IJIR ProblemsinCross CulturalContact

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/256404410
Problems in Cross-Cultural Contact: A Literature

Review
Article in International Journal of Intercultural Relations · December 1979

DOI: 10.1016/0147-1767(79)90016-6
CITATIONS READS
110 8,118
1 author:
Bruce W. Stening
Peking University
67 PUBLICATIONS 882 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Ethics in China View project
Understanding emerging markets View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Bruce W. Stening on 10 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

fnlernofronol Journal of Inlerculrural Relalrons, Vol. 3. pp 269-313. ,919 0147.1767/79/030269-45%02.00/O
Prmted ,n the USA. All raghts reserved Copyright SC 1979 Pergamon Press Ltd
PROBLEMS IN CROSS-CULTURAL CONTACT:

A LITERATURE REVIEW
BRUCE W. STENING
The University of Western Australia
ABSTRACT An examination is undertaken of literature bearing on the

matter of misunderstandings between persons engaged in cross-cultural re-
lationships. The dimensions of the problem are outlined using the following
sub-headings: subjective culture and social construction of reality; inter-
cultural communication; stereotyping, ethnocentrism, and prejudice; time
factor; cultural distance; personality; and contact and attitudes. Further, a
description is made of various approaches which have been adopted in
investigating the problems of cross-cultural contact in international organiza-
tions. A critical analysis reveals that the most significant gaps in current
knowledge of the problems are at the interpersonal level. Suggestions are
made as to what research questions demand urgent attentton.
Today, to a considerably greater extent than, say, thirty years

ago, large numbers of persons all around the world are engaged in
relatively long-term relationships with members of cultures other
than their own. This is principally a result of the development of
various educational exchange programs (e.g., Spaulding & Flack,
1976) rapid post-war growth in the number and size of multi-
national corporations (Fayerweather, 1972; Wilkins, 1974), and an
expanded role for such international organizations as the United
Nations.
Besides difficulties emanating from their often basic differences
in attitudes and values, the ability of parties to cross-cultural
relationships to relate effectively to one another is likely to be
made more difficult by various problems of cross-cultural com-
munication (Gardner, 1962). Such problems reduce the likelihood
The author would hke to thank Professor Dexter Dunphy and Dr. Tohr Yamaguchi of
the University of New South Wales and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on
earlier versions of this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to Bruce W.
Stening, Department of Management, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, 6009,
Australia.
269
270 Bruce W. Stening
that the parties will accurately understand their differences as well

as their similarities (Bass, 197 1).
The objective of this paper is to review that literature which
bears directly and indirectly on the matter of misunderstandings
between persons engaged in cross-cultural relationships. In particu-
lar, the paper seeks to outline the dimensions of the problem as
have been mapped by studies to date and to discuss the most
significant remaining gaps in our knowledge of the problem. A
framework has been adopted which is similar in certain respects to
that employed in previous cross-cultural reviews by Brein and
David (197 1) and Roberts (1970). However, the perspective taken
here is broader than in the former article and narrower than in the
latter.
The paper is divided into three major sections. The first section
comprises a review of that literature which has broadly specified
the nature of the problem of cross-cultural misunderstandings. An
examination of studies which have specifically given empirical
attention to the problem within the context of international
organizations is undertaken in the second section. Finally, in the
third section, an overall analysis is made of the principal gaps in
current knowledge.
PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND SPECIFICATION

Problems in cross-cultural contact have been the subject of
attention of researchers from such diverse fields as psychology,
sociology and anthropology, intercultural communications, inter-
national business, and education. We are interested here in examin-
ing what factors researchers from these fields have suggested,
directly or by implication, are important in creating misunder-
standings between parties to intercultural relationships. This
identification and specification of the problem will be carried out
under several principal sub-headings of influences; though there is
considerable overlap between some of the sub-categories, this
scheme has been adopted to assist in comprehension of the mass
of material.
Subjective Culture, Social Construction of Reality

The potential for problems in intercultural (as contrasted with
intracultural) relationships is greater since cross-culturally there
Problems in Cross-Cultural Contact 271
are often major differences in values, attitudes, beliefs, expecta-

tions, and the like; Triandis (1972) has described these features
which are “a cultural group’s characteristic way of perceiving its
social environment” (p. 3), as “subjective culture.” At base, the
subjective culture concept impresses upon us the fact that
“reality” is a socially (or even more broadly, culturally) con-
structed phenomenon, a point that sociology of knowledge theo-
rists such as Berger and Luckman (1967) have been making for
some time. It is now well established that each of us has his own
subjective reality which even in “ordinary” intra-cultural circum-
stances can result in misunderstandings in our relations with others
(Cantril, 1957). Of particular interest in this regard are certain
studies relating cognitive similarity of individuals to the nature of
their relations. Based upon foundations laid by Newcomb (1953)
and Runkel (1956), several studies have been undertaken to in-
vestigate the relationship between interpersonal cognitive simi-
larity, on the one hand, and communications effectiveness and
interpersonal liking on the other (e.g., Triandis, 1959, 1960a,
1960b). Though the precise nature of these studies varied slightly,
the overall conclusion to be drawn from them as a whole was that
those parties to dyads who perceived their environment in a
similar fashion (that is, those who were cognitively similar) per-
ceived greater communication effectiveness and in fact achieved
greater communication effectiveness than those dyads in which
the two parties were cognitively dissimilar. As well, it was shown
(Triandis, 1959) that in instances of cognitive similarity between
supervisors and subordinates, subordinates had a significantly
greater liking for their supervisor than in cases of dissimilarity.
One study utilised communication similarity, defined as the simi-
larity in the dimensions used by the dyad members in the actual
process of communicating, as an independent variable with respect
to communication effectiveness; in this study it was discovered
that some communication could take place even when communi-
cation similarity was low, but that the greater the communication
similarity in the dyad, the more effective was the communication
between members of the dyad (Triandis, 1960a).
Therefore, it has been clearly demonstrated that cognitive
dissimilarities between individuals with the same cultural back-
ground can reduce communication effectiveness. It would seem
reasonable to expect that the problem will be potentially greater
in intercultural relationships where the gap in subjective cultures
may be quite wide. A multitude of articles has dealt with these

cross-cultural differences in perception (for several reviews see
Triandis, 1964; Triandis, Malpass, & Davidson, 1973; Tajfel,
1969); though extensive discussion of these studies is inappro-
priate here, brief reference to several specific studies will serve to
illustrate that problems in intercultural, interpersonal relations
may stem from differences in perceived ‘reality.’
In a widely-reported study of binocular rivalry, Bagby (1957)
used an instrument known as a stereoscope to present subjects
simultaneously with two scenes, one culturally familiar, the other
not. The subjects’ reports of what they “saw” conformed with
what was culturally familiar, and in most instances the subjects
made no mention of having seen the culturally unfamiliar scene.
His results were highly significant.
Similarly, the results obtained by Korten (1974) in a compari-
son of university students in Ethiopia and the United States
confirm that “different cultural groups use very different systems
of categories in perceiving other people” (p. 43). In describing
people they knew, Ethiopian students were more likely to describe
those persons in terms of “opinions and beliefs” and “inter-
personal relations” than their’ American counterparts who by
comparison had a higher propensity to describe in terms of
“abilities and knowledge,” “cognitive-emotional style,” and
“interpersonal style.”
Much recent attention to culturally-related interpretations of
reality has focused on differences in interpersonal structures be-
tween cultures. Particular attention has been given to the concept
of cognitive differentiation with respect to roles and institutions.
It has been pointed out (Foa & Foa, 1974) that cultures differ
markedly in the extent to which they differentiate between roles
and between institutions. Such contrasts in differentiation
between cultures will potentially create communication problems
as a result of “mismatching” in interpersonal, intercultural situa-
tions (Foa, Mitchell, & Fiedler, 197 1). Foa and Foa (1974)
explain :
The degree of differentiation among classes may differ for the sender and the
receiver. If the sender differentiates more than the receiver, he activates only
one or a few classes for a given message, while in the receiver’s cognition more
neighbouring classes will be activated as well. The differentiation between
love and hatred, for example, is stronger in the American culture. Conse-
quently, criticism of performance does not imply personal dislike for an
American as it does for an Arab by whom the message “you can do a better
job” is decoded as “I dislike you and your work.” (p. 275)
In intercultural, interpersonal relationships, then, there is an

increased likelihood that individuals will be unable to make iso-
morphic attributions concerning the causes and intentions of the
other’s behavior (Triandis, 1977). The problems created by dif-
ferences in cognitive differentiation compound the problems
associated with similarity or dissimilarity in beliefs. In a study
(Bochner, 1976) comparing religious role salience and differentia-
tion in four cultures (between Pakistani Moslems, Javanese
Moslems, Thai Buddhists, and Philippine Catholics) it was pointed
out that:
members of faith X may look askance at members of faith Y, not because the
doctrines differ in content, but because religion in culture X is more salient
and less differentiated from other societal structures than it is in culture Y.
(P. 16)
The consequences of mismatching, it has been suggested,

will often be profound, resulting most probably in “tension,
dismay, anger and other emotional disturbances of the hetero-
cultural relationships” (Foa, Mitchell, & Fiedler, 1971, p. 138).
Coelho (1958) has also pointed out the disillusionment which
often ensues when a person in an intercultural relationship dis-
covers that people will not “accept things as they really are.”
Empirical evidence provided by non-cross-cultural research exists
(Stack & Cook, 1973) to support the general proposition that
persons who differentiate in a similar way will be more effective in
relating to one another than persons whose basis of differentiation
is not the same. Evidence presented by Foa and Foa (1974)
suggests the relationship may not be entirely straightforward and
that while considerable cognitive differences will create diffi-
culties, slight differences may actually produce certain creativity.
This is not to suggest, however, that such problems created by
differences in differentiation cannot be reduced. Considerable
attention has been devoted to devising methods of training mem-
bers of one culture to differentiate in the same way as members of
another culture (e.g., Foa & Chemers, 1967).
Intercultural Communication
Normally persons are aided in understanding another’s social
reality by the feedback responses they receive in face-to-face

interactions. In intercultural situations, however, a variety of
communication problems can reduce the effectiveness of these
responses. These problems are of two types: verbal and non-verbal.
In many instances there is an actual physical obstruction insofar
as the parties to a relationship have different native tongues. The
problem is not one solved merely by “accurate” translation; even
in instances where both parties have a high degree of mutual
fluency the meaning of what either says may be lost as a result of
connotative and denotative differences in meanings cross-
culturally (D’Anglejan & Tucker, 1973). Porter (1972) has com-
mented that, “Culture and language are inseparably intertwined”
(p. 13). Such verbal communication problems may exist even
when the native language of the parties is the same but where their
cultures or subcultures are different: for example, in the meanings
given particular words by black and white Americans (Landis,
McGrew, Day, Savage, & Saral, 1976). That language does create
problems in international organizations has been noted by a
number of writers (e.g., Chorafas, 1969; Hildebrandt, 1973;
Teague, 1968). (Despite this, it has been commented [Barrett &
Bass, 19761 that the precise relationship between language fluency
and performance as an expatriate has been neglected in empirical
work.) The problems may be manifested in both internal and
external relationships. Internally, the language problem may have
a significant impact on the nature and direction of information
flows (Chorafas, 1969). Externally, the expatriate may be com-
pelled to seek most of his leisure companions from among fellow
expatriates, impeding further his ability to understand the host
environment.
In addition to the most obvious verbal communication prob-
lems, researchers have isolated certain other problems of inter-
cultural communication which broadly fall into a non-verbal
category. Foremost in specifying the general nature of such prob-
lems has been Hall (1959), whose central contention is that much
of the communication between individuals is conveyed not
through the spoken language but, rather, through the silent lan-
guage of behavior. Hall has devoted attention to illustrating how
culturally-determined behavior with respect to such matters as
time, space and work can create misunderstandings in intercultural
situations where the meaning assigned to particular forms of
behavior may be quite different according to each culture. The
work of Hall and others involved in non-verbal communication

research (see Duncan, 1969; Harrison, Cohen, Crouch, Genova, &
Steinberg, 1972) shows that even if both parties to an intercultural
relationship were entirely fluent in the other’s language, “com-
munication” problems may well still arise.
Hall, who coined the term “proxemics” to describe theories
which deal with the cultural influences upon man’s use of space,
has dealt at length with cross-cultural differences in the use and
organization of space (Hall, 1966). He and other researchers (e.g.,
Little, 1968; Sommer, 1966) have shown, for example, that the
appropriate social distance in differing circumstances of inter-
personal face-to-face communication varies markedly from culture
to culture: for instance, as a generalization, the peoples of
English-speaking nations tend to reserve a close physical contact
almost exclusively for intimate associations, a behavior not char-
acteristic of, say, Arab cultures (Yousef, 1974).
That non-verbal communication factors can produce adverse
effects upon intercultural business relationships has been illus-
trated (principally by anecdote) in a number of places (e.g., Hall,
1960; Stessin, 1973; Yousef & Briggs, 1975). By virtue of their
generality, however, such reports have most often ignored the
possibility of subtle cultural differences in the perceived im-
portance of non-verbal behavior. For example, commenting on the
results of a small-scale experiment examining the relationship
between a sample of English students and Arabs studying in
England, Collett (197 1) claimed that “whereas Arabs place more
emphasis on variations in certain non-verbal behaviors when
assessing Englishmen, Englishmen attend more to the residual
features of performance (possibly tone, manifest attitude, etc.) in
evaluating their compatriots” (p. 2 14).
Stereo typing, Ethnocentrism and Prejudice

There is a considerable amount of evidence within the literature
to suggest that many of the misunderstandings which arise in
intercultural relationships are rooted in the stereotypes, prejudices
and ethnocentric perspectives of the parties involved. In this
subsection we examine how these phenomena may affect relation-
ships in international organizations.
Allport (1958) has described a stereotype simply as “an ex-
aggerated belief associated with a category” (p. 187). An example
of a stereotype would be a belief that all Jews are shrewd. The

effect of the stereotype is “to prevent differentiated thinking
about the concept” (p. 187); that is, characteristics are inputed to
individuals purely on the basis of their membership or non-
membership of some category. The reasoning is thus of syllogistic
form: “Jews are shrewd”: “Mr. Schwartz is a Jew”; “Mr. Schwartz
is, therefore, shrewd.”
Though a complex function of various factors, stereotyping is
thus to be seen largely as a product of man’s need to categorise
objects in his environment which for various reasons (such as
inadequate experience) he is unable to adequately discriminate
between at an individual level. The stereotypes so formed are not
necessarily completely false, though frequently they are at least
partially inaccurate (Harding, Proshansky, Kutner, & Chein,
1969). However, in the formation of the stereotype the areas of
greatest contrast are likely to be given greatest prominence (i.e.,
exaggerated) in the stereotype. This is explainable in terms of
Helson’s (1948) level of adaptation concept. Campbell ( 1967) has
commented on this process in this way:
The greater the real differences between groups on any particular custom,
detail of physical appearance, or item of material culture, the more likely it is
that that feature will appear in the stereotyped imagery each group has of the
other. (p. 821)
It would seem logical to expect, then, that in international

relationships nationality will be an important basis for stereotyp-
ing since it encompasses significant broad differences. That this is
so has been affirmed in several important studies (Bochner &
Perks, 197 1; Bruner & Perlmutter. 1957; Morris, 1956; Perlmutter
& Shapiro, 1957). It was shown that nationality was a dominant
cue in predicting the behavior of foreigners and that other
characteristics were used only secondarily. Recent research
(Bochner & Ohsako, 1977) has shown that even in a culturally
integrated society such as Hawaii, ethnic role salience is very
important. To the extent that the stereotypes used by persons in
cross-cultural relationships are inaccurate or excessively simplistic
they may be the source of misunderstandings between those
parties at the interpersonal level. That it is, indeed, a matter of
concern at a practical level in international organizations (particu-
larly multinational corporations) has been recognized; referring to
the expatriate executive, Hays (1972b) has commented that if he is
Problems in Cro~s-C~~tur~~Co&act 277
to adequately understand the local nationals with whom he is

involved he should at least be aware of the stereotypes he has of
them and some conception of the stereotypes they have of his
national group.
As would be expected in any stereotyping situation, the greater
the degree of first-hand experience gained in an intercultural
relationship the less prevalent becomes the actual stereotyping
(Pool, 1965). That is, the greater contact there is between the
parties the more likely it is that their images of each other will
move from the simple to the more complex, though the favour-
ability of those more complex images (i.e., the affective, as
contrasted with the cognitive, component of those images), as will
be seen later, is a much more complicated issue (Amir, 1969).
Several studies have examined the effect of first-hand com-
munication and experience upon the favourability or unfavour-
ability of the stereotypes held by the parties to an intercultural
relationship (e.g., Triandis, 1967; Triandis & Vassiliou, 1967).
Triandis and Vassiliou (1967) examined the autostereotypes of
Illinois- and Athens-Americans (what they thought about their own
group) and their heterostereotypes with respect to Greeks (what
they thought about Greeks) as well as the autostereotypes of
Athens-Greeks and their heterostereotypes with respect to
Americans. It was established that the autostereotype of the
Athens-Americans was more favourable than the autostereotypes
of the Illinois-Ame~cans. With regard to the heterostereotypes of
Americans concerning Greeks, these were more favourable for the
minimum than for the maximum contact groups, while the
heterostereotype of Greeks concerning Americans was more
favourable for those in maximum contact with Americans than for
those in minimum contact. The hypotheses developed for ex-
~ination in the study were presented in terms of high-status
visitors working in a low-status culture. Of greatest import to the
present paper is the conclusion drawn that “the unequal status
contact that is typical in many international organizations has the
effect of accentuating negative stereotypes” (Triandis, 1967, p.
52).
In addition to those studies which have dealt with the favour-
ability/unfavourability aspect of stereotypes, several experimental
studies (Lindgren & Marrash, 1970; Lindgren & Tebcherani, 197 1)
have examined the degree of intercultural insight shown in
stereotyping behaviors. In the first of these studies (Lindgren &
Marrash, 1970) contrasting self-descriptions of British and

Americans were presented to a group of American, Armenian, and
Arab subjects living in Lebanon. The objective of the study was to
determine which groups could most accurately discriminate be-
tween the two kinds of self-descriptions, British and American; the
results indicated that in order of greatest to least accurate were
Americans, Armenians, and Arabs. That Americans scored best
was explained by the contention that Americans could be ex-
pected to know themselves better than the other two groups could
be expected to know them. It was suggested that the greater
accuracy of the Armenians over the Arabs reflected the more
Western-oriented outlook of the Armenians, that is, the empha-
thetic qualities of Armenians with respect to British and
Americans.
Though similar, the second study (Lindgren & Tebcherani,
1971) was concerned with examining the relationship between
auto- and heterostereotypes, seeking specifically to test the hy-
potheses that “the heterostereotypes Arab male university
students have regarding American students would correspond
more to the autostereotypes of the latter group, than the hetero-
stereotypes that Americans have for Arabs would correspond to
Arab autostereotypes” (p. 176). This proposition was based on the
view that Arabs, as members of a low-power group, would have
more to gain by developing empathy for the Americans than
would be true in reverse. The results did show that the Arabs were
more empathetic than the Americans. However, the precise
reasons for this are open to debate and may not necessarily be a
function of the relative power of the groups, a possibility admitted
by the authors themselves.
Though the results of both the favourability/unfavourab~ity
studies and the empathy studies are interesting to us in this review,
their findings should be taken merely as suggestive, raising many
more questions than they answer. Clearly, much empirical work
remains before firm assertions can be made.
Several perceptual distortions related to stereotyping behavior
are of particular interest to us in discussing factors related to the
manifestation of misunderstandings in intercultural relationships.
One such distortion has been labelled the “mote-beam mecha-
nism” (Ichheiser, 1949). Ichheiser has contended that in their
interrelations with others there is a tendency for people to
perceive certain characteristics (usually ones with negative af-
fective connotations) in others but to falsely believe that they
themselves are free of those characteristics. Deutsch (1965) has
commented that the effect of the mote-beam mechanism (alterna-
tively described as minor-ima~ng) is to accentuate the differences
between ourselves and others in such a way that it is a potential
source of misunderstanding and conflict in intercultural relation-
ships. The mote-beam mechanism may well help to explain the
interesting results reported by Kumata and Schramm (1956) who,
in a semantic comparison of Koreans and Japanese, discovered
that:
the Japanese and Koreans, when asked to judge “myself” and “my people”,
produced profiles that were quite close to each other; that is, the Japanese
idea of the Japanese and the Korean idea of the Koreans were not much
different. But when the two groups were asked to rate each other, the profiles
were far apart! (p. 233)
The above should not be taken to suggest, however, that perceived

differences between self and others will always be the result of
disapproval of others. Berrien (1969) reports findings, for ex-
ample, which strongly suggest that, “Cognitive contrasts are
possible in the absence of affective differences” (p. 2 14).
In a study of Greek and American judgments about’themselves
and each other, Triandis and Vassiliou (1972) have shown that,
given a difference between two nationalities on one characteristic,
there may be a tendency for the parties to extrapolate that
difference to other characteristics where, in fact, no differences
exist between the two groups. This results, they believe, from the
need for cognitive consistency in a situation of limited informa-
tion. In summary, their results suggested a tendency to exaggerate
differences and not recognize similarities.
Though no reference is made to it, the findings of this research
would appear to require modification of an earlier theoretical view
of Triandis (1967) or, at least, call for further empirical investiga-
tion. In the earlier article, Triandis made reference to the level of
adaptation achieved by an expatriate in the period soon after his
arrival in the host country. At this point, Triandis argued, the
expatriate would still be using his own country as a reference
point and he predicted that the congruency perceived by the
expatriate would swing to both positive and negative extremes, in
accordance with the assimilation-contrast effect propounded by
Sherif and Hovland ( 196 1).
Where, in contrast to the most-beam mechanism, an overly

favourable stereotype is held by one party or another before
actual intercultural contact, problems may be manifested subse-
quent to contact. On the basis of obse~ational data, Pool I1 965)
has commented on expatriates who before going abroad were
xenophiles (Perlmutter, 1954, 1956). Contrary to what may have
been expected, they tended to have greater than normal problems
of adjustment in their host environment because the latter “could
not live up to their unrealistic expactations” (Pool, 196.5, p- 51).
Stereotypes are especially important insofar as they influence
perceptual judgments. Several additional studies merit brief discus-
sion in this regard. In a Canadian experiment designed to assess the
evaluational reactions of subjects to different languages, five
bilingual persons (fluent in both English and French) spoke over a
telephone in each of the languages to both English-Canadian and
French-Canadian subjects (Lambert, Frankel, & Tucker, 1966;
Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, & Fillcnbaum, 1960). (The subjects
were unaware that the speakers were bilingual.) In evaluating the
personality characteristics of the speakers, the subjects judged the
English speakers more favourably than the French speakers. The
authors concluded that this reflected widely-held stereotypes
regarding Canadians of English and French origin.
In an investigation of the stereotyping practices of managers
within industrial organizations, Whitehead and King (1973)
showed that managers in California and Texas consistently had a
less favourable stereotype of Mexican-American employees than of
American employees. The most important point made by the
researchers is that such stereotypes may become self-fulfilling
prophesies in that the unfavourable stereotype will elicit mana-
gerial behavior which by itself will provide for the manifestation
of that stereotype in fact.
Related to stereotyping is another phenomenon of importance
in intercultural relations. namely, ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is
“a tendency to view people unconsciously by using our own
customs as the standard for all judgments” (Porter, 1972, p. 6). In
contrast to the principle of cultural relativism expounded by
anthropologists (e.g., Kluckhohn, 1949, p. 41) ethnocentrism
implies evaluating the behavior and customs of some outgroup
according to our standards rather than theirs. As a result, those
customs of the outgroup which are the same as our own are
considered “good,” while the more dissimilar they are the more
they are likely to be evaluated as “bad.” Though the tendency

toward ethnocentrism has been shown to vary between cultures
(Levine, 1965), the overall proneness of people to ethnocentric
behavior must create the potential for problems in intercultural
relations since the differences at this level are conceivably very
great. The barriers to interpersonal understanding between ex-
patriates and locals in international business operations as a result
of this so-called self-reference criterion have been discussed by Lee
(1966).
In a similar vein, it has been hypothesised that at the institu-
tional level there are three general orientations which may be
adopted by a multinational corporation, each of which may be
seen to have particular consequences at the individual level
(Perlmutter, 1969). The three basic orientations hypothesised by
Perlmutter are ethnocentrism (a home-country orientation on the
part of the parent company), polycentrism (a host-country
orientation), and geocentrism (a world orientation). With respect
to personnel policies a geocentric orientation would imply that
ultimately a multinational corporation’s employees would be as
described-multinational-and that local employees would not be
discriminated against. As Simmonds (1966) pointed out in the
mid-sixites, multinationalism was far from being achieved then.
More recently, several studies (Heenan, 1972; Perlmutter &
Heenan, 1974) have verified the tendency, in the personnel
function at least, for multinational corporations to tend toward
ethnocentrism rather than geocentrism. Clearly, whichever orienta-
tion is adopted by the parent company will have important
consequences for the relations between expatriate and local
personnel in the subsidiaries. If ethnocentric policies prevail, local
employees will be given a much lesser role and opportunities than
would be so in a geocentrically-oriented firm. Perlmutter and
Heenan have asserted the dysfunctional consequences of an ethno-
centric approach by pointing out that one of the symptoms of this
orientation is a high turnover rate of local employees (see also Ed-
Strom & Galbraith, 1977). Nevertheless, it appears that there are no
simple answers: it has been reported that even in cases approach-
ing a genuine multinational staffing policy, morale problems
among local managers remain (Zeira & Harari, 1977a). A common
complaint of host country nationals regarding third country
nationals (nationals of neither the host country nor the country in
which the corporation has its headquarters), for example, is that
the latter are frequently more oriented to the views of the

headquarters than the needs of the subsidiary (Zeira & Harari,
1977b).
If stereotyping and ethnocentrism are likely to create problems
in interpersonal, intercultural relationships, the effect of prejudice
is certain to be even greater. In his classic work on the subject,
Allport ( 1958) has defined prejudice thus:
Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generaliza-

tion. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a
whole, or toward an individual because he is a member of that group. The net
effect of prejudice, thus defined, is to place the object of prejudice at some
disadvantage not merited by his own misconduct. (p. 10)
The degree to which prejudice can be reduced by contact

between members of different ethnic groups is a moot point. In a
major review of studies which have examined the relationship,
Amir (1969) concluded that whether contact would reduce
prejudice or not was a function largely of the conditions surround-
ing that contact. Among the conditions noted by Amir as likely to
be conducive to a reduction in prejudice were circumstances where
the contact was between members of groups of equal status or the
members of a majority group and higher status members of a
minority group, where the contact was intimate rather than casual
in nature, where the intergroup contact was pleasant or rewarding,
where an authority was in favor of the contact, and where the
contact was functionally important to both groups or there were
superordinate goals transcending the goals of either individual
group. Correspondingly, unfavorable conditions surrounding the
contact would serve merely to strengthen prejudice. In a recent
review of the concept of equal-status interracial contact, Riordan
(1978) has argued that an assumption of equal status is often quite
unjustified, representing ‘&acruel and treacherous misnomer which
substitutes ideology for reality” (p. 176). Though directed spe-
cifically at studies of black-white relations in the United States,
the implications of his argument for the wider field of cross-
cultural contact ought to be recognised.
To some extent it is possible to keep strongly prejudiced
individuals out of international organizations by devising selection
techniques to detect them. The special need for international
organizations to utilise such techniques has been made clear by
Wilson (1961) who notes the possibility that individuals with
personalities and characteristics which specifically limit their

ability to function satisfactorily in cross-cultural work will be
particularly drawn to this kind of work directly because of their
inability to cope within their own society on account of those
same characteristics.
Time Factor
There is a considerable weight of evidence in the literature to
suggest that the problems of adjustment in intercultural relation-
ships, particularly of an expatriate to his host environment, are
greatest in the early stages of familiarity. (Though, as discussed
below, at the very beginning of the sojourn experience there may
be a “honeymoon” phase of good adjustment.) It is correspond-
ingly during this initial period of adjustment that we would expect
the relations between individuals interculturally to be prone to the
greatest number of misunderstandings.
For the expatriate’s part, he often discovers a wide disparity
between what he has been used to and what he finds in the host
environment; so many of the aspects affecting both his profes-
sional and his personal life may be different. Though varying from
location to location and between expatriates depending upon a
variety of factors to be discussed subsequently, a not uncommon
reaction of an expatriate to such a situation is culture shock, a
term coined by Oberg (1960). Lundstedt (1963) has described
culture shock as:
a form of personality maladjustment which is a reaction to a temporarily

unsuccessful attempt to adjust to new surroundings and people, Instead of
absorbing new stress successfully, the person becomes anxious, confused and
often appears apathetic. The symptoms of culture shock are usually ac-
companied by a subjective feeling of loss, and a sense of isolation and
loneliness often called homesickness. Culture shock can be viewed as a
response to stress by emotional and intellectual withdrawal, and is charac-
terised by a longing for an environment in which gratification of important
psychological and physical needs is predictable and less uncertain. (p. 3)
Taft (1977) has gone further and identified six different types
of culture shock. Though it may be so that culture shock has
affected all kinds of travellers since human society began (Bock,
1970) it must be acknowledged that the ability to cope with a
foreign environment varies widely from individual to individual,
with certain persons being able to adapt with very few problems
(see, for example, the research of Smith [ 19663 on Peace Corps

volunteers in Ghana), and that the nature of the culture contact
situation will affect the form of culture shock experienced (Taft,
1977).
Such initial culture shock and many of the problems it implies
are gradually overcome through a process of socialization and
learning in the new environment. (Adler [ 19751 has pointed out
that the positive aspect of this process in terms of the personal
growth of sojourners is sometimes overlooked. Further, on the
basis of their research among Canadian expatriates in Kenya,
Ruben and Kealey [ 19791 have found tentative evidence to
suggest “that in some cases at least, the persons who will
ultimately be the most effective can be expected to undergo the
most intense culture shock during transition” [p. 4 11.) It has been
suggested, in fact, that expatriates go through a characteristic
pattern of adjustment with respect to their cross-cultural experi-
ence. Examining the adjustment of Norwegian Fulbright scholars
to the United States, Lysgaard (1955) observed that there were
“certain stages of adjustment, characterised by good adjustment,
followed by an adjustment “crisis,” after which good adjustment
is again achieved” ( p. 49). The sojourners appeared to experience a
kind of U-shaped adjustment curve; their arrival and early period
in the host environment was one of high expectations and
satisfaction; eventually the differences between their own and the
host culture became impressed upon them, there were various
adjustment problems and their satisfactions were decreased;
gradually, though, they adjusted to their host environment and the
favourability of their impressions increased. Since Lysgaard’s
article it has been reasoned that an expatriate, having adjusted to
his host environment, faces similar rt)-entry problems upon return-
ing to his home environment and that the U-curve may thus be
extended to resemble a W-curve (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963:
Jacobson, 1963; Murray. 1973).
The adjustment curves imply that after an initial ‘high,’ rela-
tions between expatriates and locals will be somewhat strained and
open to misunderstandings for some time as a result of the wide
divergency in the expectations each party has of the other. The
Gullahorns have said that during this period before adequate
adjustment the expatriate’s state will be similar to a condition of
structural imbalance (Heider, 195 8 ) or cognitive dissonance
(Festinger. 1957 ).
Though it is not our purpose to elaborate on the issue here, it

should be noted that in seeking to accommodate the expectations
of those with whom he is involved and to whom he is responsible,
an expatriate is placed in a unique situation of role conflict faced
as he may be with a variety of role senders (Mennis & Sauvant,
1972; Shetty, 1971; Yun, 1973). For example, in attempting to
accommodate his role to the local environment an expatriate
executive may create the impression with management at head-
quarters that he has “sold the company out.” In essence:
managers of foreign subsidiaries have often failed because they did not
understand the foreign nation in which they worked, but others have also
failed because they understood the foreign country so well that their head
office decided they had “gone native.” (Wilkins, 1966, p. 90)
Inevitably, such conflicts imply potential strain and misunder-

standings in the relations between the expatriate and (among
others) his local national counterparts.
Several additional important factors, besides those so far men-
tioned, influence the adjustment of the expatriate to his host
environment-which, in turn, influences the development of an
adequate and accurate understanding between the expatriate and
local personnel. Very important among these is the extent of
congruency which exists between the expatriate’s expectations
prior to taking up his expatriate position and, in the first place,
the expectations of the organization to which he is assigned in the
host country, and, in the second place, his actual experience in his
expatriate role. For each set of circumstances previous research
has shown that in those instances where the degree of congruency
is low, the expatriate is not likely to adjust well but, rather, is
likely to experience a high level of frustration and a low level of
satisfaction (Aram & Stoner, 1972; Byrnes, 1965).
In a similar fashion, the performance of local personnel in
relation to the expectations held for them by the expatriate
executives who hire them may have an important bearing upon
relations between the two. It has been noted (Teague, 1968) for
example, that United States expatriates need to realise that
European middle managers usually do not have the decision-
making skills that their title would imply in the United States
since their authority is very limited in Europe. Failure to under-
stand such a difference may adversely affect relations between the
parties.
It has been claimed that in many instances the expatriate’s

adjustment to the ways of his hosts, and vice versa, is made easier
by the existence of what has been termed a “third culture”
(Useem, Donoghue, & Useem, 1963). Useem, Donoghue and
Useem theorise that at the intersections of societies a third culture
develops in which the culture of the hosts and that of the
expatriate are supplanted to a certain extent by their shared norms
in a new culture. They define the third culture as “the behavior
patterns created, shared and learned by men of different societies
who are in the process of relating their societies, or sections
thereof, to each other” (p. 169). The extent to which a third
culture will develop is itself a function of the degree of cultural
difference between the host country nationals and expatriate
personnel. According to Cohen (1977), integration in such a third
culture is more likely the greater the similarity between the two.
Useem et al. maintain that, despite certain dysfunctional conse-
quences which may accrue from its existence, the third culture
often aids considerably in many cases in easing the transition to
the new role for the expatriate.
Adjustment of the parties to an intercultural relationship and
the development of an adequate and accurate understanding
between them will also be a function of such factors as their
previous experience in cross-cultural relationships and the cultural
distance between them. It is proposed to deal with this latter issue
in the next sub-section.
Cultural Distance
In discussing factors which may be important in creating

misunderstandings between parties to an intercultural relationship,
a considerable number of researchers have given passing attention
to the so-called cultural distance factor. Most have argued that the
further apart the cultures of the parties to the relationship are, the
greater problems there will be for each to adjust to the other and,
by implication, the more likely it is that there will be misunder-
standings between them. Unfortunately, only a few of those
researchers have paid any attention to operationalising the cultural
distance concept; here we will briefly examine the views of several
who have.
At a low level of conceptualisation are the views of such
researchers as Porter (1972) who perceives cultural distance to
vary along a minimal-maximal dimension of social uniqueness. He

provides an example with “U.S. Hippies” and “U.S. Straights” at
the minimal difference end of the continuum, and “Westerners”
and “Asians” at the maximum end. The very attraction of the
simplicity of the scheme is also its principal drawback insofar as it
is difficult to apply to other situations.
A similarly simple concept is offered by Stewart ( 1966) who in
devising a scheme for the training of American advisors to serve
abroad, distinguishes between American culture and, in mirror
image of it, contrast American culture. Based upon the principal
value orientations propounded by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck
( 196 1) as a means of differentiating between societies, he draws a
profile of the two. Despite the fact that he further divides the
contrast American cultures into concrete (for example, Chinese
culture) and abstract (for example, Arab culture) types, the
profiles drawn are essentially very broad, with the result that
problems arise in applying the concept to any two specific
countries.
Several researchers have attempted to deal conceptually with
the issue of cultural distance from the basis that most problems in
intercultural interrelationships arise from the different interpreta-
tions placed on a particular behavior or set of circumstances by
the parties concerned (i.e., from their different conceptions of
reality). According to this viewpoint, the most straightforward
situations of intercultural contact are those in which the same
basic social situations are common to both the host’s and the
expatriate’s culture and in which similar behavioral responses are
appropriate for those situations; in these circumstances the ex-
patriate can behave abroad in exactly the same way as he does in
his own country. According to Triandis (1972) the greatest
intercultural problems occur in circumstances where the social
situations in the host’s and in the expatriate’s cultures are basically
the same but in which the appropriate behavioral responses in such
situations are different. He instances the problems of response
regarding use of first names in interactions between Americans and
Englishmen. (It is interesting to note that using precisely the same
examples, Americans and Englishmen, Stewart [ 19721 reaches a
completely different conclusion about the potential for problems
in their interrelationships.) Triandis states that in circumstances
where the culture of the host and the expatriate are very different,
interactions are intermediate in difficulty. As a result, he claims,
American businessmen may experience greater difficulty in dealing

with South Europeans or Latin Americans than with Chinese or
Japanese. Triandis’ hypothesis is a provocative one, as yet untested
empirically. In fact, this particular view expressed by Triandis
appears to be somewhat at variance with his co-authored view in
another place (Fiedler, Mitchell, & Triandis, 197 1) in which it was
suggested that the greatest problems arise in those instances where
there exist the greatest divergencies in norms, customs and values.
Acceptance of the subjective culture concept implies acceptance
also that each culture differs in fundamental respects from every
other culture. The basis upon which the degree of difference
between any two cultures may be assessed, or the extent to which
relationships between members of those two cultures may be
judged as Iikely to be more or less difficult, is, however, a moot
point as the previous discussion indicated. This fact has been
recognized by Triandis ( 1972) who, in commenting upon his own
propositions, was led to conclude that:
Research is needed to test the hypotheses just described concerning the

similarity in the subjective cultures between two groups and its effect on the
difficulty of cross-cultural interactions. (p. 348)
Pm0 nalit?l
To some extent the impact of personality factors on inter-
cultural adjustment and intercultural understanding has already
been dealt with; for example, in the discussion of xenophiles and
ethnocentrism. In this section certain additional personality-
related material will be discussed.
One concept which has received some attention in the sojourn
research literature is authoritarianism. Implicitly, one might
expect that authoritariallisln would be inversely related to
empathy and that individuals high on authoritarianism would
experience adjustment problems in intercultural relationships. (In
this sense, authoritarianism is closely related to ethnocentrism.)
The empirical evidence is, however, not clear. While Basu and
Ames (1970) research showed that sojourners with authoritarian
personalities were more likely to experience unpleasant aspects
during their sojourn than individuals who were not authoritarian
in nature. limited evidence exists (Smith, 1966) to suggest no
relationship between authoritarianism, on the one hand, and either
general competence or the administrative evaluations of others in
the sojourn environment, on the other.
One might speculate that, in Riesman, Glazer, and Denny’s

(1950) terms, some persons will be more sensitive to the views of
those around them than others (other- vs. inner-directed persons),
a facility which may aid them in adjusting to their relationships
with their hosts. While this may be so (no evidence exists to either
support or refute the proposition), Zeleznik (1957) contends that
other-directed individuals are much more prone to culture shock
than the inner-directed individuals they are increasingly replacing
on overseas assignments. Moreover, he claims, both inner- and
other-directed persons have considerable problems relating to the
tradition-directed individuals with whom they are so frequently in
contact in foreign countries. These matters could well benefit
from further empirical investigation.
By far the greatest attention of personality-related approaches
to intercultural adjustment has focused on looking for personality
types, classified according to the satisfactoriness with which
sojourners can adjust to a foreign environment. Such classifica-
tions have been formulated from observation of various groups of
sojourners: for example, Bennett, Passin and McKnight’s (1958)
study of Japanese students in the United States (classified as
adjustors, constrictors, and idealists), Sewell and Davidsen’s
(1956) study of Scandanavian students in the United States
(detached observers, promoters, enthusiastic participants, settlers),
and the wives of American sojourners in India studied by Useem
(1966) (capers, the cautious, supporters, fumblers). Though
interesting in themselves, such trait approaches have by definition
been rather general and thus of somewhat limited usefulness in
predicting the behavior of sojourners. Moreover, a comparison of
the various classifications reveals no consistently agreed upon
traits for successful adaptation to a foreign culture.
In summary, though one traditionally held view has been that
personality is central to almost all problems of intercultural
adjustment (e.g., Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, 1958;
Klineberg, 1964), current opinion is that personality is not very
useful in predicting intercultural adjustment (e.g., David, 1972;
Guthrie, 1975). The degree of adjustment achieved by the so-
journer is likely to depend as much on such factors as the precise
nature of his role and the particular environment in which he is
placed as upon his personality.
Contact and Attitudes

The achievement of an adequate level of understanding between
two parties of different cultural backgrounds may be expected to
be significantly related to the nature of their contact and to their
overall attitudes with respect to members of the other culture and
their relationship to them. In an earlier section of this paper,
various studies which had examined the effect of communication
upon stereotyping were noted. One of the principal objectives of
this section is briefly to examine the reciprocal influence of
stereotyping upon communication. This has been the subject of
attention in several places, particularly in relation to the experi-
ences of foreign students in the United States (see Spaulding and
Flack, 1976).
Several research studies have examined the concept of perceived
national status and its implications in terms of the attitudes of
expatriates towards their hosts (and consequent relations between
the two parties). The earliest work on this subject was done by
Morris (1956, 1960). Morris’ research utilised favourability of
expatriates’ attitudes as the dependent variable and found that
neither self-assigned low status nor imputed low status from
members of the host society necessarily implied unfavorable
attitudes on the part of the expatriates towards their hosts. What
was found to be important in influencing the favorability of the
expatriate’s attitudes was the relative status imputed to the
expatriate’s country by the expatriate himself and by the hosts.
Where expatriates believed that the hosts accorded the expatriate’s
country a lower status than the expatriate believed it deserved, the
expatriates tended to have unfavorable attitudes towards the host
country. On the other hand, where expatriates believed that the
hosts accorded the expatriate’s country a higher status than did
the expatriate himself the expatriates were likely to have generally
favorable attitudes. Commenting upon the situation of national
status deprivation, Morris has said that:
Perceiving a low placement by the new ascribers under these conditions
effectively reduces the chance for close personal relations with those
ascribers, although it does not affect more casual contact with them nor
deprive the individual student of his personal satisfaction with the experience.
Cp. 136)
A considerable number of studies have concentrated upon

examining the extent to which foreign students’ attitudes toward
their host country are a function of the nature of the contact

established between those students and their hosts. The most
generally reported finding has been that favorable attitudes
towards the hosts depend largely upon the establishment of close
and friendly relations with individual members of the host society
(e.g., Selltiz & Cook, 1962). However, this general finding has
been the subject of criticism on several grounds: there have been
contradictions in the results (see Pool, 1965); the studies have
failed to clearly differentiate between genuine and superficial
contact and to specify the dimensions of the contact (see Salter &
Teger, 1975); the direction of causality has been questioned by
most of the researchers themselves. The most recent studies (e.g.,
Basu & Ames, 1970) have established that the nature of the
relationship is much more complex than was previously asserted.
In a comprehensive multivariate empirical examination of the
overall attitudinal satisfaction of a group of American naval
personnel stationed in Japan (Gudykunst, Wiseman, & Hammer,
1977) it was found that the degree of third-culture perspective of
the sojourners (a composite measure designed to tap the degree of
empathy, ethnocentrism, sociability and certain other character-
istics of the sojourners) was a most important variable influencing
satisfaction with the sojourn experience. This study is particularly
noteworthy for its rigorous attempt to deal with the interrelation-
ships between a number of pertinent independent variables
affecting the dependent variable; aside from third-culture per-
spective, measures were also taken on cross-cultural interaction,
the evaluation of interactions, behavioral skills, stereotyping, and
cross-cultural training. Such a study stands in marked contrast
with the more common bivariate-relationship studies, or worse,
anecdotal treatments of the subject.
Of greatest interest from the viewpoint of this paper, the
relationship between contact and perceived similarity or dis-
similarity in attitudes and values has been raised. In the most
detailed of the studies examining the nature of this interactions-
sentiments relationship between locals and expatriates it has been
commented that:
Data from the involvement phase of the W-curve support Heider’s generaliza-
tion that both proximity and interaction frequently increase the effect of
perceived similarity or dissimilarity of attitudes and values. Given similar
attitudes, proximity and frequent interaction tend to increase the degree of
positive sentiment. With slight dissimilarity of attitudes an initial assimilation
seems to be produced, converting original disparate values into common

values, resulting in an increase in positive feelings. With strong dissimilarities,
however, proximity and frequent interaction are likely to result in a greater
clarification of divergencies and in a conflictful sequence of interaction-
followed, perhaps, by mutual antipathy and disassociation. (Gullahorn &
Gullahorn, 1963, p. 41)
These findings tend to reinforce the views of those researchers

who, with respect to cultural distance factors, have maintained
that the greatest problems in relations between expatriates and
locals arise in those circumstances in which there are greatest
divergencies in values and so on.
The reaction of expatriates to disputes with hosts over matters
such as national status is, itself, likely to be a function largely of
the expatriate’s culture. For example, Coelho (1958) has noted
that Indian students who perceived a derogatory image of their
country on the part of their American hosts were likely to respond
in a hostile fashion. On the other hand, it has been suggested that
a typical Japanese student’s response to such a situation would be
withdrawal (Bennett et al., 1958).
In terms of the actual operating philosophy developed, in the
context of multinational corporations one study has noted a
tendency for American expatriate executives to adopt more
authoritarian attitudes in their relations with host country
nationals than they exhibited in their domestic American positions
(Alpander, 1973).
Taken overall, most of the studies which have utilised ex-
patriate-local contact as an independent variable have been con-
cerned with assessing its relationship to the attitudes of the
expatriate rather than with some direct measure of adjustment or
understanding between the parties. Though the attitudes of the
expatriate towards his individual host colleagues and towards the
host country are one measurement of adjustment and a contribut-
ing factor to the understanding which exists between expatriate
and local they are so only in a secondary sense. The concentration
upon attitudes as the dependent variable is a reflection of the
objectives of educational aid projects, the recipients of which have
been the principal subjects for investigators in this area. Despite
these limitations, the findings of these studies are, of course, of
substantial import for our wider understanding of the nature of
intercultural relationships as well as important building blocks for
subsequent investigations specifically within international
organizations.
CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL ATTENTION TO THE

PROBLEMS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
In the previous section a number of factors were presented

which it has been suggested are important in creating or exacer-
bating misunderstandings between parties to intercultural relation-
ships. It was shown, for example, that the culturally conditioned
“reality” of the parties makes for a variety of communication
problems. The objective of the present section is to investigate
further what research approaches have been adopted in attempting
to delineate and/or solve such misunderstandings within the
context of international organizations. Though principal interest
lies in previous empirical work, several non-empirical studies are
also relevant.
Broad Attention to the Problems

At a relatively non-rigorous level several works have made ,an
important contribution to our understanding of the problems
through their description of the relations between local and
expatriate personnel in multinational corporations. For the most
part these studies have been content to deal with the issues at a
macro level and within the context of relatively limited organiza-
tional circumstances. Typical of such work is a field study of
American expatriates working in Iran (Hodgson, 1961). In this
study Hodgson set out to examine the proposition that colleagues
drawn from widely disparate cultures would (because they were
unable to adequately understand their differences) experience
considerable difficulties in working with one another. An ex-
amination was made, primarily through non-directive interviewing
and personal observations, of the operating differences between
the expatriates and their local Iranian colleagues and subordinates,
and the consequences of those differences. It was claimed that the
general proposition was confirmed by the major findings of the
study.
In a similar study an examination was made of the problems as
they confronted American executives working in the Mexican
subsidiaries of United States corporations (Fayerweather, 1959).
Fayerweather explored the problems which emanate from the
individualistic vs. group-oriented approaches which contrast the
American and Mexican cultures. He reported similar problems to
those noted by Hodgson (1961).
In a similar vein, Skinner (1968) established that understanding

must be developed at the interpersonal level. In a field study based
more heavily upon interviews with expatriate and local executives
than either the Hodgson or Fayerweather studies, Skinner noted
that the establishment of such understanding brought with it an
improvement in the relations between the parties.
In an examination by intensive personal interview of the
relationship between American and Japanese executives in 15
United States-Japanese joint venture operations in Japan, Yoshino
( 1968) ascertained that misunderstandings could result from both
a failure to appreciate culturally-based differences and also from a
tendency on the part of some individuals to attribute all problems
to cultural differences.
On the assumption that such cultural factors as those identified
in the studies discussed above would influence the frequency and
nature of contacts between intercultural partners, Pintield (1973)
determined to examine the relations between international branch
organizations and parties in their environment. Pinfield undertook
an examination of the contacts between the members of diplo-
matic missions of various “Western” and “Latin” countries in
three cities (two in the United States, one in an unspecified South
American country) and both host country nationals and members
of other diplomatic missions. Two hypotheses were formulated:
first, “interactions between branches of similar socio-cultural
background in a host environment will be greater than between
branches of dissimilar backgrounds”; second, “interactions be-
tween branches and a culturally similar host environment will be
greater than between branches and culturally dissimilar environ-
ments” (Pinfield, 1973, pp. 1OGlOl). The first of these hypothe-
ses was supported. Two major groupings of interacting persons
were identified, one comprised of Latin Americans, the other
comprised mainly of persons from Western European nations. The
second hypothesis was, however, rejected: this result was ex-
plained by reference to the principal tasks undertaken by a
diplomatic mission, it being reasoned that socio-cultural differ-
ences were not likely to intrude to any extent upon the per-
formance of those tasks.
Several studies have specifically sought to link culturally based
differences between local and expatriate personnel in multi-
national corporations to various behavioral consequences. In a
recent intensive investigation (Harari & Zeira, 1974; Zeira, Harari,
& Nundi, 1975) of a non-American ethnocentric multinational
corporation in the United States it was found that cultural
differences had an important effect upon employee morale
especially insofar as the local personnel disliked the managerial
style of the expatriates.
In addition to the field and survey studies already discussed,
there exists a limited amount of experimental research into
intercultural understanding. In one such experimental study
(Fiedler, 1966), research was conducted to assess whether “cul-
turally and lin~istically homogeneous teams would perform more
efficiently on various tasks than would heterogeneous teams” (p.
259).
The experiment was performed at the Belgian Naval Training
Centre with 250 recruits and 48 petty officers; in each case half
were from Dutch-spewing homes and the other half from French-
speaking homes. The central proposition was based on the view
that the communication necessary for performing experimental
tasks would be “better” in homogeneous than in heterogeneous
groups. However, it was found that:
While heterogeneous groups had less pleasant group atmosphere and higher
anxiety scores, these teams performed as well as homogeneous groups in all
but the letter-writing task which demanded a high degree of verbal facility,
These results suggest the need for reevaluating the importance of the
communication variable in group interaction. (Fiedler, 1966, p. 260)
Though these results are of obvious interest (see also, Fiedler,

Meuwese, & Oonk, 196 l), it does need to be emphasized that
these results were experimental, involving a limited range of tasks,
and that the research concentrated at the group rather than the
inte~ersonal level.
Advances from Research into Expatriate Selection and Training

On the basis that assignment abroad is not the same as domestic
placement, considerable attention, both theoretical and empirical,
has been given specifically to the matters of expatriate selection
and training. This material is of interest in this section insofar as
much of it has focused on exploring means by which to minimise
the problems encountered by both expatriates and locals in their
relationships with one another.
Recognition of the importance of cultural differences has been

reflected in the concern expressed by various writers that persons
selected for international assignments should be chosen as much
upon their ability to adapt to a foreign environment as upon their
technical capabilities (Ivancevich, 1969; Love& 1966; Wilson,
1961). Research (Miller, 1972, 1973) has suggested, however, that
at least with regard to international business organizations more
attention is given to an individual’s previous performance and
specific abilities than to those factors which relate to his ability to
adapt adequately to a foreign environment. On the basis of their
research, Baker and Ivancevich (197 1) have commented that often
the selectors of expatriates do not perceive any important dif-
ferences between domestic and overseas placement, believing that
if an executive can perform well at home then he should be able to
perform well abroad. Significa~ltly, it has also been shown (Ivan-
cevich, 1969) that there are substantial differences between the
views of selectors and of expatriates themselves as regards the
relative importance which should be given to various matters in
selecting individuals for overseas assignment; for example ex-
patriates place far greater importance upon their wives’ opinions
than do their selectors.
Studies of the actual performance of expatriates have provided
varied and often conflicting explanations regarding which factors
make for success (e.g., Aram & Stoner, 1972; Hays, 1972a, 1974;
Montgomery, 1961; Newman, Bhatt, & Gutteridge, 1978; Stoner
et al., 1972). Part of the problem almost certainly lies in the
variety of criteria by which such “success” can and has been
measured (Benson, 1978). Moreover, some studies have attained a
greater degree of objectivity in measuring success than others. In
this regard it is interesting to contrast two recent studies. In one
(Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978) reliance was placed on
the subjects’ self-reports of how well they functioned in a foreign
culture. In the other (Ruben and Kealey, 1979), the adaptation of
the subjects to their foreign environment was based on the
subjects’ self-reports, the observations of a trained researcher and
the assessments of several categories of persons associated with the
subjects in that environment. Despite the often conflicting ex-
planations for success, there is general support for the view that
cultural empathy and an ability to deal with local nationals are
important attributes associated with an expatriate’s performance.
The importance that a person in a cross-cultural role can
empathise with the attitudes and expectations of his counterparts

has also been emphasised by Chemers (1966) who suggests that
training programmes can assist in improving the accuracy of
perceptions and thus the performance of the individual concerned.
The traditional university-based training (whereby individuals are
broadly educated in the social sciences to become open-minded
and adept at problem-solving) has met with certain criticism
(Harrison & Hopkins, 1967) principally on the grounds that it
does not equip individuals in sufficient depth to meet the demands
of their cross-cultural roles. Though a variety of alternative
approaches have been suggested (Brislin & Pedersen, 1976; Pedrag-
lio, 1970), no consensus exists about what methods are the most
effective or efficient (Thiagarajan, 1971). On the one hand, for
example, some researchers (e.g., Mead, 1948) favor a general
sensitizing approach, similar in some respects to the traditional
university model, in which persons are trained to quickly ap-
preciate and adapt to any different situation. Operationally this
kind of training might involve an American expatriate, say, ,in
different role play exercises designed to highlight for him the
differences between American culture and contrast-American
culture (Stewart, 1966). The rationale behind this general ap-
proach is that the individual differences in each encounter the
expatriate has, in addition to outdating due to rapid cultural
changes, make specific training too limited. Nevertheless, many of
the most recently suggested schemes have been those designed to
give in-depth training in the vagaries of specific cultures to which
individuals are to be assigned. Their approach is based on the
supposition that every culture is different in significant respects
and that training must, therefore, be specific to each; on this basis,
adherents to this approach have criticized the general sensitivity
schemes as “not sufficient to overcome the communication bar-
riers and intercultural misunderstandings” (Triandis, 1972, p.
347). It is proposed to briefly examine several of these culturally-
specific schemes here.
One method which has gained a considerable amount of
discussion in the literature is that of utilizing the culture assimi-
lator. The culture assimilator consists of about 75-100 brief
episodes each of which describes some type of interpersonal,
intercultural encounter, where the nature of that contact is
specific to a host culture. At the time of writing, assimilators have
been developed for Greece, Honduras, Iran, Thailand, and Aborigi-
nal Australians. For each encounter one “correct” and several “in-
correct” explanations of the behavior of the host party are supplied.
The trainee is required to select the alternative he considers the
correct explanation. Having made his choice he is supplied with an
analysis of why his choice was or was not correct. In this way it is
anticipated that the trainee will build up a basic knowledge of the
other culture which will assist him in accurately anticipating the
attitudes and behavior of his intercultural partners (Fiedler et al.,
1971). The assimilator, then, seeks to increase the isomorphic
attributions of persons engaged in cross-cultural relations
(Triandis, 197 5).
A number of both laboratory and field experiments have been
conducted to assess the degree to which the assimilator does, in
fact, assist in aiding intercultural relations (e.g., Chemers, 1966;
Chemers, Lekhyananda, Fiedler, & Stolorow, 1966; Mitchell &
Foa, 1969; O’Brien, Fiedler, & Hewett, 1971; O’Brien & Plooij,
1977; Worchel & Mitchell, 1972). In an article summarising the
results of experiments conducted up until 1972 (Mitchell et al.,
1972) it was concluded that:
the Culture Assimilator is an effective method of decreasing some of the

stress experienced when one works with people from another culture. In
general, personal adjustment and interpersonal relations in heterocultural
groups is enhanced by this form of cultural training. Performance measures
have shown somewhat less response to Assimilator training, although one
field study indicates that the inclusion of task-oriented items in the Assimi-
lator may indeed help increase productivity. (pp. 103-104)
A recent experiment (Weldon, Carlston, Rissman, Slobodin, &

Triandis, 1975) involving the assimilator tested its effects on
black-white interactions within the United States. In this experi-
ment the assimilator was shown to have both desirable and
undesirable outcomes. On the one hand, trained subjects provided
more satisfactory explanations for the behavior of their inter-
cultural partners than untrained subjects and perceived less con-
flict than untrained subjects in situations of intercultural disagree-
ment. On the other hand, it was discovered that the workers in the
experimental teams preferred to work with untrained rather than
trained leaders. The authors concluded that the initial effect of the
assimilator was for the subject to behave somewhat unnaturally, a
reaction they suggested could be diminished by time and by
supplementing the assimilator with other exercises designed to get
over this problem. Thus, in heightening a trainee’s awareness of

the need to tread carefully in dealing with the members of another
culture, the assimilator may induce a tendency, especially in the
early stages of contact, for the trainee to appear ill at ease. As Taft
(1977, pp. 138-139) has pointed out, despite the general utility of
teaching cultural skills to persons engaged in cross-cultural re-
lationships, much must be learned “by trial and error, and practice
and observation, often incidentally rather than deliberately” (p.
139).
In another study (Davidson, 1975) dealing with black-white
assimilators in the United States, the importance of identifying
areas of greater or lesser cognitive differentiation between cultures
(refer back to the section on subjective culture) was emphasised as
a method of improving the usefulness of assimilators in enabling
individuals involved in intercultural situations to make isomorphic
attributions with respect to one another.
In summary, while the culture assimilator appears to be an
effective instrument by which to improve interpersonal relations
in heterocultural group situations, the experimental and field
results are equivocal, particularly with regard to its effects on
task-related matters of the relationships.
The culture assimilator technique of training is essentially aimed
at propogating sociotypes (stereotypes empirically verifiable for
the bulk of the population). The rationale is fundamentally that
use of such sociotypes as the basis for assessing what a cultural
group member’s attitudes and behavior will be in a particular set
of circumstances will lead one to be accurate in most cases. An
approach to cross-cultural training which is quite similar in certain
respects has been developed by another group of researchers. On
the basis that a high level of interpersonal understanding is
essential to effective cross-cultural relationships, Bass (197 1) has
explained his argument and that of his colleagues thus:
Our contention is that if the American [advisor abroad] is cognizant of his

own national mode and the host national mode, this knowledge may reduce
the extent of his error of perception greatly, particularly where the actual
differences between national groups are large and variation within national
groups is small (p. 288).
This assertion is basically the same as that of the culture

assimilator researchers. The difference between the two groups lies
in the methods by which they formulate their modes or socio-
types. In the case of the assimilator, the critical incident technique

is used: samples of the expatriates and the hosts with whom they
are in contact are asked to describe critical events in their
relationships, events which have influenced their attitudes or
behavior towards members of the other culture as a whole. An
episode and alternative explanations for the attitudes and behavior
adopted by the parties are then developed by persons familiar with
the culture and validated by testing it upon members of that
culture. On the other hand, the Bass team has concentrated on
building up a data bank specifically concerned with the attitudes
and behavior of managers in various countries with respect to the
performance of their managerial tasks (see Bass, 1969). In their
case the data has been gathered experimentally by exploring the
attitudes held, and by observing the methods employed and results
achieved in respect of a range of simulation exercises administered
to a wide sample of managers in the countries surveyed. From this
data bank profiles have been developed of the “average” manager
in each of a number of countries. Using this information in such
devices as role-play exercises, it is claimed that it is possible to
improve the accuracy with which parties anticipate and interpret
the attitudes and actions of their intercultural colleagues. Un-
fortunately, however, no hard published data exists to substantiate
or refute this claim.
Despite the important conceptual and experimentally-empirical
contributions that the culture assimilator and Bass approaches
have made to our understanding of the factors influencing the
level of understanding between intercultural partners, it is ap-
propriate at this stage to issue a caveat in respect of those
approaches. Each approach involves imputing to individuals,
qualities which have been shown to be a general characteristic of
that group of which the individuals are members. This practice is
unsatisfactory to the extent that a particular individual deviates
from the “norm” of his group on that characteristic (a factor not
overlooked by Bass [ 197 1, p. 2891). Thus trainees should be
taught to expect certain deviation from the sociotype on the part
of certain of their intercultural colleagues and encouraged not to
regard such persons as necessarily especially abnormal. A more
fundamental criticism of the Bass approach as a tool to aid
interpersonal intercultural relations stems from the way in which
their particular sociotypes are developed. Unlike the culture
assimilator approach where the episodes are developed out of
actual incidents between expatriates and locals, the Bass approach

builds sociotypes on the basis of the behavior of managers in their
own domestic environment. Yet it should be immediately obvious
that the attitudes and behavior adopted in an intercultural situa-
tion may not necessarily be the same as those utilised in the
domestic environment; recent research evidence supports this
proposition (Toyne, 1976).
In summary, considerable attention has been given to the
question of intercultural misunderstandings within international
organizations. Despite these advances, the next section will argue
that important gaps remain in our understanding of the problems.
LITERATURE CRITIQUE, SUMMARY OF THE

PRINCIPAL RESEARCH GAPS
As the literature review presented in the two previous sections
has shown, a considerable degree of both conceptual and empirical
attention has been given to isolating “problem areas” in the
interrelationships between persons of different cultures. These
studies have made an important contribution to our knowledge of
and understanding about both the general problems and more
specifically, the problems as they affect the operation of inter-
national organizations. At the broadest level, the array of evidence
presented overwhelmingly supports the view that the potential for
misunderstandings between parties to intercultural relationships is,
for a variety of reasons, markedly greater than in encounters
where the cultures of the parties are homogeneous. Moreover, the
results of exploratory empirical investigations have suggested
(albeit on the basis of limited research designs) that such mis-
understandings are potentially damaging, both to the relationships
between those parties and by implication to the performance of
the enterprises within which they work. (It should be noted,
though, that these results have emanated exclusively from studies
in which the group was the unit of analysis.) Despite these un-
deniably important advances, however, the proposition to be made
and argued here is that considerable gaps remain in our under-
standings about these matters concerning intercultural relation-
ships, gaps that require further research.
Much of the work reviewed suffers to the extent that it is
non-analytical and non-rigorous, lacking any solid conceptual base.
This is particularly true of much of the work on multinational
corporations; studies such as those of Fayerweather (1959),

Hodgson (1961) and Skinner (1968) have been useful in pointing
to broad problem areas but their reliance on observational-type
methods has precluded them from detailing the precise nature or
dimensions of the problems. (For other broad reviews and
critiques of cross-cultural organization studies, see Ajiferuke &
Boddewyn, 1970; Boddewyn & Nath, 1970; Goodman & Moore,
1972; Kraut, 1973; Moore, 1974; Nath, 1968; Negandhi, 1974;
Roberts, 1970, 1973; Schollhamm~r, 1973.) As a consequence, a
variety of issues of theoretical importance has been skimmed over.
This criticism is particularly relevant at the empirical level where
many areas have been either dealt with lightly or left totally
unresearched; the cultural distance phenomenon and cross-cultural
communication within organizations are two excellent examples
here. In addition, though research into such topics as the adjust-
ment of students abroad has aided considerably in conceptualisa-
tion of the issues, considerable room exists for testing the
hypotheses and findings in other contexts such as multinational
corporations.
Partly related to the criticisms of the previous paragraph, and
by far the most serious criticism of the studies into the problems
of intercultural relations to date, is that most of the previous
studies (especially those at the empirical level, but including those
of a conceptual nature, such as the recent work of Torre & Toyne,
1978) have taken an essentially macroscopic perspective, typically
dealing with the problems at a general level, at best using the
group as the lowest unit of analysis, In so doing, they have failed
to give attention to the most critical level, the interpersonal level.
(This deficiency has not escaped the attention of all writers; others
to comment to this effect include Cissna, 1975, and Stewart,
1966.) Moreover, that research which has attempted to deal with
the issues on a more micro level has been primarily of the
sociotype, culture assimilator type involving a small group and one
leader and thus has been largely experimental. In particular, there
has been no serious attempt to undertake research on inter-
personal relations~ps between parties from different cultural
backgrounds, to identify misunderstandings, and to trace the
consequential impact upon their relationships and the functioning
of the organization. Many studies have been based on the quite
reasonable assumption that a high level of accuracy on the part of
each party to an intercultural encounter with respect to the views
of the other will increase the effectiveness of their relations, but

the proposition remains untested at the interpersonal level. An
important research gap has then been left at this interpersonal
level, a gap in which such questions as the following are promi-
nent: how accurately are the respective parties to an intercultural
relationship able to assess one another’s viewpoints (or, put
another way, how common are misunderstandings) at an inter-
personal level?; ‘what factors are important in contributing to such
misunderstandings?; how is the accuracy with which such parties
perceive one another’s viewpoints related to measures of their task
effectiveness?
As a result of these gaps in our knowledge, empirical attention
should now be directed to examining the specific nature of the
relationship between these sets of variables: in the first place, the
relationship between various independent variables and the ac-
curacy of perceptions on the part of cross-cultural colleagues; and
in the second place, the relationship between the accuracy of such
perceptions and certain measures of the effectiveness of the
relations between those parties.
Attention to these issues will enable us to determine, at the
interpersonal level, the validity of the subjective culture theorists’
claim that, “intercultural contact can be a failure or success,
depending on the extent to which each person understands and
appreciates the subjective culture of the other” (Triandis, 1972, p.
344).
REFERENCES
ADLER, P.S. The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture
shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1975, 15 (4), 13-23.
AJIFERUKE, M., & BODDEWYN, J. “Culture” and other explanatory
variables in comparative management studies. Academy of Management
Journal, 1970, 12 (2), 153-163.
ALLPORT, G.W. The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday Anchor,
1958.
ALPANDER, G.G. Drift to authoritarianism: The changing managerial styles
of the U.S. executives overseas. Journal of International Business Studies,
1973,4, 1-14.
AMIR, Y. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin,
1969, 71 (5), 319-342.
ARAM, J.D., & STONER, J.A.F. Development of an organizational change
role. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1972, 8 (4), 438-449.
BAGBY, J.W. A cross-cultural study of perceptual predominance in binocular

rivalry. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 331-334.
BAKER, J.C., & IVANCEVICH, J.M. The assignment of American executives
abroad: Systematic, haphazard or chaotic? ~a~~forn~amanagement Review,
1971, 13 (3),39-41.
BARRETT, G.V., & BASS, B.M. Cross-cultural issues in industrial and orga-
nizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing
Company, 1976.
BASS, B.M. Combining management training and research: Management
analysis exercises to build international data bank. In J. Boddewyn (Ed.),
Comparative management and marketing: Text and Readings. Glenview,
ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1969.
BASS, B.M. The American advisor abroad. Journal of Applied Behavzoral
Science, 197 1, 7 (3), 285-308.
BASU, A.K., & AMES, R.G. Cross-cultural contact and attitude formation.
Sociology and Social Research, 1970, 55 (l), 5-16.
BENNETT, J.W., PASSIN, H., & McKNIGHT, R.K. In search ofidentity: The
Japanese overseas schoiar in America and Japan. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1958.
BENSON, P.G. Measuring cross-cultural adJustmerit: The problem of criteria.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1978, 2, 21-37.
BERGER, P.L., & LUCKMAN, T. The social construction of reality. New
York: Doubleday, 1967.
BERRIEN, F.K. Familiarity, mirror imaging and social desirability in stereo-
types: Japanese vs. Americans. International Journal of Psychology, 1969,
4 (3), 207-215.
BOCHNER, S. Religious role differentiation as an aspect of subjective
culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychoabgy, 1976,7,3-19.
BOCHNER, S., & OHSAKO, T. Ethnic role salience in racially homogeneous
and heterogeneous societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1977, 8
(4), 477-492.
BOCHNER, S., & PERKS, R.W. National role evocation as a function of
cross-national interaction. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 197 1, 2
(2), 157-164.
BOCK, P.K. Foreword: “On culture shock.” In P.K. Bock (Ed.), CuZ~ure
shock: A reader in modern cultural anthropology. New York: Knopf,
1970.
BODDEWYN, J., & NATH, R. Comparative management studies: An assess-
ment. Management International Revzew, 1970, 10 (l), 3-l 1.
BREIN, M., & DAVID, K.H. Intercultural communication and the adjustment
of the sojourner. Psycho~ogjcaZ Bulletin, 197 1,76 (3f, 2 15-230.
BRISLIN, R.W., & PEDERSON, P. Cross-cultural orientation programs. New
York: Gardner, 1976.
BRUNER, J.S., & PERLMUTTER, H.V. Compatriot and foreigner: A study
of impression formation in three countries. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 1957, 55, 253-260.
BYRNE& F.C. Americans in technical assistance: A study of attitudes and
responses to their role abroad. New York: Praeger, 1965.
Problems in Cross-Cultural Con tact 305
CAMPBELL, D.T. Stereotypes and the perception of group differences.

American Psychologist, 1967, 22, 817-829.
CANTRIL, H. Perception and interpersonal relations. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 1957, 114, 119-126.
CHEMERS, M.M. Cross-cultural training as a means for improving situation
favorableness. Human Relations, 1966, 22, 531-536.
CHEMERS, M.M., LEKHYANANDA, D., FIEDLER, F.E., & STOLOROW,
L.M. Some effects of cultural training on leadership in heterocultural task
groups. International Journal ofPsychology, 1966, 1 (4), 301-314.
CHORAFAS, D.N. The communication barrier in international management.
AMA Research Study 100, American Management Association, Inc., 1969.
CISSNA, K.N. Inter-cultural communication in the interpersonal encounter.
Paper presented at the International Communication Association Con-
vention, Chicago, April 1975.
COELHO, G.V. Changing images of America: A study of Indian students’
perceptions. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1958.
COHEN, E. Expatriate communities. Current Sociology, 1977, 24 (3), 1-133.
COLLETT, P. Training Englishmen in the non-verbal behaviour of Arabs: An
experiment on intercultural communication. International Journal of
Psychology, 197 1, 6, 209-2 15.
D’ANGLEJAN, A., & TUCKER, G.R. Communicating across cultures: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1973, 4 (l),
121-130.
DAVID, K.H. Intercultural adjustment and applications of reinforcement
theory to problems of “culture shock.” Trends, 1972, 4 (3), l-64.
DAVIDSON, A.R. Cognitive differentiation and culture training. In Richard
W. Brislin, Stephen Bochner, & Walter J. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural
perspectives on learning. New York: Sage and Wiley/Halstead, 1975.
DEUTSCH, M. A psychological approach to international conflict. In Gerald
Sperrazzo (Ed.), Psychology and international relations. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, 1965.
DUNCAN, S. Nonverbal communication. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72,
118-137.
EDSTROM, A., & GALBRAITH, J. Alternative policies for international
transfers of managers. Management International Review, 1977, 17 (2),
1 l-22.
FAYERWEATHER, J. The internationalization of business. The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1972,403, l-l 1.
FAYERWEATHER, J. The executive overseas: Administrative attitudes and
relationships in a foreign culture. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press,
1959.
FESTINGER, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press, 1957.
FIEDLER, F.E. The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group
performance: A test of the contingency model. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 237-264.
FIEDLER, F.E., MEUWESE, W., & OONK, S. An exploratory study of group
creativity in laboratory tasks. Acta Psychologia, 1961, 18, 100-l 19.
FIEDLER, F.E., MITCHELL, T., & TRIANDIS, H.C. The culture assimilator:
An approach to cross-cultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1971, 55 (2), 95-102.
FOA, U.G., & CHEMERS, M.M. The significance of role behavior differentia-
tion for cross-cultural interaction training. International Journal of
Psychology, 1967, 2, 45-57.
FOA, U.G., & FOA, E.B. Societal structures of the mznd. Springfield, Ill.:
Thomas, 1974.
FOA, U.G., MITCHELL, T.R., & FIEDLER, F.E. Differentiation matching.
BehavioraE Science, 1971, 16, 130-142.
GARDNER, G.H. Cross cultural communication. Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 1962, 58, 241-256.
GOODMAN, P.S., & MOORE, B.E. Critical issues of cross-cultural manage-
ment research. Human Organization, 1972, 31 (l), 39-45.
GROUP FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PSYCHIATRY. Working abroad: A
discussion of psychological attitudes and adaptation in new situations.
New York, 1958.
GUDYKUNST, W.B., WISEMAN, R.L., & HAMMER, M. Determinants of the
soJourner’s attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In Brent D. Ruben
(Ed.), Communication yearbook I. Austin, Tex.: International Communi-
cation Association, 1977.
GULLAHORN, J.T., & GULLAHORN, J.E. An extension of the U-curve
hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 14 (3), 33-47.
GUTHRIE, G.M. A behavioral analysis of culture learning. In Richard W.
Brislin, Stephen Bochner, & Walter J. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural
perspectives on learning. New York: Sage and Wiley/Halstead, 1975.
HALL, E.T. The silent Zanguage. New York: Doubleday, 1959.
HALL, E.T. The silent language in overseas business. Harvard Business
Review, 1960, 38 (3), 87-96.
HALL, E.T. The hidden dimension: Man’s use of space in public and private.
London: Bodley Head, 1966.
HAMMER, M.R., GUDYKUNST, W.B., & WISEMAN, R.L. Dimensions of
intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 1978, 2 (4), 382-393.
HARARI, E., & ZEIRA, Y. Morale problems in non-American multinational
corporations in the United States. Management International Review,
1974, 14 (6), 43-53.
HARDING, J., PROSHANSKY, H., KUTNER, B., & CHEIN, I. PreJudice and
ethnic relations. In Gardner Lindzey & Elliot Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology, (2nd ed.). Vol. 5: Applied social psy-
chology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.
HARRISON, R., & HOPKINS, R.L. The design of cross-cultural training: An
alternative to the university model. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
1967, 3 (4), 431-460.
HARRISON, R.P., COHEN, A.A., CROUCH, W.W., GENOVA, B.K.L., &
STEINBERG, M. The nonverbal communication literature. Journal of
Communication, 1972, 22, 460-476.
HAYS, R.D. Ascribed behavioral determinants of success-failure among U.S.
expatriate managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 1972, 2,

40-46. (a)
HAYS, R.D. The executive abroad. Business Horizons, 1972, 15 (3), 87-93.
@)
HAYS, R.D. Expatriate selection: Insuring success and avoiding failure.
Journal of International Business Studies, 1974,4, 25-37.
HEENAN, D.A. The role of the personnel function in the multinationaliza-
tion process of worldwide institutions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania, 1972.
HEIDER, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley,
1958.
HILDEBRANDT, H.W. Communication barriers between German subsidiaries
and parent American companies. Michigan Business Review, 1973,25 (4),
6-14.
HODGSON, F.X. Cross-cultural conflict: An illustration of the implications
for American business management overseas. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Michigan State University, 1961.
ICHHEISER, G. Misunderstandings in human relations: A study in false social
perception. American Journal of Sociology, 1949, 55, Part 2, l-70.
IVANCEVICH, J.M. Perceived need satisfaction of domestic versus overseas
managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53,274-278.
JACOBSON, E.H. Sojourn research: A definition of the field. Journal‘of
Social Issues, 1963, 14 (3), 123-129.
KLINEBERG, 0. The human dimension in international relations. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.
KLUCKHOHN, C. Mirror for man: The relation of anthropology to modern
life. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1949.
KLUCKHOHN, F.R., & STRODTBECK, F.L. Variations in value orienta-
tions. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1961.
KORTEN, F.F. The influence of culture and sex on the perception of
persons. International Journal of Psychology, 1974,9 (l), 3 l-44.
KRAUT, A.I. Management assessment in international organizations. Zndus-
trial Relations, 1973, 12 (3), 172-182.
KUMATA, H., & SCHRAMM, W. A pilot study of cross-cultural meaning.
Pubiic Opinion Quarterly, 1956, 20, 229-237.
LAMBERT, W.E., FRANKEL, H., & TUCKER, G.R. Judging personality
through speech: A French-Canadian example. Journal of Communication,
1966, 16, 305-321.
LAMBERT, W.E., HODGSON, R.C., GARDNER, R.C., & FILLENBAUM, S.
Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1960, 60 ( l), 44-5 1.
LANDIS, D., McGREW, P., DAY, H., SAVAGE, J., & SARAL, T. Word
meanings in black and white. In Harry C. Triandis (Ed.), Variations in
black and white perceptions of the social environment. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 1976.
LEE, J.A. Cultural analysis in overseas operations. Harvard Business Review,
1966, 44 (2), 106-l 14.
LeVINE, R.A. Socialization, social structure, and intersocietal images. In
Herbert C. Kelman (Ed.), International behavior: A social-psychological

analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.
LINDGREN, H.C., & MARRASH, J. A comparative study of inter-cultural
insight and empathy. Journal of SocialPsychology, 1970, 80, 135-141.
LINDGREN, H.C., & TEBCHERANI, A. Arab and American auto- and
heterostereotypes: A cross cultural study of empathy. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 1971, 2 (2), 173-180.
LITTLE, K.B. Cultural variations in social schemata. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1968, 10 (l), l-7.
LOVELL, E.B. The changing role of the international executive. New York:
National Industrial Conference Board, Business Policy Study NO. 119,
1966.
LUNDSTEDT, S. An introduction to some evolving problems in cross-cultural
research. Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 14 (3), l-9.
LYSGAARD, S. Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright
grantees visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin,
1955, 7,45-51.
MEAD, M. Some cultural approaches to communication problems. In Lyman
Bryson (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas. Institute for Religious and
Social Studies, 1948.
MENNIS, B., Rr SAUVANT, K.P. Multinational corporations, managers, and
the development of regional identification in Western Europe. The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1972, 403,
22-29.
MILLER, E.L. The overseas assignment: How managers determine who is to
be selected. Michigan Business Review, 1972, 24 (3), 12-19.
MILLER, E.L. The international selection decision: A study of some
dimensions of managerial behavior in the selection decision process.
Academy of Management Journal, 1973, 16,239-252.
MITCHELL, T.R., & FOA, U.G. Diffusion of the effect od cultural training
of the leader in the structure of heterocultural task groups. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 1969, 2 (l), 31-43.
MITCHELL, T.R., DOSSETT, D.L., FIEDLER, F.E., & TRIANDIS, H.C. Cul-
ture training: Validation evidence for the culture assimilator. International
Journal of Psychology, 1972, 7 (2), 97-104.
MONTGOMERY, J.D. Crossing the culture bars: An approach to the training
of American technicians for overseas assignments. World Politics, 1961,
13, 544-560.
MOORE, R. The cross-cultural study of organizational behavior. Human
Organization, 1974, 33 (l), 37-45.
MORRIS, R.T. National status and attitudes of foreign students. Journal of
Social Issues, 1956, 12 (l), 20-25.
MORRIS, R.T. The two-way mirror: National status in foreign students’
adjustment. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1960.
MURRAY, J.A. International personnel repatriation: Culture shock in
reverse. MSU Business Topics, 1973, 27 (3), 59-66.
NATH, R. A methodological review of cross-cultural management research.
International Social Science Journal, 1968, 20 (l), 35-62.
NEGANDHI, A.R. Cross-cultural management studies: Too many conclusions

not enough conceptualization. Management International Review, 1974,
14 (6), 59-67.
NEWCOMB, T.M. An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psycho-
logical Review, 1953, 60, 393-404.
NEWMAN, J., BHATT, B., & GUTTERIDGE, T. Determinants of expatriate
effectiveness: A theoretical and empirical vacuum. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 1978,3 (3), 655-661.
OBERG, K. Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments.
Practical Anthropology, 1960, 7, 177-182.
O’BRIEN, G.E., FIEDLER, F.E., & HEWETT, T. The effects of programmed
culture training upon the performance of volunteer medical teams in
Central America. Human Relations, 197 1, 24, 209-23 1.
O’BRIEN, G.E., & PLOOIJ, D. Comparison of programmed and prose culture
training upon attitudes 2nd knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1977, 62, 499-505.
PEDRAGLIO, G.R. Training programs to prepare executives for international
business and more particularly for cross-cultural management assignments.
In J. Boddewyn (Ed.), Comparative management: Teaching, training and
research. New York: Graduate School of Business Administration, New
York University, 1970.
PERLMUTTER, H.V. Some characteristics of xenophilic personality. Journal
of Psychology, 1954, 38, 291-300.
PERLMUTTER, H.V. Correlates of two types of xenophilic orientation.
Journal ofAbnormal Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 130-135.
PERLMUTTER, H.V. The tortuous evolution of the multinational corpora-
tion. Columbia Journal of World Business, 1969,4 (l), 9-18.
PERLMUTTER, H.V., & HEENAN, D.A. How multinational should your
managers be? Harvard Business Review, 1974, 52 (6), 121-132.
PERLMUTTER, H.V., & SHAPIRO, D. Stereotypes about Americans and
Europeans who make specific statements. PsychoZogicaZ Reports, 1957, 3,
131-137.
PINFIELD, L.T. Socio-cultural factors and inter-organizational relations.
Academy of Management Proceedings, 33rd Annual Meeting, Boston,
August 19-22, 1973.
POOL, I. de S. Effects of cross-national contact on national and international
images. In Herbert C. Kelman (Ed.), International behavior: A social-
psychoZogicaZ analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.
PORTER, R.E. An overview of intercultural communication. In Larry A.
Samovar & Richard E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A
reader. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1972.
RIESMAN, D., GLAZER, N. & DENNEY, R. The Zonely crowd. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1950.
RIORDAN, C. Equal-status interracial concept: A review and revision of the
concept. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1978, 2 (2),
161-185.
ROBERTS, K.H. On looking at an elephant: An evaluation of cross-cultural
research related to organizations. PsychoZogicaZ Bulletin, 1970, 74 (5),
327-350.
ROBERTS, K.H. Symposium overview. Industrial Relations, 1973, 12 (2),

137-143.
RUBEN, B.D., & KEALEY, D.J. Behavioral assessment of communication
competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International
Journal o.fIntercultural Relations, 1979, 3 (1), 15-47.
RUNKEL, P.J. Cognitive similarity in facilitating communication. Soci-
ometry, 1956, 19, 178-191.
SALTER, C.A., & TEGER, AI. Changes in attitudes towards other nations as
a function of the type of international contact. Sociometry, 1975, 38 (2),
213-222.
SCHOLLHAMMER, H. Strategies and methodologies in international business
and comparative management research. Management International Review,
1973, 13 (6), 17-32.
SELLTIZ, C., & COOK, S.W. Factors influencing attitudes of foreign students
towards the host country. Journal of Social Issues, 1962, 18 (l), 7-23.
SEWELL, W.H., & DAVIDSEN, O.M. The adjustment of Scandanavian
students. Journal of Social Issues, 1956, 12 (l), 9-19.
SHERIF, M., & HOVLAND, C.I. Social judgement: Assimilation and contrast
effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 196 1.
SHETTY, Y.K. International manager: A role profile. Management Znter-
national Review, 1971, 11 (4/5), 19-25.
SIMMONDS, K. Multinational? Well not quite. Columbia Journal of World
Business, 1966, 1 (4), 115-l 22.
SKINNER, W. American industry in developing economies: The management
of international manufacturing. New York: Wiley, 1968.
SMITH, M.B. Explorations in competence: A study of Peace Corps teachers
in Ghana. American Psychologist, 1966, 21, 555-566.
SOMMER, R. Man’s proximate environment. Journal of Social Issues, 1966,
22 (4), 59-70.
SPAULDING, S., & FLACK, M.J. The world’s students in the United States:
A review and evaluation of research on foreign students. New York:
Praeger, 1976.
STACK, B.D., & COOK, J.O. Authoritarian behavior in a conflict situation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 130-136.
STESSIN, L. Culture shock and the American businessman overseas. Inter-
national Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1973, 9 (I), 21-35.
STEWART, E.C. The simulation of cultural differences. Journal of Communi-
cation, 1966, 16 (4), 291-304.
STEWART, E.C. American advisors overseas. In Larry A. Samovar & Richard
E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A Reader. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth, 1972.
STONER, J.A.F., ARAM, J.D., & RUBIN, I.M. Factors associated with effec-
tive performance in overseas work assignments. Personnel Psychology,
1972, 25, 303-318.
TAFT, R. Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In Neil Warren (Ed.), Studies in
cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1). London: Academic Press, 1977.
TAJFEL, H. Social and cultural factors in perceptions. In Gardner Lindzey &
Elliot Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.). Vol.
3: The individual in a social context. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,

1969.
TEAGUE, F.A. Why U.S. companies fail abroad. Columbia Journal of World
Business, 1968, 3 (4), 81-85.
THIAGARAJAN, K.M. Cross-cultural training for overseas management.
Management International Review, 197 1, 11 (4/S), 69-85.
TORRE, J. de la, & TOYNE, B. Cross-national managerial interaction: A
conceptual model. Academy of Management Review, 1978, 3 (31,
462-474.
TOYNE, B. Host country managers of multinational firms: An evaluation of
variables affecting their managerial thinking patterns. JournaZ of Inter-
national Business Studies, 1976, 7 (2), 39-55.
TRIANDIS, H.C. Cognitive similarity and interpersonal communication in
industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1959,43, 321-326.
TRIANDIS, H.C. Cognitive similarity and communication in a dyad. Human
Relations, 1960, 13, 175-183. (a)
TRIANDIS, H.C. Some determinants of interpersonal communication.
Human Relations, 1960, 13, 279-287. (b)
TRIANDIS, H.C. Cultural influences upon cognitive processes. In L. Berko-
witz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York:
Academic Press, 1964.
TRIANDIS, H.C. Interpersonal relations in international organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 2,26-55.
TRIANDIS, H.C. The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley, 1972.
TRIANDIS, H.C. Culture training, cognitive complexity and interpersonal
attitudes. In Richard W. Brislin, Stephen Bochner, & Walter J. Lonner
(Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on learning. New York: Sage and
Wiley/Halstead, 1975.
TRIANDIS, H.C. Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole,
1977.
TRIANDIS, H.C., MALPASS, R.S., & DAVIDSON, A.R. Psychology and
culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 1973, 24, 335-378.
TRIANDIS, H.C., & VASSILIOU, V. Frequency of contact and stereotyping.
Journal ofpersonality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7 (3), 316-328.
TRIANDIS, H.C., & VASSILIOU, V. Interpersonal influence and employee
selection in two cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56,
140-145.
USEEM, J., DONOGHUE, J.D., & USEEM, R.H. Men in the middle of the
third culture: The roles of American and non-Western people in cross-
cultural administration. Human Organization, 1963, 22 (3), 169-173.
USEEM, R.H. The American family in India. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 1966, 3’68, 132-145.
WELDON, D.E., CARLSTON, D.E., RISSMAN, A.K., SLOBODIN, L., &
TRIANDIS, H.C. A laboratory test of the effects of assimilator training.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 300-310.
WHITEHEAD, C.J., & KING, A.S. Differences in managers’ attitudes toward
Mexican and non-Mexican Americans in organizational authority relations.
Social Science QuarterZy, 1973, 53 (4), 760-771.
WILKINS, M. The businessman abroad. The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 1966, 368, 83-94.
WILKINS, M. The maturing of multinational enterprise. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1974.
WILSON, A.T.M. Recruitment and selection for work in foreign cultures.
Human Relations, 1961, 14 (l), 3-21.
WORCHELL, S., & MITCHELL, T.R. An evaluation of the effectiveness of
the culture assimilator in Thailand and Greece. Journal of Applied PSY-
chology, 1972, 56, 472-479.
YOSHINO, M.Y. Administrative attitudes and relationships in a foreign
culture. h4SU Business Topics, 1968, 16 (l), 59-66.
YOUSEF, F.S. Cross-cultural communication: Aspects of contrastive social
values between North Americans and Middle Easterners. Human Organiza-
tion, 1974, 33 (4), 383-387.
YOUSEF, F.S., & BRIGGS, N.E. The multinational business organization: A
schema for the training of overseas personnel in communication. Paper
presented at the International Communication Association Convention,
Chicago, April 1975.
YUN, C.K. Role conflicts of expatriate managers: A construct. Management
International Review, 1973, 13 (6), 105-l 13.
ZEIRA, Y., & HARARI, E. Genuine multinational staffing policy: Expecta-
tions and realities. Academy of Management Journal, 1971, 20 (2),
327-333. (a)
ZEIRA, Y., & HARARI, E. Managing third-country nationals in multinational
corporations. Business Horizons, 1977, 20 (5), 83-88. (b)
ZEIRA, Y., HARARI, E., & NUNDI, D.I. Some structural and cultural
factors in ethnocentric corporations and employee morale. Journal of
Management Studies, 1975, 12 (l), 66-82.
ZELEZNIK, C. Inner-and otherrdirectedness of the American abroad.
Phylon, 1957, 19, 258-267.
"Problemas en Contactos Interculturales: Revicibn de la Literatura"
Se llevb a cabo una examinacio'n de la literatura que trata con eltema

de1 malentendimiento entre personas envueltas en relaciones intercul-
turales. Las dimensiones de 10s problemas se bosquejaron usando
10s siguientes subtitutos: cultura subjetiva, construccidn social de
la realidad; comunicacibn intercultural; estereotipos, etnocentrismo
y prejuicio; factores de tiempo; distancia cultural; personalidad;
contact0 y attitudes. Adema's, se hizo una descripci6n de varies
modes que han sido usados en la investigacio'n de problemas de contactos
interculturales en organizaciones internacionales. En ana'lisis critic0
revela que las mas significantes brechas en el conocimiento actual de
10s problemas se haya al nivel interpersonal. Se hacen sugerencias
sobre la clase de investigaciones que demandan atencion urgente.
View publication stats

IJIR ProblemsinCross CulturalContact

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJIR ProblemsinCross CulturalContact

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJIR ProblemsinCross CulturalContact

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Problems in Cross-Cultural Contact: A Literature

Article in International Journal of Intercultural Relations · December 1979

Ethics in China View project

Understanding emerging markets View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PROBLEMS IN CROSS-CULTURAL CONTACT:

The University of Western Australia

ABSTRACT An examination is undertaken of literature bearing on the

Today, to a considerably greater extent than, say, thirty years

that the parties will accurately understand their differences as well

PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND SPECIFICATION

Subjective Culture, Social Construction of Reality

are often major differences in values, attitudes, beliefs, expecta-

may be quite wide. A multitude of articles has dealt with these

In intercultural, interpersonal relationships, then, there is an

The consequences of mismatching, it has been suggested,

reality by the feedback responses they receive in face-to-face

work of Hall and others involved in non-verbal communication

Stereo typing, Ethnocentrism and Prejudice

of a stereotype would be a belief that all Jews are shrewd. The

It would seem logical to expect, then, that in international

to adequately understand the local nationals with whom he is

Marrash, 1970) contrasting self-descriptions of British and

The above should not be taken to suggest, however, that perceived

Where, in contrast to the most-beam mechanism, an overly

they are likely to be evaluated as “bad.” Though the tendency

the latter are frequently more oriented to the views of the

Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generaliza-

The degree to which prejudice can be reduced by contact

personalities and characteristics which specifically limit their

a form of personality maladjustment which is a reaction to a temporarily

(see, for example, the research of Smith [ 19663 on Peace Corps

Though it is not our purpose to elaborate on the issue here, it

Inevitably, such conflicts imply potential strain and misunder-

It has been claimed that in many instances the expatriate’s

In discussing factors which may be important in creating

vary along a minimal-maximal dimension of social uniqueness. He

American businessmen may experience greater difficulty in dealing

Research is needed to test the hypotheses just described concerning the

One might speculate that, in Riesman, Glazer, and Denny’s

Contact and Attitudes

A considerable number of studies have concentrated upon

their host country are a function of the nature of the contact

seems to be produced, converting original disparate values into common

These findings tend to reinforce the views of those researchers

CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL ATTENTION TO THE

In the previous section a number of factors were presented

Broad Attention to the Problems

In a similar vein, Skinner (1968) established that understanding

Though these results are of obvious interest (see also, Fiedler,

Advances from Research into Expatriate Selection and Training

Recognition of the importance of cultural differences has been

empathise with the attitudes and expectations of his counterparts

the Culture Assimilator is an effective method of decreasing some of the

A recent experiment (Weldon, Carlston, Rissman, Slobodin, &

over this problem. Thus, in heightening a trainee’s awareness of

Our contention is that if the American [advisor abroad] is cognizant of his

This assertion is basically the same as that of the culture