When people sojourn in a foreign country, some of them can adapt well the new environment within a short period of time, while others find the new environment to be a nightmare. One of the main reasons why some find new environments problematic is that most familiar symbols they use in daily life have changed suddenly in the strange culture. They then begin to reject, consciously or unconsciously, the new ways of life which cause discomfort, withdrawal from the culture, and fear of contact with people.

　Worse than that, some would become victims of the scalled "culture shock." The symptoms of culture shock may include washing hands excessively, being overly concerned with food and drinking, fearing people, being absentminded, refusing to learn the host country's language and customs, worrying about being robed, cheated, or injured, and so on (Oberg, 1960; Smalley, 1963). Eventually, the only way to eliminate this problem is by returning to one's homeland. If sojourners are forced continually to stay in that culture, the difficulty in crosscultural adaptation may cause severe psychological or psychiatric problems such as paranoia, depression, schizophrenia, and lack of confidence (Yeh, Chu, Klein, Alexander, & Miller, 1981). 

　Because facetoface contact among people of different cultural backgrounds has increased in recent years, the world has become a shrinking, interdependent one. This is the reason why Sitaram and Cogdell (1976) proclaimed that "all the people of the world should study intercultural communication" (P. 15). Sitaram and Cogdell's sentiment is somewhat exaggerated, but it suggests the importance of learning more about people of other cultures.

　Recent studies have moved intercultural communication forward in its theoretical and practical orientations, yet there is no denying that it is still a young field. The study of intercultural communication can be traced back to works of political scientists and anthropologists in the 1930s and 1940s. More recently, sociologists, linguists, and communication scholars have developed interest in it. Consequently, two separate schools of thoughtcultural dialogue and cultural critichave guided research in intercultural communication (Asante, Newmark, & Blake, 1979).

　The cultural dialogue school argues that their theories can be utilized to promote world understanding; they believe people from different cultures could and should communicate with others. Therefore, the school emphasizes internationalism and humanism. Furthermore, this school sees intercultural communication as an attempt to organize human society. 

　On the other hand, cultural critics try to pose researchable questions by isolating the conflict found in crosscultural communication. They attempt to seek ways of improving interaction among people across cultures by eliminating barriers through classificatory, analytic, and applicative steps. That is, they attempt to identify intercultural communication barriers "in terms of priority, intensity, or difficulty" (Asante, Newmark, & Blake, 1979, p. 20). Finally, the results are applied to specific settings of intercultural interaction. 

　Both schools of thought have led to a significant amount of research in intercultural communication. One of the main topics studies at the same time by these two groups is intercultural communication competence. Only through intercultural communication competence can people move beyond cultural differences in order to reach the ideal goals advocated by cultural dialogists and cultural critics. Based on these views, the present study is focused on the construct "intercultural communication competence."

Statement of the Problem

　Although the study of communication competence can be indirectly traced back to Aristotle's rhetoric, until now only a very few scholars have dealt with this topic by considering cultural factors. In other words, there are very few studies of intercultural communication competence. Within the extant literature we can see that one topic, one most closely related to intercultural communication competence, is intercultural communication effectiveness. Two general questions for the study of intercultural communication effectiveness are: (1) What is intercultural communication effectiveness; and (b) What makes intercultural communication interaction effective?

　Historically, three approaches have been used to answer these questions (Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978). The first approach focuses on the characteristics of intercultural communication effectiveness (Cleveland, Mangone, & Adam, 1960: Detweiler, 1975); Gardner, 1962; Harris, 1973; Kleinjans, 1972; Mottram, 1963; Stein, 1966). This approach is broad, in that researchers not only study the sojourner's communication behaviors, but also investigate such variables as individual personality, individual world view, and cultural awareness. The second approach emphasizes observation of the sojourner's behavior (David, 1972; Ruben, 1976, 1977; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). This approach emphasizes mainly the behaviors of interactants. However, a third approach explores intercultural communication effectiveness through studying both the sojourner's characteristics and behaviors (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1984; Gudykunst, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1977; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Wiseman & Abe, 1984). This is an integrative approach which can lead to better understanding of intercultural communication effectiveness. This approach will be applied to the present study. 

　These approaches have provided an abundance of literature on the study of intercultural communication effectiveness. They also have disagreed on conceptualization of the term "intercultural communication effectiveness" and its dimensions. Moreover, some scholars have argued that communication effectiveness can be used interchangeably with the term communication competence (e.g., Ruben, 1976). In order to avoid this semantic dilemma, the construct "intercultural communication competence" is used in this study, and the research questions which comprise the purpose of this study are as follows:

　(1) What is the proper conceptual definition of communication competence?

　(2) What are the general dimensions of intercultural communication competence?

　(3) What elements are contained in the dimensions of intercultural communication competence?

　(4) What relationships exist among the elements in the dimensions of intercultural communication competence

Review of Literature

　In order to answer the abovementioned questions, the literature is reviewed in this section and is divided into three parts: conceptual definitions of communication competence, dimensions of communication competence, and dimensions of intercultural communication competence.

Definitions of Communication Competence

　It is almost a cliché to say that a competent person will better adapt to a new environment, within the same or different cultural settings, than a person who is less competent. But what is competence: Unfortunately, the conceptualization of competence is still a controversial issue.

　The early study of competence can be traced back to Robert R. White (1959). White considered competence to be "an organism's capacity to interact effectively with its environment" (p. 297). He argued that competence is the common property of behaviors, and this competence can be reached through "behaviors instigated by drives" in their own rights (p. 329). In other words, White suggested that competence is one of the basic needs of people, and the measure of competence depends on the extent to which a person produces the intended effect from interactions with the environment. Argyris (1965a, 1965b) agreed with White's ideas and further indicated that human competence tends to increase under three conditions: "(1) As one's awareness of relevant factors increases, (2) as the problems are solved in such a way that they remained solved, and (3) with a minimal deterioration of the problemsolving process" (1965a. p. 59). 

　Foote and Cottrell (1955), and Holland and Baird (1968) simply conceptualized interpersonal competence as the "acquired ability for effective interaction" (p. 53). Unlike White's conception, they claimed that interpersonal competence is an inherent ability that is not related to personal intellect and education. Weinstein (1969) theorized that interpersonal competence is increased through socialization, but it is learned incidentally rather than manipulatively. Weinstein perceived interpersonal competence as "the ability to control the responses of others" (p. 764) and "the ability to accomplish interpersonal tasks" (p. 755). This definition not only shows that competence is the ability to manipulate the interaction, it is also related to personal goals. Weinstein further indicated that this competence ability is mainly derived from empathy which is based on personal intelligence and sensitivity. 

　Trying to outline a more systematic concept of interpersonal competence, Bochner and Kelly (1974) conceptually defined interpersonal competence as "the ability to relate effectively to self and others" (p. 280). This definition broadens the concept of interpersonal competence to both interactants. That is, to be competent, the individuals must not only feel they are competent but their competent ability should be observable and recognized by their counterparts. The definition also suggests that interpersonal competence can be judged by "(1) ability to formulate and achieve objectives, (2) ability to collaborate effectively with others, and (3) ability to adapt appropriately to situational or environmental variations" (p. 288). 

　Parks (1976) also examined competence form the viewpoint of goal attainment. In his opinion, an ideal competent communicator should be able to maximize his or her personal goal attainment. Accordingly, Parks defined competence as "the communicator's ability to control or manipulated his or her environment in order to attain personal goals" (p. 5). This is similar to Weinstein's (1969) definition, even though Parks emphasized the attainment of personal goals. Furthermore, in order to maximize these personal goals, Parks thought that one must be able to specify what the goals, are, get relevant information about these goals accurately predict the other's responses, select communication strategies, implement these communication strategies, and accurately assess the interaction results. 

　Recently, Rubin (1983) theoretically applied communication competence to the four perspectives of interpersonal communication study proposed by Gerald Miller (1978). After examining the four perspectivesthe situational approach, the developmental approach, the lawgoverned approach, and the rulesgoverned approachesRubin argued that "communication competence is an impression based on perception" (p. 1), and impressions are formed about both one's own and the other's behaviors. Through these impressions we can infer about interactants' internal states. In Rubin's opinion, to know whether a communicator is competent, the other's observation becomes an indispensable element. 

　Another special definition of competence is from Phillips (1984). Phillips separated the concepts of competence, skills, and effectiveness. He conceptualized competence as "understanding situations and their requirements," skill as "demonstrated ability to meet requirements," and effectiveness as "the ability to accomplish specific goals" (p. 33). These definitions argue that competence is just the first step for a person to communicate effectively. This distinction is very different from those mentioned above. 

　Finally, Wiemann (1977) synthesized the concept of competence from the human relations or Tgroup, social skills, and selfpresentation approaches. He conceptualized communicative competence as "the ability of an interactant to choose among available communicative behaviors in order that he may successfully accomplish his own interpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and line of his fellow interactants within the constraints of situation" (p. 198). This definition obviously argues that competent communication is otheroriented, and, at the same time, communicators have to accomplish successfully their own goals. 

　While some scholars have conceptualized communication competence as a function of perceived effectiveness, others have looked at communication competence from the viewpoint of appropriateness. For example, Backlund (1978) reviewed the various definitions of communication competence and conceptualized communication competence as "the ability to demonstrate a knowledge of the socially appropriate communicative behavior in a given situation" (p. 26). Wiemann and Backlund (1980) explained appropriateness in the communication process:

　Appropriateness generally refers to the ability of an interactant to meet the basic contextual requirements of the situationto be effective in a general sense… These contextual requirements include: (1) The verbal context, that is, making sense in terms of wording, of statements, and of topic; (2) the relationship context, that is, the structuring, type and style of messages so that they are consonant with the particular relationship at hand: and (3) the environmental context, that is, the consideration of constraints imposed on message making by the symbolic and physical environments. (p. 191)

　They referred to the "appropriateness of behavior" as one of the most important criteria to define communication competence. 

　Trenholm and Rose (1981) argued that one of the major abilities to be competent in interaction is "the ability to recognize how context constrains communication" (p. 13). In other words, "in order to act and speak appropriately, individuals must recognize that different situations give rise to different sets of rules; compliance and noncompliance separate those who 'belong' from those who do not 'fit in'" (p. 13). This is similar to the definition of organizational communication competence set forth by Harris and Cronen (1976) where understanding of organizational rules constituted their criteria for competence.

　Getter and Nowinski (1981) utilized appropriate responses in interaction to evaluate interpersonal effectiveness. They suggested that a competent communicator should be able to avoid inappropriate responses. The inappropriate response to a situation is defined as "one which is unnecessarily abrasive, intense, or bizarre. It is also likely to result in negative consequences which could have been averted, without sacrifice of the goal, by more appropriate actions" (p. 303). 

　In another study, Allen and Wood (1978) indicated that the functions of communication are controlling, sharing feelings, informing,, ritualizing, and imagining. In order to fulfill these functions, a competent communicator must know how to act appropriately. This shows that appropriateness is the main criterion for conceptualizing communication competence. They further extended the meaning of appropriateness in interaction as "(1) Say just enoughnot too little or too much (quantity). (2) Don't say something that's falseor speak about something for which you lack evidence (quality). (3) Relate your contribution to the topic and situation (relevancy). (4) Be clear about what you are saying, and say it 'with dispatch' (manner)" (p. 290).

　Finally, Lee (1979) looked at competence as a dynamic process that translates one's cognitive, linguistic, and social abilities into appropriate strategies in interpersonal interaction. Therefore, Lee defined competence as "the ability to draw on one's capabilities and social knowledge and combine them for lines of action or strategies in functionally appropriate ways" (p. 795).

　In sum, appropriateness should be considered when one conceptualizes the construct "communication competence," and "the fundamental criteria of appropriateness are that the interactants perceive that they understand the content of the encounter and have not had their norms and rules violated too extensively" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, p. 101).

　Most of the literature shows that the conceptualization of intercultural communication competence is similar to the definitions mentioned above. The only difference is (in addition to looking at communication competence as effective and appropriate interaction) intercultural communication scholars conceptualize communication competence not only as effective and appropriate interaction between people, but as effective and appropriate interaction between people and the environment in which the people live. But, basically, they conceptualize communication competence for both intercultural and nonintercultural settings in similar ways. This orientation is not unlike that of communication researchers who place emphasis on competence as contextspecific behavior (e.g., Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). 

　From this overview, we can see common characteristics of communication competence. Most researchers have conceptualized communication competence as the ability to interact effectively and appropriately with others. However, these definitions, more or less, suffer a certain degree of ambiguity, confusion, and imprecision. Using Wiemann's (1977) synthesized definition as an example of this lack of precision, we could ask: What constitutes "available behaviors," or "constraints of the situation?" These concepts are not very clear and need to be defined. To have a working definition of communication competence for this study, one that is more precise, I will conceptualize communication competence as the ability of an interactant to execute communication behaviors to elicit a desired response in a specific environment.

Dimensions of Communication Competence

　After reviewing the literature on communication competence, Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) organized seven generic categories of competence that are often discussed by social scientists and communication scholars: fundamental competence, social competence, social skills, interpersonal competence, linguistic competence, communicative competence, and relational competence.

　Fundamental competence focuses on individuals' general abilities to adapt effectively to a new environment so that the individuals can achieve their goals. In this sense, fundamental competence is concerned with the cognitive capacities which can lead the individual communicator to be effective crosssituationally. 

　Social competence and social skills research emphasizes the individual's specific, rather than general, abilities. According to Spitzberg and Cupach (1984), many studies have attempted to identify specific skills that can account for the abilities underlying social competence. Among those important skills are empathy, role taking, cognitive complexity, and interaction management. 

　Interpersonal competence is more goaloriented and emphasized the individual's ability to accomplish tasks through successful communication. Even though interpersonal ability is important in both of the perspectives of fundamental competence and social competence, interpersonal competence is concerned with how a person executes certain skills to control the environment in order to achieve goals in particular communication situations. 

　Linguistic competence and communicative competence are more concerned with language and messages in the interaction process. Linguistic competence relates to the knowledge of how to use language properly. This concept was originated by Chomsky (1965). Communicative competence emphasizes that a person must exhibit not only the knowledge of using language, but also have the ability to execute the language appropriately. That is, to be competent communicatively, a person must possess the ability to convey messages appropriately in a given context of interaction. 

　Relational competence is a hybrid concept which consists of most of the notions mentioned above. One of the most important characteristics of relational competence is the emphasis on the independent and reciprocal processes of interaction (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). In this case, individuals have to establish a certain degree of relationship with their counterparts to interact effectively and achieve goals. 

　Although researchers may place themselves into one or the other, these seven categories of competence theory and research should not be seen as separate and distinct. Because these categories emphasize different aspects of competence, they could be considered elements of communication competence.

　Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) proposed that relational competence should be viewed as an integrative model to cover all competence elements. They then provided four dimensions for a relational competence model. Those dimensions are: motivation, knowledge, skills, and outcomes. For motivation, one has to show positive aspects such as otherorientation, less anxiety, and involvement in the process of interaction in order to facilitate the actual performance and enhance the competence of interaction. Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) further indicated that otheroriented communication "is referenced by such perceptual cues as attentiveness, cooperativeness, politeness, concern and interest," and behaviorally, is indicated "by such cues as topic support, head nods, eye contact, direct and open orientation, questions, and use of positively reinforcing remarks" (p. 120). From studies by Morganstern and Wheeless (1980) and Zuroff and Schwarz (1978), anxiety is indicated "by such factors as undue perspiration, shakiness, postural rigidity, vocal smoothness, self and object adaptors, and minimal response tendencies" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, p. 120). Involvement might be indicated by "the number of compliancegaining or resisting tactics used, topical persistence, and selfperceived ego involvement in the topic" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, p. 120).

　For knowledge, one must exhibit the ability to possess "the requisite cognitive information necessary to implement conversationally competent behaviors in an interpersonal context" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, p. 123). This ability is called "high selfmonitoring" and is characterized by elements such:

　(1) Concern with social appropriateness of one's selfpresentation. (2) Attention to social comparison information as cues to situationally appropriate expressive selfpresentation. (3) The ability to control and modify one's selfpresentation and expressive behavior. (4) The use of this ability in particular situations. (5) The extent to which one's expressive behavior and selfpresentation are tailored and molded to particular situations. (Snyder, 1979, p. 184)

　Motivation and knowledge need to be supplemented by personal and social skills to fulfill the desired behavioral sequences. The social skills in the dimension of expressiveness behavior may consist of such cues as vivid facial expressions, vocal modulation, postural shifts and gesturing, and cues such as breath inhalations, eye contact, pause synchronizations, body movement, and tone maintenance (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). According to Spitzberg and Cupach, all these behavioral elements were indicated by research conducted by Argyris (1965a, 1965b), Barlow, Able, Blanchard, Bristow, and Young (1977), Bienvenu (1971), Elder, Wallace, and Harris (1980), Gillingham, Griffiths, and Care (1977), Greenwald (1977), Kelly and Chase (1978), Lowe and Cautela (1978), Macklin and Rossieter (1976), Minkin, et al. (1976), Pearce (1976), Phillips (1949), Rose, Cayner, and Edelson (1977), Spitzberg and Hecht (1984), Wiemann (1974), and Zuroff and Schwarz (1978).

　Finally, the "outcomes" dimension indicates that competent communication ought to be related to such criteria as satisfaction, good feeling, interpersonal attraction and solidarity, trust, and intimacy ((Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Several important investigations that have looked at communication outcomes are reported by Cupach  (1981, 1982), Cupach and Spitzberg (1981, 1983), Hecht (1978a, 1978b), Larzelere and Huston (1980), Schaefer and Olson (1981), and Spitzberg (1982a, 1982b, 1982c). 

　Although Spitzberg and Cupach considered relational competence as an integrative model which covers all competence elements, Foote and Cottrell used the term "interpersonal competence" to describe a different type of competence. In their book, Foote and Cottrell (1955) assumed that interpersonal competence consists of six dimensions: Health, intelligence, empathy, autonomy, judgment, and creativity. Holland and Baird (1968) tested the validity of Foote and Cottrell's assumptions by creating a scale that included 20 components representing these interpersonal competence dimensions. Six of the 20 components which were utilized to assess communication competence were:

　(1) the ability to "cope with difficult people." 

　(2) the ability to "talk with all kinds of people."

　(3) the ability to "play many roles." 

　(4) the ability to assess a person's "motivation."

　(5) the ability to have "good practical judgment." 

　(6) the ability to have "good optimistic outlook." (p. 504)

　The results showed that the scale was valid, one which could be utilized to assess personal competence in interpersonal interaction. 

　In a study involving communication competence, Bochner and Kelly (1974) suggested five dimensions of communication skills that can be used to judge interpersonal competence. First, empathic communication is the ability to "take the role of the other" (Foote & Cottrell, 1955, p. 54). It is also a form of "affective sensitivity" (Campbell, Kagan, & Krathwohl, 1971). Second, descriptiveness is the ability to use concrete, specific, and descriptive feedback in the process of interaction (Bochner & Kelly, 1974, p. 290). Third, owning feelings and thoughts means that individuals must show their "willingness to accept responsibility for oneself and commitment to others" in the communication process (Bochner & Kelly, 1974, p. 290). Fourth, self disclosure means that individuals are willing to tell their counterparts things about themselves which their counterparts seem not likely to know from other sources (Pearce & Sharp, 1973). Fifth, behavioral flexibility means that interactants should demonstrate their ability to choose an appropriate behavior in different kinds of interpersonal situations. All the dimensions of communication competence mentioned above were basically dealt with personal attributes and communication skills. 

　Continuing research on communication competence continues to generate similar results. For example, Parks (1976) examined works of Argyle (1969), Argyris (1965a), Bochner and Kelly (1974), Delia and O'Keefe (1975), Foote and Cottrell (1955), Goffman (1959), Hart, Carlson, and Eadie (1975), Pearce (1976), Weinstein (1966, 1969), and Wiemann (1975), and proposed six dimensions for competence. Those dimensions are: (1) "rewardingness and supportiveness; (2) identity maintenance; (3) empathy and perspectivetaking; (4) message skills; (5) creativity and flexibility; and (6) openness or selfdisclosure" (p.12).

　Rewardingness and supportiveness are not necessarily elements for accomplishing one's goals in interaction (Parks conceptualized the attainment of personal goals as the core feature of competence), but to be able to reward and support the other effectively in interaction is the sine qua non for being an effective communicator. Also, Parks (1976) saw identity maintenance, which is the ability of an individual to maintain his or her interactant's identity, as a learned capacity. Individuals learn identity maintenance through their experiences. It is changeable and it varies according to different situations and different personal goals. 

　Parks (1976) felt that for empathy and perspectivetaking, an individual must demonstrate "the ability to accurately predict or discriminate various aspects of the other's behavior or internal states" (p. 14). This behavior is focused on the other's interaction responses. 

　Message skills was defined by Parks (1976) as the ability of the individual to code skillfully or create messages in the process of communication, and creativity and behavioral flexibility as an individual's ability to be accurate and "flexible in attending to information," to be flexible "in the response repertoire," and to be flexible "in selecting strategies" in order to achieve personal goals in communication" (p. 16). Finally, Parks argued that competent communicators must be able to use openness or selfdisclosure skills appropriately to achieve their goals. 

　Two other studies also revealed dimensions of communicative competence. Wheeless and Duran (1982) and Duran (1983) proposed adaptability and rewarding impressions as dimensions of communicative competence. According to Wheeless and Duran, communication adaptability focuses on the variety of individual experiences and "the ability to be flexible and fell comfortable with a variety of people" (p. 55). This is similar to the dimension of behavioral flexibility mentioned above. Rewarding impressions center around "the themes of being otheroriented, sensitive to others, and providing positive feelings toward others" (p. 55). This is similar to the empathy dimension. Additional research by Cegala (1981) and Cegala, Savage, Brunner, and Conrad (1982) revealed interaction involvement as one of the dimensions of communicative competence. This dimension mainly emphasizes individual empathic and otheroriented ability in interaction. 

　The consistent findings related to competence dimensions were also provided by Wiemann (1977). From his review of previous research, Wiemann (1977) defined five dimensions of communicative competence consisting of molecular and discrete behavioral cues. Those dimensions and behavioral cues are:

　Affiliation/support:

　1. Eye behavior (Argyle, 1969; Exline, 1971; Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1972; Wiemann, 1974).

　2. The alternation and cooccurrence of specific speech choices which mark the status and affiliative relationships of the interactants, e.g., honorifics"professor," "your Honor"pet names, or multiple names as markers of a relationship (Brown & Gilman, 1960; ErvinTripp, 1964, 1972; Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968; Argyle, 1969).

　3. Head nods (Mehrabian, 1972).

　4. Duration of speaking time and number of statements per minute (Mehrabian, 1972).

　5. Pleasantness of facial expressionsmiling (Mehrabian, 1972; Rosenfeld, 1972).

　6. Statements indicating "owning" of one's perceptions about another (Bochner & Kelly, 1974). 

　7. Physical proximity chosen during interaction (Argyle & Dean, 1965; Hall, 1966).

　Social relaxation

　1. General postural relaxation cues, including rocking movements, leg and foot movements, and body lean (Mehrabian, 1971, 1972; Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1972).

　2. Rate of speech (Argyle, 1969).

　3. Speech disturbances, hesitations, and nonfluencies (Kasl & Mahl, 1965).

　4. Object manipulations (Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1972).

　Empathy:

　1. Reciprocity of affect displays, e.g., smiling and other immediacy cues *Argyle & Dean, 1965; Mehrabian, 1972).

　2. Verbal responses indicating understanding of and feeling for the other's situation, e.g., "I know how you feel."

　3. Perceived active listener responses or reinforcers (Dittman, 1972; Wiemann & Knapp, 1975). 

　Behavioral flexibility:

　1. Verbal immediacy cues (Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968).

　2. The alternation and cooccurrence of specific speech choices which mark the status and affiliative relationships of interactants (Brown & Gilman, 1960; ErvinTripp, 1964, 1972; Argyle, 1969; Robinson, 1972).

　Interaction management:

　1. Interruptions of the speaker are not permitted (Goffman, 1967; Duncan, 1973; Speier, 1973; Wiemann & Knapp, 1975).

　2. One person talks at a time (Ducan, 1973; Speier, 1973; Sacks et al., 1974; Wiemann & Knapp, 1975).

　3. Speaker turns must interchange (Speier, 1973; Sacks et al., 1974; however, this rule is subject to different interpretations, cf. Schegloff, 1972; Scheidel, 1974).

　4. Frequent and lengthy pauses should be avoided (Jaffee & Feldstein, 1970).

　5. An interactant must be perceived as devoting full attention to the encounter (Goffman, 1967).

(Wiemann, 1977, pp. 198199)

　Lastly, Rubin (1982a, 1982b) proposed four major dimensions of communication competence that were used in an instrument designed to assess college students' communication. This instrument was mainly used to measure how students communicate with their professors and peers in the classroom. The four dimensions were (Rubin, 1982a, pp. 2123):

　1. Communication codesThis dimension was comprised of four elements: (a) listen effectively to spoken English, (b) use words, pronunciation and grammar appropriate for the situation, (c) use nonverbal signs appropriate for the situation, and (d) use voice effectively. 

　2. Oral message evaluationThis dimension included four elements: (a) identify main ideas in messages, (b) distinguish facts from opinions, (c) distinguish between informative and persuasive messages, and (d) recognize when another does not understand your message. 

　3. Basic speech communication skillsThis dimension consisted of seven elements: (a) express ideas clearly and concisely, (b) express and defend with evidence your point of view, (c) organize (order) messages so that others can understand them, (d) ask questions to obtain information, (e) answer questions effectively, (f) give concise and accurate directions, and (g) summarize messages.

　4. Human relationsThis dimension was composed of four elements: (a) describe another's viewpoint, (b) describe differences in opinion, (c) express feelings to other, and (d) perform social rituals. 

　In sum, the conceptualization of communication competence may show a certain degree of dissimilarity among communication scholars, but the dimensions of communication competence generated by these scholars seem to overlap. In order to avoid the confusion of the names of communication competence dimensions used by communication scholars (e.g., Cegala et al. interaction involvement, Wiemann's social relaxation, and Parks' supportiveness were included in Spitzberg and Cupach's motivation dimension), those dimensions reviewed above are roughly rearranged and summarized into two major categories:

　1. Personal AttributesThis category required that competent communicators know themselves well, and through their selfawareness abilities, initiate positive attitudes. This includes various aspects of the selfconcept (Foote & Cottrell, 1955; Holland & Baird, 1968), selfdisclosure (Bochner & Kelly, 1974; Parks, 1976), selfawareness or selfmonitoring (Snyder, 1979; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984), and social relaxation (Wiemann, 1977; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984).

　2. Communication SkillsThis category requires that individuals be competent in verbal and nonverbal behaviors. These behaviors can be categorized into four main areas. "Message skills" includes linguistic knowledge (Chomsky, 1965), message competence (Chomsky, 1965; Parks, 1976), descriptiveness (Bochner & Kelly, 1974), supportiveness (Parks, 1976; Wiemann, 1977; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984), communication codes (Rubin, 1982a), and basic speech communication skills (Rubin, 1982a). "Flexibility" includes behavioral flexibility or adaptability (Bochner & Kelly, 1974; Duran, 1983; Parks, 1976; Wheeless & Duran, 1982; Wiemann, 1977), and creativity (Foote & Cottrell, 1955; Parks, 1976). "Interaction management" includes interaction management (Wiemann, 1977), and interaction involvement (Cegela, 1981; Cegala et al., 1982). And "social skills" includes empathy (Bochner & Kelly, 1974; Foote & Cottrell, 1955; Parks, 1976; Wiemann, 1977), identity maintenance (Parks, 1976), and human relations (Rubin, 1982a).

Dimensions of Intercultural Communication Competence

　Owing to the involvement of cultural factors, the study of Intercultural Communication Competence becomes much more complicated. Culture, in its broadest sense, is originally considered as the way of human life in a group that includes "knowledge, belief, act, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society" (Tylor, 1968, p. 1). Because this definition of culture was considered to be too inclusive, a more specific conceptualization of culture was generated by Stewart (1978). Stewart defined culture as "the cognitive process serving as the background of communication" (p. 299). In other words, culture is "an analytical tool for assessing communication, selecting strategies and evaluating results," and it serves as "a filter for communication" (Stewart, 1978, p. 299). In this sense, we can see that different cultures would create different value systems and perceptions of meaning. 

　Because communication is the carrier of values and meaning, and the way people communicate is influenced by the values they hold and the way they perceive meaning (Sitaram & Lawrence, 1979), it is sufficient to say that communication systems would be different from society to society. This makes the study of intercultural communication more intricate. This is also the reason why Cooley and Roach (1984) urged communication scholars to establish a theory of competence by attending to crosscultural issues. Because an individual's communication competence is culturally specific and bound by the culture where the communicator resides, it is important to investigate "the breadth and depth of the impact of culture on communication behavior to members of different cultures" (Cooley & Roach, 1984, p. 14). Basically, intercultural communication competence not only examines human communication, but also investigates interaction between people and the environment in which they live. 

　A literature review of the intercultural communication competence indicates that a considerable amount of research has manifested several similar dimensions. Those dimensions of intercultural communication competence reveal not only the importance of personal attributes and communication skills, but also emphasize the importance of psychological adaptation and cultural awareness in intercultural interaction.

　Several studies have examined intercultural communication competence from the viewpoint of personal attributes. In an early study, Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams (1960, pp. 172173) suggested that four concrete factors must be considered in selecting personnel who can work effectively with people in other cultures in international work programs:

　1. The person should be "resourceful and buoyant"This means that the person must have the ability to handle frustration and discouragement effectively and rapidly in other cultures.

　2. The person should have "environmental mobility"This focuses on the person's background in which the person has experience in coping with different kinds of people at different levels of circumstance.

　3. The person should maintain "intellectual curiosity"This stresses the person's capacity to pursue new knowledge beyond his or her normal duty.

　4. The person should have the ability for "building institutions"This emphasizes the person's ability to develop an organization in which the person can sow his or her working experience. 

　All these elements demonstrate that the personal characteristics of intercultural communication competence are connected with personality, background, education, and experience. 

　Gardner (1962) further proposed five similar elements which uncover the personal characteristics of intercultural communication competence. Those elements include "(a) an unusual degree of integration, or stability; (b) a central organization of extrovert type; (c) a value system which includes the 'Value of All Men'; (de) socialized on the basis of cultural universals (in contrast to cultural particulars); (e) a marked telepathic or intuition sensitivity" (p. 248). All these elements are essentially individual effectiveness abilities used to eliminate intercultural communication barriers. Gardner further termed the person who possesses these personal abilities, "Universal Communicator."

　Continuous study by Kleinjans (cited in Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978) was consistent with Gardner's position. Kleinjans considered the following to be characteristics of the effective intercultural communicator: "(1) sees people first; representatives of cultures second; (2) knows people are basically good; (3) knows the value of other cultures as well as his/her own culture; (4) has control over his/her visceral reactions; (5) speaks with hopefulness and candor; and (6) has inner security and is able to feel comfortable being different from other people" (Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978, p. 383). 

　Another study by Harris (1973) on Peace Corps Volunteers in the South Pacific also sowed emphasis on the personal characteristics of intercultural communication competence. Harris factoranalyzed 24 behavioral items that accounted for the intercultural communication competence of volunteers and found four dimensions:

　1. "Strength of personality, character" consisted of behavioral items such as selfreliance, inner strength, perseverance, and reliability.

　2. "General competence such as a teacher" was composed of behavioral items such as coverage of content, knowledge of subject, control of classroom,, talents such as technique, responsibility, and agreement and compromise.

　3. "Cultural interaction" contained behavioral items such as facility with language, interest in nationals, cultural sensitivity, extracurricular activities, and adaptability. 

　4. "Facility in interpersonal relations" was comprised of behavioral items such as courtesy and cooperativeness.

　Except for personal attributes, other studies have shown the importance of communication skills, psychological adaptation, and cultural awareness in intercultural communication competence. For example, Porter and Samovar (1976) examined effective intercultural communication from the perspective of cultural complexity. They defined eight cultural variables that accounted for effective communication interculturally: attitudes, social organization, patterns of thought, roles and role expectation, language, space, time, and nonverbal expression.

　Porter and Samovar (1976) felt that a competent person should be free from attitudes such as ethnocentrism, stereotypes and prejudices, must recognize the social organization of his or her interactant, and recognize that different patterns of thought exist in different cultures. Oliver (1962) previously suggested that the major barrier in intercultural communication between Western cultures and the Oriental culture is their different patterns of thought. It is important to overcome this barrier in order to communicate effectively. Porter and Samovar further explained that roles or role prescriptions vary from culture to culture. These differences among role groups may cause confusion and misunderstanding between communicators. The awareness of an interactant's role in his or her group is vital to effective communication. Other variables, like being competent in language, understanding the use of space, conceptualizing time, and expressing oneself nonverbally, are all crucial to effective communication among people from different cultures. 

　In a similar vein, Benson (1978) presented ten theoretical elements which can be utilized to measure overseas adaptation. They include language skills, communication skills, frequent and pleasant interactions, reinforcing activities, friendliness, socially appropriate behaviors, job performance, attitudes, satisfaction, and mobility. All these are similar to Porter and Samovar's (1978) classification. 

　On the other hand, Stening (1979) discussed several essential elements that block effective intercultural communication. He suggested that competent communicators in intercultural interaction must be able to overcome barriers such as different values, attitudes, beliefs, and expectations which are caused by "subject culture," and other problems like stereotyping, ethnocentrism and prejudice, time factors, cultural distance, personality, and attitudes.

　A similar research by Barna (1979) also suggested that to be competence in intercultural communication the individual must have the ability to eliminate intercultural communication stumbling blocks which arise from such elements as language, nonverbal behaviors, preconceptions and stereotypes, tendency to evaluate, and high anxiety. In other words, competent communicators in intercultural settings must (a) show a good understanding of their interactants' language, (b) be able to recognize the meaning of nonverbal behaviors, (c) be free from preconceptions and stereotypes about their counterparts, and (d) try to understand the thoughts and feelings expressed by their interactants before they show the tendency of evaluation, and (e) eliminate anxiety feelings when they communicate with persons from different cultures. 

　A more thorough study on measuring intercultural communication competence has conducted by Ruben and his associate. Ruben (1976, 1977; Ruben & Kealey, 1979) accepted Wiemann's conceptualization of communication competence, and attempted to create a general model for intercultural communication competence. After reviewing the sources of intercultural communication competence, Ruben identified seven important dimensions of intercultural communication competence, and created an index to test personal competence in intercultural communication settings. This instrument tapped:

　1. Display of respect"the ability to express respect and positive regard for another person" (Ruben, 1976, p. 339). This dimension included such behavioral cues as eye contact, body posture, voice tone and pitch, and general displays of interest in the interaction.

　2. Interaction posture"the ability to respond to others in a descriptive, nonevaluating, and nonjudgmental way" (p. 340). In this dimension the more competent the communicators are, the more descriptive and less evaluating or judgmental they are.

　3. Orientation to knowledgethe ability to recognize "the extent to which knowledge is individual in nature" (p. 340). The hierarchical order for a person in intercultural communication is first and foremost, intrapersonal orientation, then interpersonal communication, cultural orientation, and last, physical orientation. 

　4. Empathythe ability to "put oneself in another's shoes" (p. 340). A highly empathic person usually responds accurately to "apparent and less apparent expressions of feeling and thought by others" and usually "projects interest and provides verbal and nonverbal cues that he or she understands the state of affairs of others" (p. 349).

　5. Selforiented role behaviorthe ability to be functionally flexible in different kinds of role behaviors. Role behaviors were classified into task roles, relational roles, and individual roles. For task roles, a competent person shows the ability to complete such tasks as "initiation of ideas, requesting further information or facts, seeking of clarification of group tasks, clarification of taskrelated issues, evaluation of suggestions of others, or focusing group on task" (p. 350). For relational roles, a competent persona shows the ability to lead the group to such outcomes as "harmonizing and mediating scraps and/or conflicts between group members, attempts to regulate evenness of contributions of group members," offers comments "relative to the group's dynamic," displays "indications of a willingness to compromise own position for the sake of group consensus, and displays interest" (p. 350); for individualistic roles, a competent person would not sow behaviors such as: 

　Highly resistant to ideas of others; return to issues and points of view previously discussed and acted upon or dismissed by the group; attempt to call attention to him or herself; attempt ot project a highly positive image by noting achievements, qualification, vocational or professional experience or other factors that are designed to increase the individual's credibility; attempt to manipulate the group by asserting authority through flattery, sarcasm, interrupting, etc.; actively avoid and resist participating, remain insulated from group when individual feels he or she is not getting his or her way. (p. 350)

　6. Interaction managementthe ability to take "turns in discussion and initiating and terminating interaction based on a reasonably accurate assessment of the needs and desires of others" (p. 341). A person with high interaction management skill is "extremely concerned with providing equal opportunity for all participants to share in contribution to discussion. In the initiation and termination of discussion, he or she always indicates concern for the interests, tolerances, and orientatin of others who are party to discussions" (p. 351). 

　7. Tolerance of ambiguitythe ability "to react to new and ambiguous situations with little visible discomfort" (p. 341). A high ambiguity tolerance personal always "reacts with little or no nervousness or frustration to new and ambiguous situations. He or she adapts to the demands fo the situation quickly with no noticeable personal, interpersonal, or group consequences and seems to adapt very rapidly and comfortably to new and/or changing environments" (p. 352). 

　Other studies looked at intercultural communication competence from a micro perspective. For example, Sewell and Davidsen (1956), Morris (1960), Deutsch and Won (1963), and Selltiz, Christ, Havel, and Cook (1963) suggested that one's fluency in the host language is the key element for intercultural communication competence. Lundstedt (1963) indicated that a closed mind and ethnocentrism may block effective intercultural interaction. Hall (1959, 1966, 1968, 1981) stressed the importance of understanding the use of space and time. Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) found that persons who showed high adjustment tended to contact host institutions more often and consult more on professional matters with their colleagues. Kelman (1962) suggested that intercultural interaction becomes more effective when sojourners maintain the selfesteem of the host. Turner (1968) emphasized that to understand the "cultural theme" of the host culture is one of the most important ways to be competence in intercultural communication. Taft (1977) theorized that to communicate effectively in a new culture one must learn new responses and skills, and how to acquire information in that culture. Finally, Detweiler (1980) found a positive relationship between intercultural communication competence and personal ability to categorize another's behavior. He argued that the ability to categorize appropriately or give accurate meaning to another's behavior is the criterion of communication competence in the intercultural setting. All these findings from a micro perspective of intercultural communication competence are included in previous literature review. 

　Another way to picture the elements of intercultural communication competence is from the methods used in intercultural training programs. For instance, training programs proposed by Triandis (1977), Gudykunst, Hammer, and Wiseman (1977), and Brislin (1979) have clearly shown that dimensions of intercultural communication competence consist of personal attributes, communication skills, psychological adaptation, and cultural awareness. In his article, Triandis (1977) recommended six kinds of training necessary for a sojourner to be competent in a host culture. They are: affective training, cognitive training, behavioral training, general training, specific training, and selfinsight training.

　Affective training focuses on "the training of emotions" that are caused by "particular situations, people, and environments" (p. 20). In other words, this method carries the notions that a competent intercultural communicator should be able to show positive emotional responses when he or she lives in a different culture. 

　Cognitive training emphasizes "the change of thinking about the environment" (p. 21). That is, in order to interpret effectively others' behaviors, a competent communicator must understand the distinct characteristics about the other culture. Those distinct characteristics, in combination with personal behaviors, involve "complex interactions of norms, roles, the selfconcept of the actors, interpersonal agreements, past history of interaction, affective and expected future events" (p. 21). 

　Behavioral training stresses how to act appropriately in the other culture. Appropriate behaviors in a different culture are usually enhanced by positive emotional affect and proper environmental cognition. These three methods can be intersected with general and specific training. 

　Specific training is to offer the trainees a "sample experience" by "exposing the trainee to a variety of cultural habits, norms, roles, values, and circumstances" in a particular culture so they can get used to the new environment (Triandis, 1977, p. 21), and the methods for general training are similar to specific training except that the setting is more general in nature.

　The last method, selfinsight training, is parallel to cognitive training in a specific setting, but it focuses on learning about "one's own culture and how culture affects behavior and experience" (p. 22). 

　Brislin (1979), as well, provided five similar types of crosscultural orientation programs: (a) selfawareness training, in which persons learn about the cultural bases of their own behaviors; (b) cognitive training, in which people are given various facts about other cultures; (c) attribution training, in which people learn the explanation of social behavior from another culture's standpoint; (d) behavioral modification training, in which people other cultures by analyzing and applying the aspects of their own cultures; and (e) experiential learning training, in which people learn how to communicate with people from other cultures by participating in realistic simulations of other cultures. 

　Lastly, Gudykunst, Hammer, and Wiseman (1977) proposed an integrated model that has been used in training people to become effective communicators in different cultures. The model is composed of six approaches:

　1. The intellectual approach assumes that in order to communicate effectively with people from foreign cultures, on e should show a cognitive understanding of the culture's people, institutions, customs, values, and so on. Relevant studies were conducted by Fiedler, Mitchell, and Triandis (1971), Foa and Chemers (1967), and Harrison and Hopkins (1967).

　2. The area simulation approach assumes that people "will be better able to adjust to the host culture if they have lived in an environment that is as similar as possible to the host culture" (Gudykunst, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1977, p. 101). In other words, a competent communicator must know about the environment of the host culture before he or she sojourns. 

　3. The selfawareness approach assumes that the better able individuals can understand themselves, the greater their ability to adjust in another culture.

　4. The culture awareness approach is in contrast to the selfawareness approach. It assumes that if people wish to interact effectively with a person from a different culture they must "understand what the other person in terms of his cultural system before they can begin to find out what he is as an individual personality" (Dawns, 1969, p. 32).

　5. The behavioral approach, developed by David (1972), assumes that effective intercultural communication requires the individual to have the ability to behave appropriately in a host culture. In order to achieve this goal, Brislin and Pedersen 91976) suggested that, before entering a strange culture, one should try to practice the behaviors of the host culture in a simulated host culture environment. This would reduce anxiety and fear that might happen in some situations in the host culture. 

　6. The interaction approach emphasizes interaction with people from the host culture before the individual sojourns to that place. The Intercultural Communication Workshop is the most popular method used in the interaction approach. Through this exercise, individuals come to understand potential communication problems. 

　Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) further examined dimensions of intercultural communication effectiveness through the use of factor analysis. The authors selected 24 important personal ability items derived from the extant literature on intercultural effectiveness. Fiftythree American students who lived in foreign cultures at least three months and were judged as being competent in the host culture rated each item. The results showed that 18 out of 24 items cluster into three dimensions. These three dimensions were:

　1. Ability to deal with psychological stressThis dimension included eight items: "(1) to effectively deal with frustration, (2) to effectively deal with interpersonal conflict, (3) to effectively deal with stress, (4) to effectively deal with pressure to conform, (5) to effectively deal with financial difficulties, (6) to effectively deal with social alienation, (7) to effectively deal with different political systems, and (8) to effectively deal with anxiety" (pp. 385386).

　2. Ability to effectively communicateThis dimension consists of four items: "(1) to initiate interaction with a stranger, (2) to enter into meaningful dialogue with other people, (3) to effectively deal with communication misunderstandings between myself and others, and (4) to effectively deal with different communication styles" (pp. 385386).

　3. Ability to establish interpersonal relationshipsThis dimension contains six items: (1) to effectively deal with different social systems, (2) to develop satisfying interpersonal relationships with other people, (3) to maintain satisfying interpersonal relationships with other people, (4) to accurately understand the feelings of another person, (5) to empathize with another people, and (6) to effectively deal with different social customs" (pp. 385386)

　In order to understand further the construct of intercultural communication effectiveness, an extended study by Abe and Wiseman (1983) used the personal ability items detailed in Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman's (1978) study to test 57 Japanese students sojourning in the United States. They found five, rather than three, dimensions of intercultural communication effectiveness: (a) ability to communicate interpersonally, (b) ability to adjust to different cultures, (c) ability to deal with different societal systems, (d) ability to establish interpersonal relationships, and (e) ability to understand others. These findings led the authors to believe that dimensions of intercultural effectiveness should be interpreted culturespecifically (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Wiseman & Abe, 1984). That is, the dimensions of intercultural communication competence should be determined by the culture's differences. Each distinct culture would show different dimensions. However, even tough the results were different, the elements of intercultural communication competence remain the same, and those dimensions mainly deal with personal attributes, communication skills, psychological adaptation, and cultural awareness.

　Nevertheless, Gudykunst and Hammer 91984) insisted that dimensions of intercultural effectiveness should be interpreted through a culturegeneral standpoint. The reason is that, Gudykunst and Hammer argued, the five dimensions found by Abe and Wiseman (1983) can be combined into the three dimensions found previously. In other words, they saw the dimensions of intercultural communication competence as being the universal phenomenon. However, the argument about the number of dimensions will remain moot until further research is conducted with large enough sample sizes for correct use of factor analysis. 

Components of Intercultural Communication Competence

　By examining the many elements and dimensions of intercultural communication competence proposed by intercultural communication scholars, we find that most of the elements and dimensions more or less overlap. Essentially, the dimensions discussed in this chapter can be reconstructed as four categories: (a) Personal Attributes, (b) Communication Skills, (c) Psychological Adaptation, and (d) Cultural Awareness. Comparing dimensions of communication competence with those of intercultural communication competence, we also see that Personal Attributes and Communication Skills are repeated, whereas Psychological Adaptation and Cultural Awareness are distinct to intercultural contexts. Cultural Awareness implies the understanding of environmental varieties. Psychological Adaptation focuses on the ability to handle problems such as frustration, stress, alienation and ambiguity which are caused by cultural differences. 

　For the purpose of this study, these four categories were used as the main dimensions of intercultural communication competence. In addition, various elements of intercultural communication competence were considered as components under each dimension. Therefore, the major components of intercultural communication competence and the resulting four distinct dimensions can be summarized as follows:

　A. Personal Attributes

1. the ability to selfdisclosure or be open with others.

2. the ability to monitor or be aware of oneself.

3. the ability to develop a positive selfconcept.

4. the ability to be relaxed in social interaction. 

　B. Communication Skills

1. the ability to send and receive messages.

2. the ability to demonstrate social skills.

3. the ability to demonstrate behavioral flexibility.

4. the ability to manage interactions.

　C. Psychological Adaptation

1. the ability to deal with frustration.

2. the ability to deal with stress.

3. the ability to deal with social alienation.

4. the ability to deal with ambiguous situations.

　D. Cultural Awareness

1. the ability to understand social values.

2. the ability to understand social customs.

3. the ability to understand social norms.

4. the ability to understand social systems. 

　These components of the four dimensions of understanding intercultural communication competence are shown in Figure 1. 

[LM]

[TP<3-1.TIF>,BP]

Figure 1. The dimensions and components of intercultural communication competence.

Definitions of Constructs and Variables

　Figure 1 can also clarify constitutive and operational definitions of constructs and variables in this study. According to Kerlinger (1986), constitutive definitions define constructs with other constructs, and operational definitions assign meaning to constructs or variables via the activities necessary to measure them. 

　The single lines in Figure 1 represent theoretical relations or connections between constructs. These constructs are defined constitutively; that is, the construct, intercultural communication competence, is defined by four other constructs: Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness (i.e., the four dimensions of intercultural communication competence).

　Each of the four dimensions, in turn, is defined constitutively by components of intercultural communication competence. The dimension of Personal Attributes is defined by selfdisclosure, selfawareness, selfconcept, and social relaxation. The dimension of Communication Skills is defined by message skills, social skills, behavioral flexibility, and interaction management. The dimension of Psychological Adaptation is defined by the ability to deal with frustration, stress, alienation, and ambiguity. And the dimension of Cultural Awareness is defined by the ability of understand social values, social customs, social norms, and social system. In the next chapter, portions of each of these constitutive dimensions will be represented operationally. 

　Expected Relationships between Dimensions

　There still is not enough empirical information to make predictions about the direction of influence between dimensions of intercultural communication competence. However, from the theories of interpersonal and intercultural communication, relationships among the components of these dimensions are expected. For example, Lundstedt (1963) stressed the importance of relationships between personality factors and sojourner's adjustment in a foreign culture. Lundstedt maintained that closemindedness and ethnocentrism may affect effectiveness of overseas psychological adjustment. He indicated several effective coping mechanisms in adjustment including personality factors such as rational attitude, openmindedness, and universalistic tendencies. 

　Cegala, Savage, Brunner, and Conrad's (1982) study showed positive relationships between Personal Attributes and Communication Skills. The authors found that personality factors such as neuroticism and impulsiveness correlated negatively with communication attentiveness; neuroticism and social anxiety correlated negatively with communication responsiveness, but a positive relationship existed between sociability and communication responsiveness; and social anxiety and communication apprehension correlated negatively with communication perceptiveness, but perceptiveness correlated positively with private and public selfconsciousness and communication perceptiveness.

　Smith (1956) discovered relationships between Personal Attributes and Cultural Awareness. In his study of Indian and Japanese students sojourning in the United States, Smith reported that ignorance and disapproval of the Indian or Japanese cultures caused Indian students to be more offensive or hostile and caused Japanese students to be more withdrawing form Americans. 

　Other studies also showed relationships between Psychological Adaptation and Communication Skills, between Psychological Adaptation and Cultural Awareness, and between Communication Skills and Cultural Awareness. For example, Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) hypothesized that sojourners who can well understand and interpret another culture's cues may be able to deal effectively with psychological stress caused by the host culture. Studies by Sewell and Davidsen (1956) and Deutsch and Won (1963) showed that ability in the host language influences the degree of sojourner's satisfaction and psychological adjustment. Lastly, Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) also found that effective communication skills are necessary for sojourners to gather information about various aspects of the host culture. This show that Cultural Awareness must be based on effective communication Skills. 

　Research Questions

　I have argued that relationships will exist among measures representing the Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness dimensions. Two research questions guide the investigation describe in the model:

　R1: Which of the sixteen measures used to operationalize the four dimensions of intercultural communication competence best predict Ruben's (1976) seven dimensions on Intercultural Communication Competence?

　R2: Which model best describes intercultural communication competence?

Hypotheses

　In an effort to answer the primary research questions posed above, and based primarily on the theory of intercultural communication competence, the following hypotheses are offered:

　H1: There will be significant positive correlations between and among measures of Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness dimensions. 

　H2: A linear combination of the components of intercultural communication competence will be related significantly and positively to a linear combination of measures of the Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness dimensions. High scores on display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, empathy, relational role behavior, interaction management, and tolerance for ambiguity will be related to high scores on measures of Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness.

　In essence, the goal of the study proposed herein is to test the model of intercultural communication competence outline in Figure 1.

Summary

　The importance of intercultural communication study has increased since the 1930s. Scholars have consistently suggested that only through intercultural communication competence can people from different cultures effectively communicate with each other. The significance of this study will be in furthering theory development in intercultural communication. 

　In this chapter, communication competence is conceptually defined. The literature surrounding dimensions of communication competence and intercultural communication competence is reviewed. Dimensions of intercultural communication competence are categorized as Personal Attributes, Communication Skills, Psychological Adaptation, and Cultural Awareness.

　The Personal Attributes dimension consists of high selfdisclosure or openness, selfawareness, selfconcept (in which individuals see themselves as friendly, honest, sincere, and reliable), and social relaxation.

　The Communication Skills dimension consists of message skills (e.g., understanding verbal and nonverbal behaviors), interaction management (e.g., initiating and terminating interaction, and taking turns), social skills (e.g., empathy, detecting other's feelings, and showing respect and support), and behavioral flexibility (e.g., the ability to cope with different people, to play different roles, and to adapt to different environments). 

　The Psychological Adaptation dimension refers to the ability to acclimate to a new environment. This dimension consists of dealing with frustration, dealing with stress, dealing with social alienation, and dealing with situational ambiguity caused by the host culture.

　The Cultural Awareness dimension is important because understanding another person's cultural system is one path to increased communication effectiveness. This dimension consists of understanding social values, social customs, social norms, and social systems of the host culture. 

　Finally, relationships between these dimensions were discussed, and two research questions and two hypotheses were generated.