Mark V. Redmond

The relationship of intercultural communication competence with stress and the handling of stress as reported by international students

Abstract This study focused upon the relationship of intercultural communication competence (ICC) with the amount of stress and the effectiveness of handling that stress as reported by international students attending a university in the Midwest United States. Intercultural communication competence was defined as a multidimensional concept consisting of: communication effectiveness, adaptation, social integration, language competence, knowledge of the host culture, and social decentering. Four research questions were posited. Reported adaptation and social decentering were the best predictors of the amount of stress reported. Reported communication effectiveness, adaptation and social integration were the best predictors of the reported effectiveness in handling stress. The relationships among the six components of ICC were analyzed. Variations in ICC and stress were examined on the basis of each participants native country or region.

Cultural distance as a mediating factor between stress and intercultural communication competence

Abstract This study investigated the effects of cultural distance on the amount of stress, the handling of stress, and intercultural communication competence as reported by international students attending a US university. Cultural distance was defined by Hofstedes four dimensions of cultural variability: power, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and individualism. Intercultural communication competence was operationalized as six competencies: language competence, adaptation, social decentering, communication effectiveness, social integration and knowledge of the host culture. Beta weights for the intercultural competencies that contributed to regression equations differed between those respondents from cultures closest to the United States in cultural values and those furthest.

The Functions of Empathy (Decentering) in Human Relations

Empathy, in its broadest usage, is considered a fundamental dimension of interpersonal and communication competence. Empathy enhances a persons understanding of others, and the ability to make predictions about others. Understanding and prediction make empathy a possible tool for persuasion, compliance gaining, relational development, and counseling. Empathy affects decision making about others and attribution. Empathy acts to reflect what has been perceived and creates a supportive/confirming atmosphere. Each function of empathy generally reflects a different conceptualization of empathy. The term “decentering” is offered as the more appropriate alternative term to represent the overall phenomenon with empathy as a subconstruct.

The relationship between perceived communication competence and perceived empathy

Empathy has been previously treated as a dimension of communication competence. This study indicates that both concepts are essentially composed of the same set of skills and reflected by the same set of behaviors, thus raising a question about the research value of communication competence and empathy. Twenty‐seven conversational sets were evaluated by respondents. One group of respondents evaluated the 27 response statements for the level of reflected communication competence. Another group evaluated the responses for the level of reflected empathy. The ratings were highly correlated (r = .98) thus supporting the hypothesized relationship between communication competence and empathy. Additional tests for reliability and validity were performed to demonstrate the power of the method used in the study.

The Effects of Varying Lengths of Initial Interaction on Attraction

This study focused on changes in attraction during an initial interaction between two strangers. Participants were instructed to engage in “getting‐acquainted” interaction. During their interaction they were interrupted and asked to complete an instrument assessing attraction. They continued their interaction and upon finishing again completed the instrument. No linear relationship was found between the length of interaction and attraction. No significant difference in the mean level of attraction from the first and second assessments was found; however, a large percentage of participants were found to change in the level of attraction between the two assessment periods.