A cross‐cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting

Abstract

The primary aim of this paper is to identify cross-cultural similarities and differences in people's implicit theories of requesting. Implicit theories are conceptualized as containing information about five interactive constraints that influence choices about requests: (1) Clarity, (2) Perceived imposition, (3) Consideration for the other's feelings, (4) Risking disapproval for self, and (5) Effectiveness. The paper compares how these five constraints are perceived and rated across cultures and traces possible links between the constraints and perceptions of the likelihood of using various request strategies. Participants are a total of 595 undergraduates: 296 Koreans (native speakers of Korean) and 299 Americans (native American English speakers) studying in their respective countries. After reading a hypothetical request situation, participants evaluated request strategies along the five constraint dimensions as well as for likelihood of use. The rank-ordering of the request strategies along the dimensions were similar across cultures except for effectiveness of strategies. Striking cross-cultural differences were found in the rank and mean strategy ratings for effectiveness judgments: U.S. participants considered the direct statement strategy as the most effective way of making a request, while Korean participants rated it as the least effective strategy. Regarding the incompatibility among interactive constraints, U.S. participants saw clarity to be closely related to effectiveness of strategies; for Korean participants clarity of strategies was counterproductive to effectiveness. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Ethnicity and emotional support in same‐sex friendship: A comparison of Asian‐Americans, African‐Americans, and Euro‐Americans

“…For example, members of collectivist cultures in general-and Eastern cultures in particular-expect communicators to understand and interpret unarticulated feelings, subtle nonverbal gestures, and environmental cues (Bruneau & Ishii, 1988;Hall, 1976). When compared to Westerners, Easterners have also been found to use less eye contact and touch, display fewer facial expressions, body movements, and gestures (LaFrance & Mayo, 1978), attribute communication behavior more to the influence of context (Singelis & Brown, 1995), employ fewer emotional appeals (Frymier, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990), and view clarity as a less productive strategy in taskfocused situations (Kim & Wilson, 1994).…”

Ethnocentrism and trait communication apprehension as predictors of interethnic communication apprehension and use of relational maintenance strategies in interethnic communication

“…For example, Martin, Hecht, and Larkey (1994) found differences between conversational improvement strategy usage and communication issues for African and European Americans. There were also differences found in the report of information requesting strategies (Holtgraves & Yang, 1990Kim & Wilson, 1994). Hecht, Larkey, and Johnson (1992) found that African American and IECA and Rel.…”

When conveying a message may hurt the relationship: Cultural differences in the difficulty of using an answering machine

“…While both are relevant in all cultures, American culture places more emphasis on the informational function of communication, whereas Japanese culture places more emphasis on its relational function. In addition, Kim and her colleagues (Kim, 1993(Kim, , 1994Kim et al, 1996;Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994;Kim & Wilson, 1994) suggested that whereas people with independent selfconstruals tend to place more emphasis on outcomeoriented aspects of the communication, such as clarity and eVectiveness, people with interdependent self-construals tend to place more emphasis on other-oriented aspects of the communication, such as avoiding hurting the hearer's feelings and minimizing imposition. Furthermore, Japanese attention to the relational function is reXected not only in communication practices but also in language use, in particular the use of honoriWcs (e.g., Ide, 1982).…”