Toward Theorizing Japanese
Interpersonal Communication Competence
from a Non-Western Perspective

Akira Miyahara
Seinan Gakuin University

I. INTRODUCTION

Now that a new millennium has been ushered in, academic disciplines that deal with human behavior have also welcomed an era pregnant with new and challenging tasks whose outcomes are hoped to increase global and profound understanding of people's social practices across cultural boundaries. An entire issue of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31 (2000) was dedicated to the discussion of problems entailed in Western-based research concepts and methods thus far employed, and alternatives necessary for better cross-cultural understanding. Only with such understanding is it possible to bring about mutually satisfactory international political, economic, and cultural exchanges. Given such an overwhelming goal, an urgent objective the field of human communication, intercultural communication in particular, faces is to establish a meaningful framework for inquiries. It is to serve the inquirers as well as practitioners as a framework within which symbolic behaviors of people of diverse cultural backgrounds can be accounted for without distorting their interpretations and evaluations in any way biased toward a particular culture.

While Asian, or more broadly non-Western people’s social behaviors have been largely left to speculations, and often labeled "mysterious," and "deviant," some ethnographic details have been uncovered in respect to Japan (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Japanese people’s communicative behavior has been researched intensively in the last decade or two, and consequently many characteristics "peculiar to" Japanese have been identified (for summary, see, for example, Gudykunst, 1993). To illustrate, Japanese have been described as being low in self-disclosure, both verbally (Barnlund, 1975, 1989), and nonverbally (Engebretson & Fullmer, 1970; Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982), transmitting messages in a high-context mode (e.g., Hall, 1976; Neustupny, 1987; Ting-Toomey, 1985), and communicatively apprehensive (Klopf, 1984; Neulip & Hazelton, 1985). Most of these attributes have been ascribed to the Japanese people’s collectivistic orientations (e.g., Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988; Triandis et al, 1988).

Another line of research on Japanese interpersonal communication has been growing out of the practical need for the Japanese people, particularly those in younger generations to acquire and develop effective social skills for meaningful and satisfactory personal relationships. In the pursuit of country’s economic and technological advancement, Japanese people’s educational and social needs may have been left behind as secondary concerns. As a result, the Japanese in various age groups are said to be troubled with their daily interpersonal relations in a wide range of contexts: family, school, work, health care, etc. A set of knowledge, motivations, and skills, i.e., communication competence, that will help improve the quality of human relationships among Japanese is urgently needed. Outcomes of cross-cultural comparisons between Japanese and U.S. Americans, for instance, may contribute to better understanding of each other’s social attributes, and consequently practical and more importantly, culturally meaningful and feasible solutions to Japanese people’s ineffective communication may be suggested. Before we can reach that goal, however, some meta-theoretical issues concerning the cross-cultural research need to be raised and carefully considered.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and challenge several meta-theoretical issues that concern cross-cultural comparisons of Japanese and Western people’s interpersonal behavior. It aims to pinpoint some obstacles in the way of conceptualizing the Japanese people’s communication characteristics in an attempt to build a culture-specific theory of interpersonal communication competence for Japanese. Finally some alternative methods of cross-cultural communication research in place of pencil-and-paper surveys, using the homogeneous population (i.e., college students) will be discussed.

II. CULTURAL FILTERS IN CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH

Since the Morrison article (1972), in which the author claimed that people in Japan (labeled "a rhetorical vacuum") lacked persuasive skills due to the absence of a Western rhetorical tradition, scholars inspired by the heavily ethnocentric claim have conducted research in an attempt to unveil the "peculiarities" of Japanese communication. Despite their conscious attempts to characterize the Asian people's social practices, however, the scholars relied almost exclusively on theoretical concepts and methods of inquiry developed by the Western, primarily U.S. researchers. This practice was to a large extent inevitable, as systematic and scientific knowledge of inquiry was far more readily available in the U.S. scholarship of communication. The paucity of culture-specific studies may be partly ascribed to the absence of a paradigm to account for the social behaviors demonstrated by the Japanese (Hamaguchi, 1990).

When researchers note cultural diversity, they record and report their observations and possible reasons for the observed differences. These observations and interpretations are necessarily biased and bound by their individual belief systems that are shaped and influenced by their institutional, psychological, social, and religious orientations, i.e., culture (Kim, Park, & Park, 2000). Most of the observations, analyses and interpretations of the Japanese people’s social behavior so far have been conducted and reported by Western scholars. While some Japanese scholars have joined efforts with their Western associates and also initiated their own to clarify the characteristics of Japanese communication behavior, they have employed approaches developed and tested on the Western, primarily U. S. soil.

It is, therefore, important to remember that ‘findings’ obtained by a researcher on one group of people’s social and psychological attributes are inevitably filtered through the researcher’s cultural framework. Just as an individual behavior is influenced by, and therefore a manifestation of his/her culture, the person observing that behavior is also influenced by the cultural framework within which he/she was raised, educated, and trained. We see the world less "as it is" and more "as we are." Depending on the experiences we have had, the habits that we have acquired, we see events differently (Triandis, 1994, p. 13). Ho (1998), asserting the value of indigenous approach to people’s psychological attributes, states that the conceptualization of psychological phenomena is a psychological phenomenon in itself and is, therefore, subject to investigation (p. 91). Singelis (2000) echoes this, stating that "all social psychology is cultural" (p. 76).

Ho (1998) goes on to say that much of Western psychology may be irrelevant or inapplicable in Asia. Western ideological presuppositions, such as individualism, are alien to the Asian ethos. Thus, a reliance on Western psychology can only lead to an incomplete, even distorted, understanding of Asia or of Asians. Moreover, the wholesale importation of Western psychology into Asia represents a form of cultural imperialism that perpetuates the colonization of the mind. To an alarming degree, Asians are now confronted by stereotypes about themselves generated not only by Western researchers but also by Asian researchers relying on imported, mainly American, psychology (p. 89). Such a tendency is clearly observed in the research on communication competence conducted by both U.S. and Japanese scholars.

Most studies on communication competence have been undertaken and many related concepts have been developed and tested by U.S. researchers (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, 1989) as well as Japanese researchers educated in the U.S. (e.g., Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986; Hirokawa & Miyahara, 1986). It is not simply the researchers’ nationalities that really matter, but their culturally conditioned perceptual filters that influence their observations and interpretations of social behavior. The consequence is that the findings reported and behavioral suggestions presented by a researcher may or may not be applicable to the people observed who do not share the same cultural attributes with the researcher.

"Assertiveness," for instance, an important communication skill regarded as conducive to the perception of interpersonal competence in the U.S. culture, runs counter to traditional Japanese values of "not standing out" but "adapting to natural and social environments." In a strong conformist society such as Japan, presenting one's feelings to others, which in turn may risk the harmony among people, is a communication behavior difficult to practice. Clearly asserting one’s own points certainly does not serve an individual as a motive to behave in an interpersonal situation. To the contrary, not stating clearly what one has in mind is a sign of strength, maturity and social competence in the Asian culture, and thus may need to be added to a "competency list" for the Japanese.

The remainder of the paper addresses some specific meta-theoretical issues involved in cross-cultural research on interpersonal communication competence between Japanese and people of Western cultural attributes.

III. META-THEORETICAL ISSUES IN STUDYING NON-WESTERN MODES OF COMMUNICATION

Applied to Japanese people’s communication competence research, issues involved in cross-cultural studies are boiled down to differences in ontological and epistemological/phenomenological orientations between people in the West and those with a Japanese cultural framework. More specifically, Japanese people in general are brought up in a culture that values a collectivistic or interdependent self orientation, and "being" mode of thinking, rather than individualistic or independent self orientation and doing mode that are prevalent in most Western cultures. There is much danger, therefore, in using Western theories and concepts, e.g., communication apprehension, self-disclosure, assertiveness, and persuasion to account for and improve relationships among Japanese. .

Ontological issues

As most "scientific" studies on human behavior have been undertaken and theories and concepts have been developed in European American cultural framework, it is not surprising that the basic units of analyses and constructs employed to account for people’s behavior are also influenced by the Western cultural orientation. The meaning of an "individual," for instance, is undoubtedly adopted from the Western perspective and it has been assumed to have the same meaning for people across cultural boundaries. In recent years some psychologists (e.g., Hamaguchi, 1983; Ho, 1998; Kim, Park, & Kim, 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 2000) have strongly argued that the meaning people assign to being a person varies from culture to culture.

Ho (1998) illustrates this point by saying that such constructs as actor, ego, self, and personality reflect an individualistic conception of human existence characteristic of the West. Face, relational orientation, and relational identity, on the other hand, reflect a relational conception characteristic of many Asian cultures. The concept of the ‘individual’ is an example that demonstrates the culture-bound nature of what is seemingly universal. The individualism-collectivism dichotomy has long been considered a powerful concept to characterize people’s social and behavioral orientation. Markus and Kitayama (1991) developed the concepts of independent and interdependent self-construals, and evidence has been reported that cultural differences between collectivism and individualism are systematically reflected in the differences on the individual level, interdependent and independent self-construals, respectively (Kim, et al, 1996).

A person is regarded as being independent when he/she looks to his/her internal and individual characteristics, attributes and goals as primary regulators of behavior. For a person with an interdependent view of self, on the other hand, the self is connected to others, and becomes most meaningful and complete when it is cast in the appropriate social relationships with others. The person’s desire to maintain harmony and appropriateness in relationships with others serves as a primary regulator of his/her behavior.

There have been several Japanese sociologists, psychologists and psychiatrists (e.g., Doi, 1971; Hamaguchi, 1977, 1983; Kimura, 1989; Miyanaga, 1991) who have argued that Japanese people's notion of self is different from its Western counterpart. The concept of "self" among Japanese derives not so much from the individual, as it does from a relationship between the individual and others. Depending on who the other is, and what type of relationship he/she has with others, each individual needs to adjust the communication goals and behaviors.

Hamaguchi (1983), developing the concept of kanjinshugi (interpersonalism or contextualism), argues that since collectivism as opposed to individualism regards a general collectivity of people as an analytical point of departure, such a Western-derived dichotomy fails to account for the Japanese social behavior. In Japan the fundamental form of human existence is neither the individual nor the group but rather contextual. Interpersonalism as a perspective transcends the dualism, and it is defined by mutual dependence, mutual trust and human relation in itself. This raises an important ontological issue in conducting cross-cultural research in the area of interpersonal communication competence.

Co-dependence, although not an entirely novel concept, but used to identify pathological individuals such as "adult children" has been regarded as an appropriate term to describe many Japanese youngsters. Co-dependent individuals, whether they are pathological or not, are those whose very existence and content of characters are determined only through their dependence upon and interactions with people around them. A model of "interpersonal competence" for such people would naturally have to be developed from a different starting point other than an individual. Contextualism, or interpersonalism, appears to be a more reasonable alternative, although quite difficult to operationalize as a research concept.

Regardless of the label attached to people according to their self-orientations, it goes without saying that they utilize communication strategies and tactics in order to achieve personal and relational goals, although in different manners and to different degrees. The motive for achievement is said to vary depending on how an individual is construed. Singelis (2000) asserts that achievement motivation in the West has been rooted in the idea that the goal is self-realization. In collectivist cultures, achievement motivation includes others whose boundaries are not distinct from the self. This is to say that the motivation to achieve in these cultures includes the self and others. When one’s group succeeds the success accrues to the self, and, similarly, when the self succeeds, so does the group (p. 81). Given the ontological difference between individuals with independent and interdependent self-construals, the meanings and values that people attach to what appears to be the same communication behavior greatly vary. Several specific examples follow to illustrate the cross-cultural variation.

Most communication theories are based on the assumption that people seek cognitive consistencies in social situations; e.g., balance theory (Heider, 1958). Although people regardless of their cultural frameworks are believed to have the tendency toward cognitive consistency as a marker of human rationality, the notion of consistency may be culturally relative. An adjustment of communication goal and behavior according to the contextual and relational features, may be regarded as an inconsistency and an ineffective social behavior by a person of independent self-construal. A predominant feature of the self in European-American contexts, Kim (1999) argues, is the persistent need for consistency and stability. The desire for a consistent self is tied to the notion that the self is whole, stable, and integrated rather than fragmented and distributed. Such attributes as honesty, straightforwardness, integrity, and clarity in communicating one’s feelings are important components of communication competence (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Behavior that changes with the situation is more likely to be regarded as waffling, hypocritical, or even pathological than as flexible or responsive (Markus & Kitayama, 1998).

People with interdependent self-construal, on the other hand, often sacrifice consistency for the sake of interpersonal accommodation. This gives rise to the wide array of communication goals, and means to reach them. Showing sensitivities to others and adjusting their communication tactics accordingly is a sign of maturity, as it helps the Japanese gain approval by others. In the interdependent culture such as Japan, notions like awase (accommodation) (Mushakoji, 1976), manipulation of honne-tatemae (real intentions and facade) (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1993), deliberate use of ambiguity (Okabe, 1987), and self-restraint (Takai & Ota, 1994) are some of the strategies that contribute to smooth interpersonal interactions.

Tsujimura (1987) cites four characteristics of Japanese communication that help them relate to one another in a competent manner: ishin-denshin (communication without language), taciturnity or passivity, indirect communication and respect for reverberation, and sensitivity toward kuuki (the constraint of mood). All these characteristics are ascribed to Japanese people’s interdependent views on self. A person who is able to observe subtle, social norms associated with these attributes is regarded as mature and competent.

In addition, Kim (1999) observes that while the outcomes of communication apprehension and avoidance are considered to be solely negative in the Western communication apprehension framework, it may possibly be a sign of sensitivity to the social context for a person with an interdependent view of self. The low level of motivation for verbal communication may stem from the strength of one’s idealized role-identity in interaction, and the sensitivity toward the others’ evaluations of the individual. "A generalized sensitivity to others’ evaluations and ‘fitting in’ is one of the central characteristics of the interdependent self" (p. 10), which is more highly valued in many collectivistic Asian cultures including Japan.

Self-disclosure is another Western concept that is often utilized as a measure for communication competence. It serves a person as a vehicle for initiating and developing interpersonal relationships (Altman & Taylor, 1973), and an appropriate level of self-disclosure is expected to help a person maintain mental health (Cozby, 1973). How an individual goes about disclosing oneself and how he/she values it varies depending on how the self is construed. In the European-American context, if a person wants to be perceived as competent and successful, boasting (positive self-disclosure) appears to be a better strategy than disclosing negatively.

In Japanese culture the inclination to self-criticize (negative self-disclosure) may be a way to affirm the identity of the self as interdependent. This is a display of the individual’s willingness to engage in the process of self-improvement that may be accomplished only by maintaining harmonious relationships with others – an important element of the interdependent, Japanese sense of well-being (Kim, 1999). Using the amount and quality of self-disclosure judged as appropriate in Western cultures such as U.S. as sole indicators of communication competence for people from different cultures, therefore, is likely to lead to falsified descriptions of their communication behavior and its effects.

The "self" is an organized and culturally relative framework that functions as a guide to what a person perceives, how he/she attaches meanings to stimuli, and how he/she associates and communicates with others. If the notion of self is different across cultures, then the different ontological orientation necessarily values differently the verbal and nonverbal communication tactics, and more profoundly people’s predispositions toward the communication behaviors. Many communication concepts and theories, developed and validated in the West where independent self-construal prevails, would not be justifiably applied to people in many Asian cultures where more interdependent self-construal predominates. What has been accepted as universally meaningful and effective communication strategies and styles may only be indigenously so in the West. More divergent social practices, many of which have been discarded as ineffective, may indeed contribute to perceptions and practices of communication competence in Asian human relationships.

Epistemological/Phenomenological Issues

Closely associated with the distinctive views on self (independent and interdependent) is how an individual creates and attaches meanings to social phenomena. Kim et al. (2000) assert that our social lives are based on the firm belief that we can understand, assess, and use the concepts of agency, intentions, and motives with a high degree of reliability and validity (p. 71). This is the epistemological perspective that is prevalent in much of Western mode of thinking, and it is often referred to as "science." Kim et al. (2000) go on to argue that in order for researchers in cross-cultural psychology to reach accurate understanding of the psychological phenomena in the respective cultures, indigenous psychological approach merits some attention. It points out, among other important issues, that people are recognized as interactive and proactive agents of their own actions rather than instinctive and reactive. How an individual is construed, then, has an important affect on how he/she looks to the causal relationship between what and how he/she communicates and what as a consequence takes place interpersonally.

The Western theories of communication competence and the related concepts are based on the assumption that an individual is the agent of social phenomena. People judge human activity in terms of purposes, motives, acts of will, decisions, doubts, hesitations, thoughts, hopes, fears, and desires. Human consciousness, agency, meaning, and goals are considered central explanatory constructs. It is the individual who is capable of and responsible for accurately observing and interpreting his/her as well as others’ communicative behavior, and modifying them, if necessary, to reach personal and relational goals.

In this mode of thinking the individual is considered to be the architect of order and coherence through personal control and mastery (Kim, 1999, 20). In this view an individual’s behavior based upon his/her internal characteristics is the causal agent of an observed environmental change, including human relationships around him/her. The vocabulary and grammar of the English language reflect this phenomenological mode: A person "builds," "maintains," "develops," "repairs," and "breaks up" a relationship. Everything that happens to the relationship is a direct consequence of the actions of those involved in it. This internal locus of control has been regarded as more desirable than external locus of control in the West.

In a culture where relationality (i.e., being a part, belonging, and improving the fit between what one does and what is expected) is valued, a human is not considered to be a direct agent responsible for social phenomena. The Asian self is construed as "a connected, fluid, flexible, committed being who is bound to others," as opposed to "a bounded, coherent, stable, autonomous, free entity" (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Not having a solid and universal pattern of behavior that is applicable to and practical across the social situations is valued as merit rather than a deficiency in such cultures.

Since the self is experienced as interdependent with others, hence social structures and interpersonal frameworks and contexts provide idiosyncratic meanings and requirements, a person must carefully sense and feel the patterns of behavior appropriate in the given context. Such situational knowledge and adequate behavioral repertory necessary in a wide range of situations, coupled with the person’s sensitivity to situational elements and flexibility, are difficult to obtain. A person must acquire through trial-and-error processes effective and appropriate communication skills, i.e., communication competence. Markus and Kitayama (1998) state that an appropriate, authentic, and mature personality is developed by being finely attuned to the expectations of others. It is a painstakingly long process, and thus people in Japan often use the word "naru" (being or becoming) in describing the improvement of virtually all human abilities including walking, running, swimming, riding a bicycle, and communicating. Japan has been characterized as a "being culture" as opposed to a "doing culture" that predominates much of the West.

The importance of contextual knowledge and sensitivity in Japanese interpersonal communication has been pointed out by several Japanese writers (e.g., Befu, 1989; Hamaguchi, 1983, 1990). In arguing the need for developing culture specific concepts for research on Japanese people’s social practices, Hamaguchi (1983) coined the term kanjinshugi (interpersonalism) to characterize the Japanese people's notion of self that varies rather dramatically from situation to situation. They are expected to feel the mood or air of each interpersonal situation, and improvise appropriate social behaviors depending upon the reading of the contextual features. Given such a norm, using straightforward, frank and consistent relational tactics across the situations, ability valued in the Western theory of communication competence, would be labeled as "lacking sensitivity and delicacy."

"Assertiveness" is a good example to illustrate how divergent meanings and values are associate with it, depending upon the way self is construed. Assertive people stand up for their rights, expressing freely their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs directly and honestly (Lange & Jakubowski, 1976). These attributes are regarded as elements of interpersonal competence, at least by people who view themselves as independent. These people are described as adventurous, confident, and willing or even eager to accept change in their environment, typical of the "doing" mode.

Nonassertive people, on the other hand, are characterized as inhibited, submissive, self-deprecating, self-denying, and conforming, which all contribute to the perception of communication incompetence. These people would be regarded in the independent culture as incapable of devising, deciding on, and actually implementing proper actions when necessary. Given the "being" mode, however, such non-assertive, timid, and tentative behavior would be regarded as a sign of sensitivity toward others as well as the overall social context. Kim (1999) argues that it would be imprudent to generalize the description of the high vs. low argumentative individuals (based on studies using subjects from the U.S.) to people belonging to other cultures. The outcome and perceptions of assertiveness are mostly based on research involving predominantly Anglo-Saxon subjects in the United States whose self-identity is autonomous and bounded.

People in culture where careful and often times subtle social behavior based on contextual knowledge and sensitivity is important, would necessarily be reserved and tentative in their interpersonal behavior. While such behavior may be labeled "incompetent" or "socially deficient," in an individualist society, it would help the person in a collectivist culture establish and maintain harmony with others, thus contributing to the perception of communication competence. Descriptions and evaluations associated with assertiveness in one culture do not apply to another where people construe themselves in a different manner. The single Western view of the self that sees sensitivity to social contexts as a deficit is an ethnocentric preoccupation.

IV. METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR NON-WESTERN THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE

Given the fundamental psychological differences such as ontological orientations and epistemological/phenomenological views between people in different cultures (e.g., Japanese and U.S. Americans), research tools necessarily need to be modified in examining the nature and effects of people’s social behavior. Cross-cultural psychology, a fairly new discipline in social science, carries out research to verify the universality of existing theories. The features of the discipline illustrate the nature and complexity of, and possible contribution it can make to the general understanding of people’s communicative behavior. The research takes into account cultural variables as possible causes of influence on people’s behavior. This approach is classified either as an etic or emic approach. The former approach aims to test and verify the universality of psychological theories that have been developed in one culture, i.e., the West.

Kim et al. (2000) observe that there has been an implicit assumption that one’s own culture is a standard by which other cultures are judged. Each culture, however, should be understood from its own frame of reference: from its ecological, historical, and cultural context. This approach represents an emic approach in psychology. Although existing psychological theories and concepts are assumed to be objective, value free, and universal, in reality they are deeply enmeshed with Euro-American values that champion rational, liberal, individualistic ideals. As such they can be characterized as imposed etics or pseudoetics, and not true universals (pp, 63-64).

Befu (1989), a Japanese anthropologist, arguing about the distinction between and characteristics of etic and emic analyses in cross-cultural research, states that "an etic analysis merely provides a tool by which one can arrive at emic understanding. By itself, etic analysis is not the objective or goal in learning about other societies or in cross-cultural research" (p. 327). This claim readily applies to the inquiry into people’s communicative behavior. In order to understand the functioning of a communication tactic such as self-disclosure, the researcher needs to analyze its relation to other social attributes which function within the culture – the individual self-orientation, social structure, historical context, etc. It is only by seeing the social behavior from such a holistic perspective, that we can hope to understand the Japanese interpersonal communication in the emic sense. Thus, analysis of a given unit or event is meaningful only if it is done in the context of the larger system of which it is a part, for it is the larger system which gives the unit its peculiar shape and texture. When a given unit is surgically removed from the organic whole of which it is an integral and systemic part, as is often done for the purposes of cross-cultural comparison, it ceases to be a meaningful unit (Befu, 1989, pp. 327-8).

If research were to be conducted on Japanese people’s perceptions of communication competence, using the concept of self-disclosure, for example, much background research on social and psychological aspects surrounding the communication behavior needs to be done prior to cross-cultural comparisons. The Japanese people’s global as well as idiosyncratic and contextual objectives concerning the communication behavior, their perceptions of situational constraints, and also historical trends that influence their perceptions of self-disclosure must be all carefully studied.

The method of survey, typically a questionnaire, that has been traditionally used in cross-cultural comparisons of communication behavior also needs to be carefully re-considered. Questionnaires have often been administered to very homogeneous and most easily accessible population, i.e., college students. We can never ask exactly the same questions no matter how carefully the questionnaire is developed and translated into another language. Befu (1989) argues that among many cross-cultural researchers there is a strong belief that the problem of cultural uniqueness as manifested in emic concepts can be overcome by improving translation.

Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) argue that sufficient equivalence must be established across cultures when conducting cross-cultural research. Equivalence refers to: 1 functional equivalence (goals and objectives that a communication strategy is expected to accomplish), 2 conceptual equivalence (meaning attached to specific strategies), 3 linguistic equivalence (translation of survey and interview questions), 4 metric equivalence, and 5 sample equivalence. An important question is whether the unit of analysis (an individual) in cross-cultural communication research is equivalent. Instead of arguing the validity of a questionnaire, and reliability of the items included in it, for example, we must be concerned about whether an individual is the best source to provide the information necessary.

While in Western social science the individual is assumed to be the basic building block of the society, an individual with an interdependent self-construal might not be the equivalent in non-Western culture. Hamaguchi (1977) argues that the analysis of social phenomena in Japan should not start from the concept of the individual, but instead should begin with relationships between persons because that is how the Japanese conceptualize social phenomena. He claims it is not a scientific (etic) tool of analysis, but an ethnocentric, Western, emic concept misapplied to other cultures as if it were an etic concept.

A person with an interdependent construal of self is expected to view a self-in-relation to others as an important guide for his/her behavior. Striving for one’ own goals, constructing and maintaining internal locus of control, and expressing one’s self directly are important skills for a person with an independent self construal. For a person with an interdependent self construal, on the other hand, "fitting in" with the group, acting in an appropriate fashion, and expressing oneself indirectly are some of the skills expected to contribute to communication competence.

Given these divergent expectations, research on the nature of interpersonal communication competence for an interdependent individual must begin with a different set of axioms. To illustrate, different aspects of the interdependent person are expected to guide his/her behavior depending on the situation. Having a wide array of social behaviors, coupled with flexibility, then would be an important component of interpersonal competence. Direct observation of the individual’s behavior in multiple situations may be an appropriate alternative to a questionnaire containing a single hypothetical situation and relying on the use of language and its meaning (that is, verbal testimony of informants) as data to deal with. Research instruments need to be contextualized and episodic, and they should allow individuals to provide their own expertise (Kim, et al, 2000, p. 71).

Some evidence has been reported that indicates Japanese people’s contextual adjustment of social behavior (Cousins, 1989). Depending on the people with whom they interact (e.g., ingroups or outgroups, people of different or the same age, sex, occupation, etc.), the degrees to which their interdependent and independent self-construals guide their behavior vary. A number of writers (e.g., Gudykunst, Guzley, & Ota, 1993; Markus & Kitayama, 1991) emphasize that everyone, regardless of the culture, has both an independent and interdependent construal of the self. It is a matter of which self-construal predominates, and what social elements determine the degree to which it influences one’s behavior.

Another methodological concern in social sciences is a question of consistency between a response to the questionnaire and actual behavior in the given context. A gap, if any, between a perception of what one says he/she would do in a situation and what the person actually ends up doing, may be larger for an interdependent individual. Numerous aspects such as situational factors, other people participating in the situation, and the person’s reading of them are intertwined with one another in a complex manner. Such complexity renders a pencil-and-paper survey method inadequate and inappropriate.

Still another methodological issue in cross-cultural research in communication competence is the source of information, i.e., the participants in the survey. College students have been used in literally thousands of studies in social sciences as informants due to their easy access and homogeneity. Limited experience in actual social situations may have affected the content of their responses, thus rendering the findings unrepresentative of the respective cultures. Use of non-student data, preferably comparative analyses between different groups of subjects, and longitudinal survey of the same subjects may provide interesting and important information on people’s communication behavior in the non-Western culture.

Befu (1989) asserts that both emic and etic approaches to inquiries into the nature and effects of Japanese social practices and customs can yield significant results. If used properly, and in an integrative manner, they would help deepen our understanding of Japan as well as contribute to building social theory. Japan is one Asian culture that has been studied intensively. Close examinations of how well Western theories can account for the people’s social behavior and how they fail to do so will help social scientists understand the unique power and limitations of cross-cultural research.

V. CONCLUSION

Although the notion of communication competence, as is currently conceptualized by Western researchers, may be meaningful and useful to the people in U.S. culture, how or even whether it is practiced at all in non-Western cultures is an important question. Imposing a set of notions accepted in one culture to another, is likely to cause serious problems. While there is a desperate need for a theoretically meaningful set of knowledge and practical skills to help Japanese become competent communicators, research findings in communication so far have been generally biased toward Western, and primarily U.S. cultural values. The methods of research, mostly quantitative and hypothetico-deductive, have been borrowed from the Western academic tradition.

Asian constructs such as amae (Japanese concept that describes dependence upon another’s benevolence), and woori (an inclusive group in Korea) reflect the relational nature of human existence. Using them in theory building may free the behavioral sciences from their current over-reliance on Western constructs such as actor, ego, and self rooted in individualism (Ho, 1998, pp. 99-100). A relational analysis requires consideration of how relationships are culturally defined before attempting to interpret the behavior of individuals. It entails making explicit the normative expectations and behavioral rules implicit in social relations. The strategic units of analysis are not the individual or the situation alone but person-in-relations (focusing on a person in different relational contexts) and persons-in-relation (focusing on persons interacting within a relational context).

More holistic analysis of Japanese interpersonal communication is necessary by taking into accounts such factors as contexts within which the communication takes place. Overall social, political, and economic surrounds of the Japanese society that influence people’s perceptions of norms, rules and competence must be taken into account for a more meaningful and useful approach to theorizing interpersonal communication competence for Japanese.

REFERECES

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration processes. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.

Barnlund, D. (1975). The public and private self in Japan and the United States. Tokyo: Simul Press.

Barnlund, D. (1989). Communication styles of Japanese and Americans. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barnlund, D., & Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193-205.

Befu. H. (1989). The emic-etic distinction and its significance for Japanese studies. In Y. Sugimoto & R. E. Mouer (Eds.), Constructs for understanding Japan (pp. 323-343). London: Kegan Paul International.

Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131.

Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73-91.

Doi, T. (1971). Amae no kozo (The anatomy of dependence). Tokyo: Koubundo.

Engebretson, D., & Fullmer, D. (1970). Cross-cultural differences in territoriality; Interaction differences of native Japanese, Hawaii Japanese, and American Caucasians. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 261-269.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1993). Approaches to the study of communication in Japan and the United States. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication in Japan and the United States (pp. 18-50). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Gudykunst, W. B., Guzley, R.M., & Ota, H. (1993). Issues for future research on communication in Japan and the United States. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication in Japan and the United States (pp. 291-322). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1993). Interpersonal and intergroup communication in Japan and the United States. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication in Japan and the United States. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1994). Bridging Japanese/North American differences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.

Hamaguchi, E. (1977). Nihonjin rashisa no saihakken (Rediscovering the essence of Japan). Tokyo: Nihon Keizan Shinbunsha.

Hamaguchi, E. (1983). Kanjin-shugi no shakai Nihon (Japan, society of contextual men). Tokyo: Touyou Keizai.

Hamaguchi, E. (1990). Nihon kenkyu no aratanaru paradaimu (A new paradigm for Japanese studies). In T. Umehara (Ed.), Nihon towa nan nano ka (What is Japan?). Tokyo: NHK Books.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.

Hirokawa, R., & Miyahara, A. (1986). A comparison of influence strategies utilized by managers in American and Japanese organizations. Communication Quarterly, 34, 250-265.

Ho, D. Y. (1998). Indigenous psychologies: Asian perspectives. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 88-103.

Kim, M. (May 1999). Non-Western perspectives on human communication: Implications for theory. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.

Kim, M., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A. M., Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. (1996). Individual vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism; Effects on preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63, 29-49.

Kim, U., Park, Y., & Park, D. (2000). The challenge of cross-cultural psychology: The role of the indigenous psychologies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 63-75.

Kimura, B. (1989). Hito to hito no aida (Between people). Tokyo: Koubunsha.

Klopf, D. W. (1984). Cross-cultural apprehension research: A summary of Pacific Basin studies. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lange, A., & Jakubowski, P. (1976). Responsible assertive behavior. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63-87.

Miyanaga, K. (1991). The creative edge: Individualism in Japan. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Morrison, J. (1972). The absence of a rhetorical tradition in Japanese culture. Western Speech, 36, 89-102.

Mushakoji, K. (1976). The cultural premises of Japanese diplomacy. In Japan Center for International Exchange (Ed.), The silent power: Japan’s identify and world role. Tokyo: Simul Press.

Neulip, J., & Hazelton, V. (1985). A cross-cultural comparison of Japanese and American persuasive strategy selection. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 389-404.

Neustupny, J. V. (1987). Communicating with the Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.

Okabe, K. (1987). Indirect speech acts of the Japanese. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Singelis, T. M. (2000). Some thoughts on the future of cross-cultural social psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 76-91.

Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sussman, N., & Rosenfeld, H. (1982). Influence of culture, language, and sex on conversational distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 66-74.

Takai, J., & Ota, H. (1994). Assessing Japanese interpersonal communication competence. The Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 224-236.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism-collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.

Tsujimura, A. (1982). Some characteristics of the Japanese way of communication. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 115-126). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.