinarity-4 (solution of complicated multi-Factor problems of nature and society. Translated by E. Garbuzenko. Institute of Transdisciplinary Technologies, Russia. Retrieved September 1, 2017 from: www.anoitt.ru/cabdir/materials_eng.php.
58. Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005) The influence of culture: Holistic vs. analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Science 9, 467--473.
59. Oetzel, J. G. (2009) Intercultural communication: A layered approach. New York, NY: Vango Books.
60. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923) The meaning of meaning. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
61. Pedersen, D. M. (1965) The measurement of individual differences in perceived personality-trait relationships and their relation to certain determinants. The Journal of Social Psychology, 65, 233--258.
62. Perrault, H. S., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1998) Social identification, interdependence and discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 1, 49--66.
63. Piaget, J. (1954) The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
64. Plous, S. (1993) The psychology of judgement and decision making. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
65. Rahim, M.A. (2002) Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management 13(3), 206--235.
66. Rawlins, W. K. (1983) Openness as problematic in ongoing friendships: Two conversational dilemmas. Communication Monographs 50, 1--13.
67. Reiser, B. J., Black, J. A., & Abelson, R. P. (1985) Knowledge structures in the organization and retrieval of autobiographical memories. Cognitive Psychology 17(1), 89--137.
68. Rempel, J. K., & Holmes, J. G. (1986) How do I trust thee? Psychology Today, 28--34.
69. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985) Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, 95--112.
70. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977) Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, 677--688.
71. Roloff, M. E., & Ifert, D. E. (2000) Conflict management through avoidance: Withholding complaints, suppressing arguments, and declaring topics taboo. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 151--163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
72. Roloff, M. E., & Wright, C. N. (2013) Social cognition and conflict. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 133--160). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
73. Ruhly, S. (1982) Intercultural communication (2nd. Ed.). MODCOM (Modules in Speech Communication). Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
74. Salzer Burks, V., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1999) Knowledge Structures, social information processing, and children's aggressive behavior. Social Development 8(2), 220--236.
75. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E., McDaniel, E. R., & Roy, C. S. (2013) Communication between cultures (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
76. Schneider, D. J. (1973) Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Review, 79(5), 294--309.
77. Servaes, J. (1989) Cultural identity and modes of communication. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.) Communication yearbook 12 (pp.383--416). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
78. Sillars, A. L. (2010) Interpersonal conflict. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.). The handbook of communication science (2nd ed.) (pp. 273--290). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79. Sillars, A. L., Roberts, L. J., Leonard, K. E., & Dun, T. (2000) Cognition during marital conflict: The relationship of thought and talk. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17, 479--502.
80. Song, H., & Ewoldson, D. R. (2015) Metacognitive model of ambivalence: The role of multiple beliefs and metacognitions in creating attitude ambivalence. Communication Theory 25 (1), 23--45.
81. Sternberg, R. J. (2012) Cognitive psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
82. Sullivan, L. (ed.). (2009) Selective exposure. The Sage glossary of social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
83. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, W. G. Austin (eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7--24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
84. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959) The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.
85. Thomas, A. (2006) Die Bedeutung von Vorurteil und Stereotyp im interkulturellen Handeln. Interculture Journal 2, 3--20.
86. Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. (2007) Intercultural conflict: A culture-based situational model. In P. J. Cooper, C. Calloway-Thomas, & C. J. Simonds, Intercultural communication: A text with readings (pp. 121--130). Boston, MA: Pearson.
87. Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology 5, 5--34.
88. Veeman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006) Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning 1, 3--14. doi: 10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.
89. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968) General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: George Braziller.
90. Yep, G. A. (1998). My three cultures: Navigating the multicultural identity landscape. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 79--85). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Размещено на Allbest.ru
Подобные документы
What is conflict. As there is a conflict. Main components of the conflict. The conflict is a dispute over what. How to resolve the conflict. Negotiations search consent of a compromise. Subject of the dispute. The decision brought. Suppressed discontent.
презентация [50,7 K], добавлен 21.03.2014This article suggests specific ways in which college teachers can foster relationships with students that promote motivation and satisfaction. Fostering personal relationships with students. Motivating students to work. Handling interpersonal issues.
статья [18,6 K], добавлен 10.05.2014Influence psychology of cognitive activity and cognitive development on student’s learning abilities during study. Cognitive development theory in psychology. Analysis of Jean Piaget's theory. Her place among the other concept of personal development.
презентация [1,3 M], добавлен 13.04.2016The theme of death in the Gothic novel reality. The Gothic image of the world and its fear of an uncertain and unpredictable universe. The fear as the most eminent theme in Poe’s story "The Tell-Tale Heart". The terrible motives of indistinct phenomena.
лекция [22,4 K], добавлен 01.07.2013Studies by Fischer and his colleagues and Dawson (2006) have investigated development in a wide range of domains, including understanding of social interaction concepts such as "nice" and "mean", skills in mathematics, and understanding "leadership".
реферат [20,2 K], добавлен 22.12.2009Research of negative influence of computer games with the elements of violence and aggression on psychical development of children and teenagers. Reasons of choice of computer games young people in place of walk and intercourse in the real society.
доклад [15,3 K], добавлен 10.06.2014The study of harm to children from watching American cartoons. Problem of imitating negative or mindless characters from cartoons. Leading role of American cartoon industry in the animation history. First steps in the progress of a child’s development.
эссе [16,3 K], добавлен 11.04.2013The concept of "intercultural dialogue". The problem of preserving the integrity nations and their cultural identity. formation of such a form of life, as cultural pluralism, which is an adaptation to a foreign culture without abandoning their own.
статья [108,6 K], добавлен 12.11.2012Intercultural Communication Competence: Language and Culture. The role Intercultural Communicative Competence in teaching foreign languages. Intercultural Competence in Foreign language teaching. Contexts for intercultural learning in the classroom.
курсовая работа [94,1 K], добавлен 13.05.2017Basic approaches to the study of the English language. Intercultural communication and computerization of education. The use of technical means for intensification of the educational process. The use of video and Internet resources in the classroom.
курсовая работа [333,1 K], добавлен 02.07.2014
