Japanese Communication in Intercultural Encounters: the Barrier of Status-Related Behavior

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361

Japanese communication in intercultural encounters: the barrier of status-related behavior

Rotem Kowner* Department of Multidisciplinary Studies, The University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel

Abstract

Many Japanese perceive communication with non-Japanese as an unpleasant experience and tend to avoid it. To account for this ‘‘foreigner-complex’’, scholars have advanced a number of explanations based on Japan’s isolation, linguistic barriers, and the interpersonal shyness of the Japanese people. Using two surveys, this article seeks to provide a supplementary approach to Japanese communication difﬁculties with foreigners and Westerners in particular: That is, the problem of status violation. The present study shows that in an encounter with foreigners of equal status, Japanese perceive the communication style of their counterparts not only as highly distinct from their own, but also as similar to the communication style of high-status Japanese in an encounter with lower-status compatriots. Based on these ﬁndings, it is argued that during intercultural encounters Japanese tend to feel that their social status is violated, to propagate this feeling through their culture, and ultimately to dislike and to be apprehensive about such encounters. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Many Japanese tend to perceive communication with non-Japanese as an embarrassing and unpleasant, if not frightening experience. Individual Japanese have expressed this sentiment on numerous occasions since the forced opening of Japan to the West in 1854. An early example of this attitude can be found in the autobiography of the prominent educator and entrepreneur, Fukuzawa Yukichi. Upon his arrival to the United States in 1860, Fukuzawa ‘‘yturned suddenly into a shy, self-conscious, blushing ‘bride’’’. Years later this memory was still vivid, and the contrast, he noted, ‘‘was indeed funny, even to myself’’ (Fukuzawa, 1981, p. 114). In modern times as well, the diplomat Kawasaki Ichiro acknowledged, Japanese communication difﬁculties have lingered. The Japanese, Kawasaki wrote, ‘‘are shy and self-effacing peopley Apart from the language difﬁculty, the Japanese usually

*Tel.: +972-4953-1879; fax: +972-4824-9155. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Kowner).

ﬁnd the work in such cosmopolitan groups a severe mental strain’’ (Kawasaki, 1969, p. 58).

1. Accounts of Japanese communication difﬁculties

The difﬁculties Japanese experience in communicating with foreigners have not escaped the eyes of scholars, Japanese and foreigners. Over the years they have advanced various explanations to account for this phenomenon.

1.1. Geopolitical isolation

Perhaps the most common explanation concerns the fact that Japan is an ‘‘island- country’’ (shimaguni). Living on an isolated archipelago 180 km distant from the closest continental shore has evidently affected Japanese history by preventing extensive contacts with the country’s neighbors. This geographical reality was enhanced by isolationist political regime, which closed Japan’s border almost hermetically. During the period of isolation (1640–1854), native patterns of interpersonal behavior underwent an elaborate institutionalization. Bennett and McKnight (1966) argued that the formalized rules and codes of communication developed then were actually tightened after the opening of Japan and disseminated to the rest of the population. Moreover, the majority of Japanese had neither been in contact nor even seen non-speakers of Japanese until the end of the 19th Century, in many cases it was much later. During the formative pre-modern period, many of them had not been in contact even with their more remote Japanese- speaking compatriots due to travel restrictions.

1.2. Linguistic barriers

The Japanese language, so remote linguistically from Indo-European languages, has been viewed as another source of Japanese miscommunication with foreigners. The fact that most foreigners cannot speak Japanese, the noted Japanese critic Eto Jun (1977) argued, means that Japanese have to speak a language of which they have poor command and may even be exposed to a situation where they would be regarded as different from the people around them. The performance of Japanese in various language tests seems to prove this notion. Toward the end of the 1990s Japan’s rank in TOEFL average scores declined to 180th out of 189 nations taking the test (Inoguchi, 1999).

1.3. National character

Several scholars have looked into the supposedly psychological idiosyncratic character of the Japanese in search of an answer. Eto (1977), for example, focused on the shyness (hazukashisa) Japanese feel when approached by foreigners speaking a foreign language as a major barrier in their communication. This shyness is the result R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 341 of the fear of failing in a mode of communication one believes one has to master but in reality does not. Viewing the level of English education in Japan, it is no wonder Japanese experience shyness, especially when communicating with foreigners in the presence of other Japanese. Eto also associated Japanese homogeneity with communication difﬁculties. He contended that because the Japanese are one of the most homogeneous peoples there is a tacit assumption in their lives that other individuals are an extension of one’s self, that one’s own perceptions do not differ markedly from those of others, whereas Westerners base their lives on the premise that others naturally feel differently about things. Because of this homogeneity there is limited need for explanations during conversations, and the Japanese ‘‘are able to guess at each other’s feelings from facial expressions, movements of the eyes and the slightest gestures, and their conjectures are not mistaken’’ (Eto, 1977, p. 75).

1.4. General incompetence in verbal communication

Scholars have long noted that Japanese people tend to experience difﬁculties also when communicating with their compatriots. Hence, the problem of communication with foreigners is only an extension of a general problem of communication. Several cross-cultural studies have supported this notion, showing that Japanese exhibit a high level of communication apprehension also within their own culture. Klopf (1984) administered the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA; McCroskey, 1970) to students from Japan, China, Korea, Micronesia, the Philippines, Australia, and the United States. Among the seven national samples, the Japanese students displayed the highest level of apprehension (see also Keaten, Kelly, & Pribyl, 1997).

2. Interpreting accounts of Japanese communication difﬁculties

Although the explanations mentioned above may account for part of the communication difficulties manifested by Japanese when interacting with foreigners, they do not touch, we argue, the core of the problem. First, populations of other island nations, some of them even more isolated than Japan, do not express such acute stress over contact with foreigners. Moreover, the ‘‘foreigner complex’’ is not omnipresent. Japanese do not exhibit mounting tension when communicating with people from Asian countries. As for the isolation policy, this has not existed for about 150 years, a period long enough to transform Japan into an ultra-modern state and to alter almost any social custom. Second, if competence in a foreign language is the issue, one may be puzzled by the tendency of many Japanese to resort to English even when the foreign speaker’s Japanese is better than the Japanese speaker’s English. Foreigners staying in Japan complain frequently about this, as Australian linguist Jiri Neustupny noted: ‘‘One asks a question in (reasonably fluent) Japanese but the reply comes back in (broken) English’’ (Neustupny, 1987, p. 87). The tendency to speak English with foreigners 342 R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 may account for McCroskey, Gudykunst, and Nishida’s (1985) findings of no significant difference in the level of communication apprehension Japanese report when speaking Japanese and when speaking English (see also Gudykunst, Nishida, Koike, & Shiino, 1986). In fact, one study even found the opposite reaction. When speaking English, Japanese sit closer to each other than when speaking their native language (Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982). Finally, communication apprehension probably impedes a relatively higher proportion of individuals in Japan when communicating with their compatriots than is the case in many other countries. Nevertheless, the level of apprehension seems much higher and more prevalent when Japanese communicate with foreigners than with their compatriots, so this explanation does not seem to provide a full account of the problem.

3. Status violation as a supplementary cause

While previous explanations of Japanese difficulties in contact with foreigners hold a certain kernel of truth, the main contention of this article is that the essence of the problem lies in non-verbal as well as verbal differences concerning status recognition. The Japanese code for communicating social status differs substantially from the codes common in foreign countries, of the West in particular, to the extent that Japanese perceive foreigners as violating their status during intercultural encounters. Generated by real or imagined behavior, this perception causes Japanese to dislike communication with foreigners and to perpetuate the feeling of inconvenience to fellow Japanese. The ultimate outcome is the development of cultural apprehension for communication with foreigners, especially among people who have never experienced an intercultural encounter. This apprehension affects future encounters with foreigners and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding the negative nature of intercultural communication. Concern for social status, of course, is not unique to Japanese. Status denotes one’s social dominance and reflects one’s relative position in any social hierarchy (Patterson, 1983). Status is displayed and recognized during human interaction, whether in large groups or in dyads, and the perception of its presence is one of the cornerstones of the social order in any society (Asch, 1946). People’s status leads not only to specific expectations related to their ability to perform tasks, but also to general expectations unrelated to tasks. People express their status especially within hierarchies, where the basic relation is the dyadic one between superior and subordinate. The value system of the two members of a dyad, their perceptions of their relative power and role as partners in a social interaction, and the range of behaviors they are used to displaying, determine their behavior during interactions. Culture has much to do with these factors. Communication takes place mainly within the borders of a homogeneous society, where status cues are more or less salient. Members of the same culture have the advantage of recognizing subtle linguistic and non-linguistic signs, which ease communication and facilitate functionality. Cultures may also differ significantly on what conversational patterns, R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 343 non-verbal behavior, and verbal choices are considered appropriate in a given interaction. Indeed, to compare societies it is necessary to grasp the concept and practice of hierarchy that exists in different cultures (Dumont, 1986). Status differences are considered as one the central factors in intercultural miscommunication (e.g., LaFrance & Mayo, 1978), but inquiry into this factor has usually focused on a single dimension or anecdotal examples rather than being based on thorough analysis. Many studies have demonstrated the existence of differences between ritual followed and non-verbal rules observed by Japanese and non- Japanese, usually Americans, when communicating within the culture. Such studies examined a wide array of topics, such as ways of self-presentation (Morsbach, 1973), sitting distance (Taylor, 1974), apology style (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Sugimoto, 1998), and embarrassment remediation (Sueda & Wiseman, 1992), as well as the extent of physical contact (Barnlund, 1975; for a review of comparative studies of Japanese vs. Americans communication see Gudykunst and Nishida, 1993). The most extensive study to date to explore cultural differences in status-related behavior was conducted by Kowner and Wiseman (in press). Using 105 behavioral (including verbal) scales, the study compared Japanese and American perceptions of verbal communication and non-verbal behavior in an interaction between lower- and higher-status people in asymmetric dyadic interaction. The choice of Japan and the USA stemmed from earlier indications that these two cultures represent two poles of several behavioral and communicative continua relevant to status-related behavior. In recent decades, the continuum of individualism–collectivism has become a central dimension of supposed cultural variability. Whereas individualistic cultures favor individual goal over group goals, collectivistic cultures prefer the latter (Hofstede, 1980). The continuum of tightness vs. looseness is another important dimension, which depicts the extent to which a culture allows deviation from behavioral norms. Tight cultures do not permit their members much deviations from what constitutes correct action, whereas loose cultures do not encourage such a consensus (Pelto, 1968). The high–low context continuum describes the amount of information available in communication. High-context communication is one in which most of the information exists in the context or is internalized in the people communicating, whereas in low-context communication most of the information lies in explicit codes (Hall, 1976, 1983). As predicted, Kowner and Wiseman (in press) found similar patterns of behavior and communication style of lower- and higher-status people in both Japan, a hierarchical, collectivist and tight culture that embraces high-context communication, and the USA, the quintessential individualist and loose culture that embraces low-context communication. Nevertheless, respondents in Japan perceived greater differences between the behavior of lower- and higher-status people in their own culture than American respondents perceived in the United States. But what happens when people of a culture such as Japan interact with people from a culture extremely different on the above dimensions such as the United States or probably other Western nations? We may expect members of the relatively more strict culture to perceive their status boundaries as being violated by members of the 344 R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 culture that stresses looser codes of status-related behavior. Once certain behavior is recognized as violating expectations, argued Judee Burgoon (1993), it heightens attention to the characteristics of the communicator and the meaning of the violating act. This state of alert is distressing and followed by feeling of discomfort if the violation is interpreted as a threat to one’s status. Overall, it is contended that social structure and cultural values make Japanese highly sensitive to behavior they perceive as a violation of their status. Communication with foreigners in general, and Westerners in particular, who are unaware of Japanese definition of status boundaries, is a likely situation where violations occur and, therefore, should be avoided.

4. Overview

The primary goal of this study was to examine Japanese perceptions of their own and foreigners’ status-related behavior during an intercultural interaction. Within this framework the following hypotheses were examined:

Hypothesis 1. Japanese tend to perceive their own communication style during an intercultural encounter as profoundly different from the communication style of non-Japanese. Hence, we expected to ﬁnd a signiﬁcant difference between the perceived status-related behavior of Japanese and foreigners, whether Westerners or Asians.

Hypothesis 2. Japanese tend to view their own communication style in an intercultural encounter as humble and meek but foreigners’ communication style as obtrusive and inconsiderate. Hence, we expected to ﬁnd a positive correlation between various measures of perceived status-related behavior of Japanese during an encounter with foreigners and similar measures of low-status people in an encounter with Japanese of higher status. We also expected to ﬁnd similar correlation between various measures of perceived status-related behavior of foreigners in such an encounter and similar measures of high-status Japanese in an encounter with Japanese of lower status.

Hypothesis 3. Japanese tend to be uneasy about communication with foreigners and to dislike it. Hence, we expected to ﬁnd that communicating with foreigners would be less pleasant than communicating with fellow Japanese.

Hypothesis 4. Due to their perceived distinctive communication style, Westerners’ communication pattern tend to be associated more than that of Asians with the communication pattern of high-status Japanese in an intracultural encounter. This is because of Westerners’ perceived greater tendency to violate Japanese codes of behavior as well as their positive image in Japanese society. Therefore, we expected to find greater correlation between high-status Japanese and Westerners than Asians. Similarly, we expected to find significant differences in the ratings of these two R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 345 foreign groups, which indicate the hypothetical high-status like communication pattern of Westerners. Finally, we expected that communicating with Westerners would be less pleasant than communicating with other Asians. This difference stems from expectations that Westerners may commit greater violations than Asians due to larger cultural differences and Westerners’ (baseless) feelings of superiority.

5. Study 1

The ﬁrst study sought to examine Japanese perceptions of communication patterns between Japanese and foreigner counterparts of equal status using the hypotheses listed in the overview. Study 1 is based on a survey of a large group of undergraduates, the majority of them with limited experience communicating with foreigners.

5.1. Method

Subjects and design: The subjects were 219 undergraduates (107 males and 112 females; mean age7SD=21.072.8 years) enrolled at the University of Tsukuba, Japan. All were Japanese nationals who participated at the request of their instructors. The design consisted of two dependent variables: A repeated within- subjects variable of their evaluation of Japanese and foreigners on 98 behavioral scales, and a between-subjects variable of their experience abroad. Testing material: The questionnaire was based on two measures used in an above- mentioned study that sought to examine the pattern of status-related behavior in the United States and Japan (Kowner & Wiseman, in press). This study compared perceptions of verbal and non-verbal behaviors of lower- and higher-status people in asymmetric dyadic interaction and consisted of measures that allow comparison between two groups on the same scale. The first measure in Kowner and Wiseman’s study, the Status and Behavior Questionnaire, examines differential behavior of people of higher and lower status (e.g., superior and subordinate at a workplace, teacher and student) in dyadic interaction (conversation, interview, etc.). This questionnaire contains 105 bipolar 9-point scales, which reflect various domains of verbal and non-verbal behavior and impression formation. Each scale was designed to be rated simultaneously for both lower- and higher-status partners/interlocutors in an interaction. These interlocutors were carefully defined to avoid diffuse status characteristics, such as sex, race, and physical attractiveness (on this concept, see Berger, Fisek, & Zelditch, 1977; Humphreys & Berger, 1981). In their study, Kowner and Wiseman (in press) found 91 of those scales to distinguish behavior of lower- vs. higher-status Japanese. The second measure was the Status and Affect Questionnaire, which consists of three 9-point scales. Kowner and Wiseman (in press) found the three scales to distinguish between respondents’ affective attitude toward communication with lower- and higher-status Japanese. 346 R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361

In the present study, we integrated pertinent items from the two measures into one questionnaire of 94 scales. Further, we used two versions of the questionnaire. In one version (‘‘Western version’’) respondents were asked to imagine an encounter between a Japanese and a Westerner, while in the other version (‘‘Asian version’’) they were asked to imagine an encounter between a Japanese and another Asian. We used general labels (‘Westerner’, ‘Asian’) rather than speciﬁc national labels (i.e., ‘American’, ‘Chinese’) for two reasons. The general labels are less volatile to ﬂeeting impacts of current international relations and so they have more valid and lasting implications. Second, Japanese share a very clear and generalized perception of these labels, and, thus, they are often used in surveys and national polls in Japan (Kowner, 1999). Procedure: The survey was conducted in a classroom and presented as ‘‘a survey on international communication’’. Respondents randomly received either the Asian version or the Western version, and were asked to imagine an interaction between a foreigner (a Westerner or an Asian) and a Japanese. The respondents were told explicitly that the two people in the encounter were of equal status, and of the same age, sex, and role. The respondents were asked to evaluate the communication style of each of the two people imagined on the 94 scales and to rate them simultaneously.

5.2. Results

Japanese and foreign communication style: To examine the first hypothesis regarding differences between the perceived status-related behavior of Japanese and foreigners, a two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted separately for differences between Japanese and Westerners (Western version) and Japanese and Asians (Asian version). The two independent variables were group (Japanese and either Westerner or Asian) and experience abroad (yes or no) and the dependent variable was the scores on the 91 status and behavior scales for each group. MANOVAs on both the Western version and the Asian version yielded a significant main effect for group (Pillai’s criterion=0.90; Fð91; 82Þ¼7:8; po0:0001; Pillai’s criterion=0.90; Fð91; 80Þ¼7:7; po0:0001; respectively). Thus, it indicated significant differences between the perceived status-related behavior of Japanese and either Westerners or Asians. Moving to univariate ANOVAs, with group as the independent variable and scores of status-related behavior as dependent variable, the difference in the scores for each of the 91 scales was examined separately in both the Japanese–Western comparison and the Japanese–Asian comparison. As for the Japanese–Western intercultural encounter, significant differences between the two groups in the predicted direction were found in 56 scales. Only in 9 scales Japanese were perceived in contrary to the prediction, namely, behaving in the pattern of high-status Japanese in an intracultural encounter. In the remaining 26 scales no significant differences between the two groups were found. Similarly, in the Japanese–other Asians’ intercultural encounter, significant differences between the two groups in the predicted direction were found in 48 scales. Only in 17 scales Japanese were perceived as behaving in the pattern of high-status Japanese (in an intracultural encounter) and on 26 scales no R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 347 significant differences between the two groups were found. The majority of the differences in contrary to the prediction found in the Japanese–Asian comparison are classified as self-related non-verbal activity (see Table 1). Perceived status of communication style in intercultural encounters: To examine the second hypothesis regarding a link between patterns of intercultural communication and patterns intracultural status communication in Japan we calculated the correlation between the scores of perceived status-related behavior of either Japanese or foreigners on the 91 scales and the scores of low- or high-status Japanese in an intracultural encounter obtained from Kowner and Wiseman’s (in press) study. We found that the scores of foreigners, either Westerners or Asians, in an intercultural encounter with Japanese were positively correlated with scores of high-status Japanese in an intracultural encounter. By contrast, the scores of Japanese when communicating with foreigners, either Westerners or Asians, were positively correlated with scores of low-status Japanese in an intracultural encounter. In addition, the scores of both Westerners and Asians were negatively correlated with the scores of the specific group of Japanese they communicated with. By contrast, we found a positive correlation between the scores of Westerners and Asians in an intercultural encounter with Japanese, and a similar correlation between the scores of Japanese during an intercultural encounter with Westerners and Japanese during an intercultural encounter with Asians (see Table 2). Japanese affect in intercultural encounters: To examine the third hypothesis regarding the affect expressed toward intercultural communication, we conducted univariate ANOVAs, with group as the independent variable and scores of affect as the dependent variable, on the three status and affect scales. The differences in the scores for each of the three status and affect scales were examined separately in both the Japanese–Westerners comparison and the Japanese–Asians comparison. In comparison there were significant differences in two scales: feeling nervous and feeling resistance during communication. Both scales indicated preference for communication with Japanese as opposed to foreigners, similar to the preference for communication with low-status Japanese in the study of Kowner and Wiseman (in press) (see Table 3). Differences between communication with Westerners and other Asians: To examine the hypothesis that Westerners’ communication pattern tend to be associated more than that of Asians with the communication pattern of high-status Japanese in an intracultural encounter, we conducted univariate ANOVAs, with group as the independent variable and scores of status-related behavior as dependent variable, on the difference between Westerners and Asians for each of the 91 scales, with group as the independent variable (note that each group was rated by different subjects). Significant differences between the two groups in the predicted direction were found on 42 scales. Only in 5 scales Asians were perceived as behaving in the pattern of high-status Japanese and in 44 scales no significant differences between the two groups were found (see Table 1). Moreover, when calculating the correlation between the scores of perceived status- related behavior of either Japanese or foreigners on the 91 scales and the scores of low- or high-status Japanese in an intracultural encounter, above correlations were 348 Table 1 Differences in perceived communication style during an intercultural encounter

Questionnaire Status questionnairea Western version (N ¼ 111) Asian version (N ¼ 107) Westerner vs. Asian 339–361 (2002) 26 Relations Intercultural of Journal International / Kowner R. Partner in encounter Japanese Japanese Westerner Japanese Asian

Low status High status Item (1–9 points) MMMSD M SD FMSD M SD FF

Verbal activity (form) 1 Speaks a lot (1)—speaks a little (9) 5.7 3.8 5.2 1.6 3.4 1.6 73z 5.6 1.8 4.1 1.6 35.7z 12.5w 2 Speaks eloquently (1) 5.5 4.3 6.0 1.5 4.0 1.5 95.2z 5.7 2.0 4.7 1.7 19.8z 9.9w 3 Speaks in loud voice (1) 5.5 3.6 5.4 1.5 3.4 1.5 102.9z 5.5 1.7 4.0 1.6 44z 8.9w 4 Speaks aggressively (1) 6.5 4.1 5.9 1.5 4.2 1.6 58.3z 5.7 1.8 4.7 1.7 19z 4.1* 5 Speaks politely (1) 2.4 5.7 4.0 1.6 4.7 1.3 12.6w 4.2 1.9 4.5 1.7 2.1 o1 6 Speaks casually (1)—respectfully (9) 7.1 4.7 5.9 1.4 5.4 1.4 5.9* 5.6 1.6 5.4 1.8 o1 o1 7 Speaks fast (1) 4.9 5.5 5.6 1.6 3.9 1.6 68.3z 4.8 1.6 4.4 2.0 1.5 5.6* 8 Tone of voice often changes (1) 4.8 5.6 5.8 1.6 3.3 1.8 116z 5.3 2.2 4.5 1.97 8.1w 21z 9 Often stays silent (1) 4.7 5.4 4.2 1.9 6.4 1.8 84.4z 4.0 2.0 5.7 1.8 43.3z 9.5w 10 Uses negative words (9) 3.6 6.2 4.4 2.2 5.6 1.9 20.7z 4.6 2.3 5.2 1.8 4.6* 2.9 11 Speaks while eating (1) 6.7 4.1 5.3 2.0 4.5 2.1 10.2w 4.8 2.2 4.5 1.9 o1 o1 12 Stutters occasionally (1)—never (9) 4.2 6.6 4.5 1.8 6.4 1.5 72z 4.8 2.0 5.6 1.7 10.6w 12.4w 13 Cuts conversation abruptly (1) 6.8 4.4 5.1 2.0 5.7 1.7 5.2* 5.1 1.9 5.2 1.8 o1 4.3*

Verbal activity (content) 14 Speaks rationally and coldly (1) 5.4 4.5 5.1 1.6 5.2 1.7 o1 4.3 1.6 5.8 1.5 50z 9.8w 15 Gives compliments (1) 2.4 7.0 3.0 1.7 5.9 1.8 157z 3.3 2.3 5.7 1.8 70.5z o1 16 Uses humor (1) 5.2 3.9 5.2 1.8 2.7 1.7 113z 5.5 1.9 4.1 1.9 26.3z 32.8z 17 Expresses own opinion (1) 4.9 3.2 5.7 1.8 2.3 1.6 227z 6.2 1.7 3.3 1.6 182z 19.2z 18 Determines topic of conversation (1) 6.0 3.0 5.7 1.9 4.5 2.0 20.3z 5.3 2.0 4.9 1.8 1.8 2.2 19 Seldom makes decisions (1) 2.8 7.6 3.3 1.9 6.7 1.7 187z 3.3 1.6 5.9 1.8 118z 11.5w 20 Often talks about oneself (1) 5.1 4.2 5.4 1.7 3.7 1.9 51.4z 5.4 2.2 3.9 1.7 32.8z 1 21 Speaks about partner (1) 4.5 5.1 4.4 1.7 4.5 1.7 o1 4.7 1.9 4.7 1.6 o1 o1 22 Talks about the weather (1) 4.4 5.0 4.3 2.2 4.0 2.1 1.3 3.8 2.2 4.8 2.0 12w 7.8w 23 Asks about private matters (9) 3.0 5.9 5.1 2.2 4.0 2.0 14.6z 4.6 2.4 5.0 2.0 1.8 14.1w 24 Tells jokes (1) 4.9 3.9 4.8 1.8 2.7 1.8 68.6z 4.8 1.8 3.8 1.7 17.6z 19.8z 25 Often argues (1) 5.6 4.3 5.7 2.0 2.6 1.6 161z 5.8 2.0 3.6 1.7 77.7z 16.7z 26 Criticizes partner (1) 6.6 3.6 5.9 1.7 3.9 1.7 74.9z 5.5 2.0 4.5 1.9 15.2z 5.3* 27 Shouts at partner (1) 7.6 3.3 6.2 1.7 5.2 2.0 13.4w 5.8 1.7 4.6 1.8 22.7z 5* 28 Insults partner (9) 2.6 5.6 4.2 1.8 4.5 1.8 1.2 5.0 2.2 4.3 1.8 6.2* o1 339–361 (2002) 26 Relations Intercultural of Journal International / Kowner R. 29 Reacts non-verbally to partner (aizuchi) (9) 7.3 5.3 6.6 1.9 5.7 2.5 17.4z 6.5 2.1 5.3 2.1 8.5w 1.9 30 Refuses requests (1) 7.5 3.7 6.0 1.7 4.0 1.6 82.6z 6.0 2.2 4.6 1.9 26.6z 6.3* 31 Often makes requests (1) 5.8 2.7 5.0 1.7 4.4 1.8 6.1* 4.7 1.9 5.0 1.6 1.7 5.1* 32 Often asks questions (1) 3.6 5.0 5.4 1.9 3.0 1.7 100z 6.0 2.1 3.5 1.8 85.4z 5* 33 Deletes sufﬁx from partner’s name (1) 8.3 2.5 5.7 2.3 2.8 2.1 97.6z 6.0 2.0 4.0 2.1 50.2z 18.7z 34 Apologizes often (1) 2.8 7.2 3.0 1.8 6.1 1.6 195z 3.0 1.9 5.9 1.8 133z o1 35 Make complaints often to partner (1) 6.9 3.5 5.7 1.8 4.6 1.9 19z 5.4 1.8 4.9 1.8 4* 1.1 36 Gives commands to partner (9) 2.5 7.1 4.2 1.5 5.4 1.7 32.3z 4.9 1.8 4.6 1.6 1.1 11.6w 37 Refers to partner’s topic (1) 3.0 5.2 3.9 1.8 4.0 1.9 o1 4.0 1.8 4.5 1.8 4* 4.7* 38 Agrees with partner (1) 2.5 5.6 3.2 1.5 4.9 1.5 61.6z 3.1 1.6 5.2 1.5 91.8z 2 39 Invites partner to a meal (1) 6.7 2.8 4.8 1.6 3.2 1.4 60.1z 4.4 1.9 4.4 1.8 o127z

Non-verbal activity (self-related) 40 Legs shake (1) 4.2 7.1 5.2 2.0 6.2 1.6 16.6z 5.2 2.0 5.9 1.8 7.2w o1 41 Crosses legs (1) 6.8 2.9 5.0 1.7 3.9 1.8 23.1z 4.0 2.0 5.1 1.9 18.1z 23.3z 42 Sits (while partner is standing) (1) 6.6 2.9 5.4 1.7 5.4 1.7 o1 5.1 2.0 5.4 1.8 1.6 o1 43 Hands seldom move (1) 5.5 5.1 4.1 2.0 7.3 2.1 129z 3.8 2.1 6.2 1.8 80.6z 18.4z 44 Folds often own hands (9) 3.1 6.9 4.9 1.9 5.4 1.8 3.1 5.6 1.9 4.4 1.7 23z 15.4z 45 Hands shake (9) 5.8 3.1 4.7 1.9 4.0 1.8 7.2w 4.6 1.8 4.3 1.8 1.6 1.3 46 Keeps hands in pockets (1) 7.0 4.0 5.6 1.9 4.2 2.0 28.1z 4.4 1.8 5.3 1.9 12.6w 17.6z 47 Makes gestures to explain (1) 4.0 5.6 5.4 2.1 2.5 1.9 116z 5.5 2.0 3.6 1.8 52.3z 19.6z 48 Moves one’s face (1) 4.7 5.5 5.6 1.7 3.4 1.8 90.1z 5.7 1.8 4.3 1.9 28.2z 14.8w 49 Closes one’s eyes (when listening) (9) 3.8 5.7 4.8 1.7 4.3 1.7 3.4 4.6 1.7 4.5 1.6 o1 o1 50 Blinks often (1) 4.2 6.1 4.6 1.3 5.4 1.2 26.5z 4.7 1.6 4.9 1.4 o1 9.5w 51 Covers one’s mouth while speaking (1) 4.4 6.4 3.7 2.0 6.4 2.0 96.8z 3.8 2.1 6.3 1.7 93.1z o1 52 Yawns (1) 7.2 4.7 5.3 1.8 5.8 1.7 3.2 4.9 2.0 5.8 1.5 12.6w o1 53 Blushes often (1) 3.9 6.7 4.2 2.0 5.8 1.7 40.6z 4.1 1.7 5.7 1.7 46.6z 1.6 54 Seldom becomes pale (1) 5.8 3.3 4.4 1.8 4.1 1.7 2.1 5.2 1.8 4.1 1.6 21.2z o1 55 Smiles often (1) 4.0 4.8 3.7 1.8 4.1 1.8 2.2 4.3 2.0 3.7 1.8 3.6 2.2 w 56 Shows positive emotions (1) 4.3 5.0 5.0 1.8 2.8 1.7 92.3z 5.4 1.9 3.5 1.9 53.4z 7.2 349 57 Sweats often (9) 6.5 3.5 5.0 1.7 4.6 1.5 2.5 5.1 1.7 5.3 1.8 1.1 9.8w 350

Table 1 (continued) 339–361 (2002) 26 Relations Intercultural of Journal International / Kowner R.

Questionnaire Status questionnairea Western version (N ¼ 111) Asian version (N ¼ 107) Westerner vs. Asian Partner in encounter Japanese Japanese Westerner Japanese Asian

Low status High status Item (1–9 points) MMMSD M SD FMSD M SD FF

58 Becomes dizzy (1) 5.7 5.4 5.6 1.9 6.0 1.6 2.6 5.0 1.7 5.6 1.6 7.4w 3.9* 59 Heart beats slowly (1) 5.9 3.7 5.2 1.2 4.9 1.1 3.4 5.4 1.4 5.0 1.6 5.1* o1

Non-verbal activity (other-related) 60 Smokes w/o asking for permission (1) 7.6 3.4 4.9 2.6 6.4 2.1 21.8z 4.6 2.4 5.5 2.1 8.4w 9.9w 61 Eats while partner is talking (1) 6.6 3.7 4.9 2.0 4.5 2.1 1.5 4.5 1.7 4.9 1.5 2.7 2.2 62 Drinks while listening (9) 3.1 6.7 5. 2.0 5.4 1.7 o1 5.9 2.0 4.9 1.6 18z 4.3* 63 Greets partner often (1) 2.3 5.1 3.5 1.8 3.4 1.9 o1 4.0 1.9 4.0 1.7 o1 6.1* 64 Answers partner’s greetings (1) 2.5 4.5 3.6 2.1 3.3 2.0 1.8 4.3 2.1 3.8 1.9 2.8 o1 65 Looks down at partner [ﬁguratively] (9) 2.7 6.8 4.8 1.7 4.7 1.6 o1 6.0 2.1 3.8 1.6 76.9z 16z 66 Often looks down while speaking (1) 4.1 6.5 3.8 1.9 6.5 1.5 136z 3.6 1.8 5.9 1.6 92.9z 8.2w 67 Looks at partner with coercive face (1) 7.0 3.5 5.8 1.4 4.6 1.5 33.7z 5.7 1.8 4.9 1.8 10.8w 1.1 68 Shows respect (1) 2.2 6.1 3.5 1.5 4.4 1.6 20.1z 4.4 2.2 4.1 2.0 o1 1.7 69 Restrains oneself (enryo) (1) 2.4 6.6 2.7 1.7 6.1 1.9 205z 3.0 1.8 5.7 1.8 123z 2.7 70 Sensitive to partner’s non-verbal signs (1) 3.1 5.3 4.1 1.7 4.5 2.0 3.1 4.5 2.3 4.8 2.1 o1 o1 71 Bows often (1) 2.0 6.7 2.5 2.0 6.6 2.2 191z 2.8 2.0 5.5 1.9 96.1z 15.5z 72 Stands near partner (1) 5.8 4.4 5.8 1.6 3.5 1.9 87.8z 6.2 1.8 3.8 1.7 105z o1 73 Touches partner often (1) 7.3 5.2 6.3 1.9 4.2 2.0 64.4z 7.0 1.8 4.6 2.4 68.5z 1.7 74 Hits partner’s back (9) 2.3 7.1 3.9 1.8 6.2 1.9 76.4z 4.2 1.8 5.3 1.7 21.5z 2.9 75 Waits for partner to talk (1) 3.5 5.9 3.2 1.8 6.5 1.8 176z 3.1 1.4 5.9 1.7 178z 5.1* 76 Disturbs partner to talk (1) 7.4 3.6 5.8 1.8 5.0 1.9 10w 5.3 1.8 4.6 1.9 7.4w 1.7 77 Listens to partner’s talk (9) 6.7 4.7 5.8 1.9 5.9 1.9 o1 5.6 1.8 5.5 2.0 o1 2.3 78 Embarrasses partner (1) 6.9 4.6 6.3 1.9 6.1 1.9 o1 5.5 1.9 5.7 1.7 o1 2.2 79 Challenges partner often (9) 3.3 5.4 4.0 1.6 5.5 1.5 54.4z 3.8 1.8 5.3 1.7 33z 1.4 Emotional and cognitive state 80 Gets angry easily (1) 6.5 4.2 5.6 1.5 4.5 1.7 28.3z 5.6 1.6 4.4 1.8 25.7z o1 81 Cries (1) 5.0 6.8 5.4 1.8 5.3 2.0 o1 5.4 2.1 5.0 2.0 2 o1 82 Gets irritated (1) 5.1 4.0 4.9 1.6 4.6 1.7 3.1 4.2 1.9 4.9 1.9 6.7* 1.7 .Kwe nentoa ora fItrutrlRltos2 20)339–361 (2002) 26 Relations Intercultural of Journal International / Kowner R. 83 Gets angry if criticized (1) 6.4 3.2 5.0 1.8 4.6 2.0 2 4.5 2.2 4.6 1.8 o1 o1 84 Afraid to make requests (1) 4.1 5.7 4.6 2.2 6.1 2.0 25.7z 3.9 2.0 5.5 1.9 32.8z 5.5* 85 Conscious of own appearance (1) 4.0 4.8 3.7 1.8 5.3 1.7 42.4z 3.1 1.7 5.7 1.8 122z 3.2 86 Unconscious of own behavior/words (1) 6.5 5.0 5.7 2.0 5.3 1.7 2.8 6.0 1.9 5.1 1.9 13.1w o1

Appearance 87 Short (1)—tall (9) 4.8 5.3 3.1 1.9 7.3 1.7 308z 3.8 1.7 4.6 1.7 9.3w 127z 88 Feminine (1) 4.5 6.1 4.3 1.3 6.0 1.3 87.2z 4.4 1.6 5.9 1.5 49.3z o1 89 Well groomed (1) 4.8 3.3 4.0 1.5 4.5 1.5 6.3* 3.6 1.7 5.5 1.5 68.6z 20.1z 90 Looks young (1) 3.1 6.6 4.2 1.9 5.0 2.0 7.7w 4.1 1.8 5.0 1.7 13.1w o1 91 Has a small body (1) 4.4 5.6 2.9 1.7 7.2 1.5 382z 3.9 1.8 4.7 1.7 8.8w 127z

a These ﬁgures are from Kowner and Wiseman (in press). *Pp0:05; wPp0:01; zPp0:0001: F scores in italics indicate differences in contrary to the hypotheses. 351 352 R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361

Table 2 Correlation coefﬁcients between scores of perceived behavior of high- and low-status Japanese (taken from Kowner and Wiseman (in press)) and scores of perceived behavior of Japanese and foreigners in an intercultural encounter (on 91 items)

*Pp0:05; wPp0:01; zPp0:001: slightly more extenuated (either positive or negative) when Japanese communicated with Westerners than with Asians (see Table 2). To examine the hypothesis that communicating with Westerners was more strenuous and unpleasant than communicating with Asians, we conducted univariate ANOVAs, with group as the independent variable and scores of status-related behavior as dependent variable, on the difference between Westerners and Asians for each of the three scales of status and affect. No signiﬁcant differences were found (see Table 3).

6. Study 2

The second study aimed to verify and extend the results of the ﬁrst study. Whereas the ﬁrst study was conducted with students with a mean age of 21, of whom the majority had never been abroad and had limited actual contacts with foreigners, the second study employed an older, non-student population, who had all been abroad and had experienced contact with foreigners. Due to the limited number of participants the hypotheses were examined only with the Western version of the questionnaire.

6.1. Method

Subjects and design: The subjects were 41 male professionals recruited in several English conversation classes in the city of Tsukuba, Japan, through the request of .Kwe nentoa ora fItrutrlRltos2 20)339–361 (2002) 26 Relations Intercultural of Journal International / Kowner R.

Table 3 Differences in affect toward communication with a partner during an intercultural encounter

Questionnaire Status questionnairea Western version Asian version Westerners vs. Asians Partner in encounter Japanese Japanese Westerner Japanese Asian

Low status High status Item (1–9 points) MMMSD M SD FM SD M SD FF

1 I’m very nervous when 6.2 3.5 6.2 2.2 3.4 1.9 105z 5.7 1.9 3.6 1.8 65.3z o1 communicating with (1) 2 I like to speak with (1) 4.1 4.8 4.0 1.9 4.3 1.7 1.5 4.1 2.0 4.6 1.9 3.4 1.4 3 I resist communicating 6.2 4.6 6.2 2.1 4.4 2.1 40.7z 6.2 2.0 4.6 2.2 28.6z o1 with (1)

a The data is from Kowner and Wiseman (in press). *Pp0:05; wPp0:01; zPp0:0001: 353 354 R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 their teachers (mean age7SD=35.279.9 years). All were university graduates and Japanese nationals. Testing material: The questionnaire used in this study was identical to the questionnaire used in Study 1, but only the Western version was employed. Procedure: The survey was conducted using the same procedure as in Study 1.

6.2. Results

Japanese and foreign communication style: To examine the first hypothesis, we sought to conduct a one-way MANOVA for differences between Japanese and Westerners, with group as the independent variable. This statistical procedure could not be completed due to a singularity encountered while sweeping SSCP matrices, probably due to too many missing cells. As for univariate ANOVAs, with group as the independent variable and scores of status-related behavior as the dependent variable, the differences in the scores for each of the 91 scales were examined in the Japanese–Westerners comparison. Out of the 91 scales, significant differences between Japanese and Westerners were found in 56 scales. Perceived status of communication style in intercultural encounters: To examine the second hypothesis regarding an association between intercultural communication and status communication in Japan, we calculated the correlation between the scores of perceived status-related behavior of either Japanese or Westerners on the 91 scales and earlier scores of perceived status-related behavior of either low- or high-status Japanese. The results indicated that scores of Westerners in an intercultural encounter were positively correlated with scores of high-status Japanese in an intracultural encounter, whereas the scores of the Japanese in an intercultural encounter were positively correlated with scores of low-status Japanese in an intracultural encounter. Finally, the scores of both Westerners and Japanese in Study 2 were highly correlated with the scores of Westerners and Japanese, respectively, obtained in Study 1 (see Table 4). Japanese affect in intercultural encounters: To examine the third hypothesis regarding the affect expressed toward intercultural communication, we conducted univariate ANOVAs with group as the independent variable and scores of affect as the dependent variable on the three Status and Affect scales. Significant differences were found for feeling nervous during communication (Westerners: 3.9, Japanese: 6.6, Fð1; 77Þ¼37:6; po0:0001); and feeling resistance during communication (Westerners: 4.9, Japanese: 6.5, Fð1; 75Þ¼9:9; po0:003). These results are very similar to those found in Study 1.

7. General discussion and conclusions

The two studies above conﬁrmed most of the hypotheses postulated. The ﬁndings indicated that Japanese perceived their communication style during an intercultural encounter as greatly different from the communication style of their foreign counterparts. Furthermore, in such an encounter, Japanese perceived their own R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 355

Table 4 Correlation coefﬁcients between scores of perceived behavior of high- and low-status Japanese (taken from Kowner and Wiseman (in press)) and scores of perceived behavior of Japanese and Westerners in an intercultural encounter (on 91 items)

*Pp0:05; wPp0:01; zPp0:0001:

communication style as similar to that of low-status Japanese in a within-culture encounter, whereas the communication style of foreigners was perceived as similar to that of high-status Japanese in a within-culture encounter. The ﬁndings also revealed that communication with foreigners was perceived as relatively unpleasant compared with communication with fellow Japanese.

7.1. Status violation or merely actual status

There are several possible explanations to account for the Japanese attitude toward communication with foreigners, Westerners in particular, revealed in this study. The main alternative explanation is the implicit existence of actual differences in status between the two groups. One may argue that even though the respondents 356 R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 were told that the parties to the intercultural encounter were of equal status, they attributed the foreigners with higher status. Indeed, factors that were involved in our study, such as race, ethnicity, and nationality, may serve in fact as diffuse status characteristics, and therefore may have affected the perceptions of our respondents. Undeniably, since the onset of the modernization process in Japan in the latter half of the 19th century, Western people (called seiyojin# or obeijin# [people of Europe and the USA] and colloquially gaijin [outsiders]) have replaced the Chinese as the bearers of civilization. In contemporary Japan, Westerners have retained their role as the favorite outsiders. Asians, in contrast, were perceived with growing contempt that turned into extreme hostility and produced occasional atrocities during the Pacific War and the preceding decades, and more than remnants of these negative attitudes have lingered until today (Kowner, 1999). Although this explanation cannot be entirely dismissed, especially as regards Japan some decades ago, recent studies suggest that Japanese do not see themselves as inferior to Westerners, but rather as equal, and in certain dimensions even superior (Tokei# Suri# Kenkyujo,# 1992; Tsuruta, 1998). Nevertheless, if the picture regarding the diffuse status characteristics of Westerners is ambivalent, there is no doubt that Japanese do feel superior to any other Asian people in almost any dimension (Kowner, 1996, 1999). If the explanation of actual higher status had any merit, Asians’ pattern of communication should have resembled that of low-status Japanese, but it was not. Further, the findings of high correlation between the communication style attributed to Westerners and Asians, whom Japanese definitely ascribed with dissimilar status, underscore our suggestion that status violation, and not merely the issue of ethnic status, is the cause for the Japanese communication apprehension.

7.2. Differences in attitude toward communication with Westerners and Asians

We predicted that Western communication style would be viewed as more distinct than (non-Japanese) Asian communication styles and cause more distress. Despite many statistical differences found in the magnitude of behavior between Asians and Westerners, the respondents evidently did not make much distinction between foreigners, but lumped them all together on many behavioral aspects (the correlation between the two foreign groups on the 91 behavioral scales was 0.82). More importantly, we did not ﬁnd substantial support for our prediction that communication with Westerners would be less pleasant than communication with other Asians. Although Western communication styles were perceived as slightly more distinct, their attractiveness in Japanese eyes might balance the fears they elicit. In addition, the positive image attributed to Westerners may cause this ethnic label to be perceived as a diffuse status characteristic. Consequently, if a Western counterpart who by deﬁnition is of equal status is regarded in fact to be of higher status, his or her behavior could be perceived as less violating one’s status barriers than similar behavior but by a counterpart whose actual status is lower. For these reasons, perhaps, our respondents did not express greater negative affect toward communication with Westerners, as compared with Asians, R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 357 even though the former violated the respondents’ communication code more than the latter.

7.3. The development of status-violation sense

The sense of status violation in the Japanese intercultural communication is based on both real and imaginary behavior. Japanese tend to enter an encounter with a non-Japanese, as with a fellow Japanese whose status is not established, assuming a cautious, respectful, modest, and perhaps introverted manner. Non-Japanese, however, enter, or at least are perceived by Japanese as entering, such an encounter in a much less cautious manner. This non-cautious extrovert manner is perceived as similar to the communication style of high-status people, and, thus, it violates initial within-culture expectations. The violation of expectation causes alarm and distress. Over the years, information regarding foreign communication styles and the psychological stress they involve have been disseminated through various means within the Japanese culture, such as through movies, television, the press, popular guidebooks, and academic material (for examples of written material on foreign behavior and communication style see Brosnahan, 1990; Inamura, 1980; Natsuoka, 1980; Nishida and Gudykunst, 1982). So strong are the Japanese stereotypes of foreigners’ distinct communication styles that for many Japanese, foreign behavior may in fact no longer be perceived as a violation. This is because they know about it and expect it. Yet this does not mean that they expect it to be pleasant. For many Japanese the need to behave in modest, ‘‘lower-status’’-like manner without the reciprocation of the other side is distressing enough. For others the mere sense of expected discomfort makes them nervous before the encounter and affects their communication style during the encounter. The present study dealt with perceptions of behavior rather than behavior itself. The minute examination of how different the actual communication style of Japanese and foreigners on each of the dimensions we probed is not only very difficult from a methodological and logistical point of view, but it is also less meaningful in the case of status-related behavior. In other words, it is not that actual communication style is unimportant, but the feeling of status violation is caused by (subjective) perceptions of communication styles rather than by an objective examination of them. Although perceptions of communication styles are undoubtedly related to actual communication styles, they are also affected by earlier impressions, attitudes and stereotypes, which are in turn dependent on culture (cf. Fazio, 1986; Forgas, 1988). Since most of our respondents had not experienced any intercultural encounter, the role of their perceptions is magnified even further. As a basis for perceptions, the Nihonjinron ideology, we contend, has much to do with Japanese difficulties in international communication. Nihonjinron (literally ‘‘theories of the Japanese’’ [people]) is the current vast discourse that seeks to account for the particular characteristics of Japanese society, culture, and national character (cf., Befu, 1993; Dale, 1986). The main premise of this discourse is that the Japanese are a homogeneous people, who share invariably and in a unique manner a 358 R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 single language, tradition, and lifestyle, and belong to a single race (Befu, 2001; Kowner, 2002). The mere emphasis of the Japanese difference from other peoples as a way of defining Japanese identity, argues Yoshino (1992), promotes a strong feeling of ‘‘unique us’’. Many Japanese do not expect foreigners to comprehend their ‘‘unique’’ mode of thinking and behavior, and further, the inherent comparison with foreigners makes many Japanese see their partners in a schematic and stereotypic way. The prophecy regarding foreigners’ behavior often fulfills itself, as non-Japanese are often unwilling to adapt themselves to what they see as overemphasis on unique characteristics (on the self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction see Word, Zanna, and Cooper, 1974). Interestingly, we did not find any noteworthy difference between the perceptions of those who had been abroad (Study 2) and those who had not (Study 1). This finding should not be a surprise. Kowner, Befu, and Manabe (1999) found in fact that Japanese people who had had an experience abroad expressed also greater interest in Nihonjinron tenets, the same tenets that may strengthen the idea of Japanese uniqueness. Evidently, the typical ‘‘foreign experience’’ of our respondents, such as a short visit abroad or a superficial encounter with foreigners, did not change deep-rooted cultural perceptions regarding the communication styles of foreigners.

7.4. Implications for Intercultural Communication

Social scientists that deal with intercultural communication, ethnocentrism, and prejudice have long stressed the cognitive factors that underlie behavior and attitudes in these domains. More than four decades ago, however, Hall (1959) discussed the grave mismatching of expectations that may result from interpersonal contacts with foreigners who culturally differ in their proxemics. The search for non- verbal cues has focused since on emotions and their expressions. Researchers indeed found many similarities (‘universals’) across cultures, but also identiﬁed slight differences in response to comparable cues (cf. Russell, 1994). Several other studies have suggested that individuals from different cultures may differ also in a wider range of non-verbal displays as well as in their interpretation of other’ displays (e.g., Birdwhistell, 1970; Masters & Sullivan, 1989). Cultural differences in non-verbal but also verbal behavior may have a serious effect on mutual perceptions and intercultural communication. While conspicuous cultural differences undoubtedly impede intercultural contacts, Warnecke, Masters, and Kempter (1991) demonstrated that even slight cultural differences in head and body movement elicit negative responses. In their study, Warnecke et al. presented American adults with soundless televised images of unknown leaders from Germany, France, and the United States. The respondents felt more negatively when seeing the foreign leaders, and similarly judged them more negatively than their compatriot leaders. These effects disappeared, however, when the images were presented with sound so the viewers were aware of the leaders’ nationality. The perceived and probably also the real behavioral differences between Japanese and non-Japanese are by far greater than the minute cultural differences studied by R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 359

Warnecke and his colleagues. Japanese intercultural communication difficulties seem to lie in the deep-rooted non-verbal and verbal behavior of both parties, to the extent that one wonders if there is any remedy to the problem. A partial answer seems to involve greater awareness by both parties of the behavioral and verbal aspects of status. On the non-Japanese side, learning the essence of Japanese status-related behavior may produce clear benefits. Foreigners should learn to attenuate acts perceived to violate the status of their Japanese counterparts. In doing so, in fact, they may violate positively, according to Burgoon’s (1993) theory, Japanese initial expectancies. Such consciously ‘‘proper’’ behavior may cause Japanese to be positively disposed toward them for their unexpected ‘‘humble’’ behavior. On the Japanese side as well, greater awareness of foreign behavior combined with real-life experience with foreigners may reduce the sense of status violation. Many Japanese believe that merely learning a foreign language can alleviate the problematic aspects of intercultural communication. At first glance, language proficiency seems to be the greatest hurdle to such communication, but non-verbal variables and to a lesser extent semantic factors are ultimately the cause of the communication gap. One can master a foreign language by self-study, yet communication skills necessitate long contact and experience with people of the other linguistic community, and such experiences have to be actively engaged in. In recent years, millions of Japanese seem to have reached this conclusion and have joined English conversation classes, where foreign teachers help them to overcome fears of communication with non-Japanese. Since 1987 the Japanese Ministry of Education (Monbusho) has also run the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program, which each year admits thousands of young foreigners (mainly from the USA, Britain, and Australia) to assist middle and high school teachers of foreign languages (mainly English) programs. While these and other facilities have alleviated some of the stress over intercultural communication, the present study suggests that more effort is still needed to transform Japan into a truly international community. While the Japanese case of status-related behavior may seem somewhat exceptional, other national and ethnic groups display a great variety of cultural differences in this domain. The existence of such differences implies that problems of miscommunication due to status issues may prevail to various extents in other groups as well. Bringing the issue of status-related behavior to awareness and devising mechanisms and programs to alleviate the perception of differences may improve intercultural communication and bring about better human understanding.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a grant from the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. The author thanks Sasaki Yuji, Kato Katsunori, Teresawa Takafumi, Aoyama Masahiko and Elyasaf Kowner for their assistance in conducting the empirical part of this study. 360 R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361

References

Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 303–314. Barnlund, D. C. (1975). Communicative styles in two cultures: Japan and the United States. In A. Kendon, R. M. Harris, & M. R. Key (Eds.), Organization of behavior in face to face communication. The Hauge: Mouton. Barnlund, D. C., & Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193–205. Befu, H. (1993). Nationalism and Nihonjinron. In H. Befu (Ed.), Cultural nationalism in East Asia: Representation and identity (pp. 107–135). Berkeley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studies. Befu, H. (2001). Hegemony of homogeneity: An anthropological analysis of Nihonjinron. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press. Bennett, J. W., & McKnight, R. K. (1966). Social norms, national imagery, and interpersonal relations. In A. G. Smith (Ed.), Communication and culture (pp. 595–608). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation state approach. New York: Elsevier. Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context: Essays on body motion communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Brosnahan, L. (1990). Japanese and English gesture: Constructive nonverbal communication. Tokyo: Taishukan. Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30–48. Dale, P. N. (1986). The myth of Japanese uniqueness. London: Croom Helm. Dumont, L. (1986). Essays on individualism: Modern ideology in anthropological perspective. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Eto, J. (1977). Japanese shyness with foreigners. In P. Norbury (Ed.), Introducing Japan (pp. 74–77). New York: St. Martin Press. Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior. In R. M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundation of social behavior (pp. 204–243). New York: Guilford Press. Forgas, J. (1988). Episode representations in intercultural communication. In Y. Y. Kim, & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 186–212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fukuzawa, Y. (1981). The Autobiography of Fukuzawa Yukichi. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press (Transl. by Eiichi Kiyooka, first published in 1899, first English translation in 1934 ed.). 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 (pp. 149–214). Albany: State University of New York Press. Gudykunst, W. B., Nishida, T., Koike, H., & Shiino, N. (1986). The influence of language on uncertainty reduction: An exploratory study of Japanese–Japanese and Japanese–North American interactions. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook, Vol. 9 (pp. 555–575). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life. New York: Doubleday. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Humphreys, P., & Berger, J. (1981). Theoretical consequences of the status characteristics formulation. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 953–986. Inamura, H. (1980). Nihonjin no Kaigai Futekio# [The Japanese disadjustment to overseas]. Tokyo: Nihon Hos# o# Shuppan Kyokai# (in Japanese). Inoguchi, T. (1999). Japan’s failing grade in English. Japan Echo, 26, 8–11. Kawasaki, I. (1969). The Japanese unmasked. Tokyo: Tuttle. R. Kowner / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 339–361 361

Keaten, J., Kelly, L., & Pribyl, C. B. (1997). Communication apprehension in Japan: Grade school through secondary school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21, 319–343. Klopf, D. (1984). Cross-cultural apprehension research. In J. Daly, & J. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communciation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kowner, R. (1996). Effect of group status on physical attractiveness preference—from the Japanese case to a general cognitive perspective. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 122, 215–248. Kowner, R. (1999). Homogeneous nation with exceptions: Prejudice and its ideology in Japanese society. In O. Feldman (Ed.), Political psychology in Japan (pp. 233–255). New York: Nova Science. Kowner, R. (2002). Deconstructing the Japanese national discourse: laymen’s beliefs and ideology. In R. Donahue (Ed.), Exploring Japaneseness—Japanese enactments of culture and consciousness (pp. 169–182). Westport (CT): Greenwood. Kowner, R., Befu, H., & Manabe, K. (1999). The human profile of Japanese nationalism: A study of Nihonjinron followers. Jurnal Komunikasi, 15, 73–95. Kowner, R., & Wiseman, R. L. (in press). Culture and status-related behavior: Japanese and American perceptions of asymmetric dyad-interactions, Cross-Cultural Research. LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects of nonverbal communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 71–89. Masters, R. D., & Sullivan, D. G. (1989). Nonverbal displays and political leadership in France and the United States. Political Behavior, 11, 121–152. McCroskey, J. M. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269–277. McCroskey, J. M., Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1985). Communication apprehension among Japanese college students in native and second language. Communication Research Report, 2, 85–94. Morsbach, H. (1973). Aspects of nonverbal communication in Japan. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 157, 262–277. Natsuoka, R. (1980). Obeijin# ga Chinmoku Suru Toki [when Westerners remain silent]. Tokyo: Taishukan# (in Japanese). Neustupny, J. V. (1987). Communicating with the Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Nishida, H., & Gudykunst, W. (1982). American communication patterns. Tokyo: Kinseido. Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective. New York: Springer. Pelto, P. J. (1968). The difference between ‘‘tight’’ and ‘‘loose’’ societies. Transaction, April, 37–40. Russell, J. A. (1994). Is there universal recognition of emotion from facial expression? A review of the cross-cultural studies. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 102–141. Sueda, K., & Wiseman, R. L. (1992). Embarrassment remediation in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 159–173. Sugimoto, N. (1998). Norms of apology depicted in US American and Japanese literature on manners and etiquette. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 251–276. Sussman, N. M., & Rosenfeld, H. M. (1982). Influence of culture, language, and sex on conversational distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 66–74. Taylor, H. M. (1974). American and Japanese nonverbal communication. In J. V. Neustupny (Ed.), Papers in Japanese linguistics, Vol. 3. Melbourne: Monash University. Tokei# Suri# Kenkyujo# [Research Committee of Japanese National Character, The Institute of Statistical Mathematics]. (1992). Daigo Nihonjin Kokuminsei [The fifth study of the Japanese national character]. Tokyo: Idemitsu Shoten (in Japanese). Tsuruta, K. (1998). Japanese perceptions of Westerners in modern fiction. In K. Nagatani, & D. W. Edgington (Eds.), Japan and the West: The Perception Gap (pp. 49–79). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Warnecke, A. M., Masters, R. D., & Kempter, G. (1992). The roots of nationalism: Nonverbal behavior and xenophobia. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 267–282. Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109–120. Yoshino, K. (1992). Cultural nationalism in contemporary Japan. London: Routledge.