Ting ToomeyDorjee2015

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/303520390
Ting-Toomey & Dorjee (2015), Intercultural and intergroup communication

competence: Toward an integrative perspective
Chapter · January 2015
CITATIONS READS
0 1,810
2 authors:
Stella Ting-Toomey Tenzin Dorjee

California State University, Fullerton California State University, Fullerton
108 PUBLICATIONS 5,155 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 83 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Face saving and izzat in India View project
Intercultural Communication Perspectives View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Tenzin Dorjee on 25 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Stella Ting-Toomey and Tenzin Dorjee
20 Intercultural and intergroup
communication competence: Toward an
integrative perspective
Abstract: Communication competence or effectiveness has been investigated in
multiple intercultural communication contexts. Interestingly, while intercultural
competence scholars have borrowed ideas heavily from the interpersonal compe-
tence field, they appeared to have glossed over some essential constructs such
as social identity membership phenomenon, intergroup attitudes, group vitality,
communication accommodation, and the dynamics of intergroup dialogue in the
fertile intergroup communication research arena. Additionally, to the best of our
knowledge, intergroup communication scholars have also paid negligible attention
to theorizing about the particular phenomenon of “intergroup communication
competence”. In both research domains, a shared vocabulary can be developed to
account systematically for the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of identity-
sensitive competence issues. An integrative theorizing effort on intercultural–inter-
group communication competence will enhance our identity-sensitive awareness,
knowledge, open-hearted attitudes, and skillsets in communicating with diverse
socio-cultural membership groups responsively. Understanding the distinctive and
overlapped features of intercultural and intergroup competence can pave the way
to a fuller picture of helping immigrants and co-culture members/host nationals to
communicate appropriately, effectively, and adaptively. In addition, the threefold
prism (i.e., being in-the-moment present, meta-cognition awareness, affective at-
tunement) of mindfulness is also posited as a key link in threading and practicing
the competence criteria, components, and outcomes.
Keywords: affective attunement, competence desired outcomes, conflict compe-

tence, cultural frame-shifting, ethnocentrism, ethnorelativism, face negotiation,
flexible mindset and skillset, identity negotiation, identity-support communicative
strategies, intergroup dialogue, social group memberships
1 Introduction/rationale
While separate strands of research have been conducted on intercultural communi-
cation competence and intergroup communication in general, to the best of our
knowledge Gudykunst’s (1993, 2005) Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM)
theory – an intercultural communication theory – may come closest to integrating
some of the critical constructs in the intergroup research domain. For example,
504 Stella Ting-Toomey and Tenzin Dorjee
AUM theory has included the social categorization of strangers as one of the ante-
cedents causing anxiety and uncertainty that could be reduced mindfully leading
to effective communication as an outcome. Closely following, Orbe, Everett, and
Putnam (2013) and Camara and Orbe (2010) have also applied multiple intergroup
identities and ingroup/outgroup concepts to the extension of co-culture theory in
explaining interracial and interethnic conflict tensions. More recently, Oliha (2012)
made a strong appeal to include marginalized and silenced voices from diverse
international and intergroup identity arenas. Overall, the label “competence” has
not been a widely-used term (as versus, for example, intergroup communication
effectiveness) in the intergroup communication research literature.
Traditionally, whereas the intercultural communication competence domain
tends to draw theories and research concepts from the international management,
interpersonal communication, and intercultural communication fields, the inter-
group communication domain tends to base its theorizing effort from the social
group processes, social psychology, and intergroup relations areas. While there are
some clear distinctive foci in each domain, there are also some fascinating overlaps
in which each domain can inform the other domain with regard to how to develop
intercultural and intergroup communication competence optimally.
With the accelerating identity diversity of immigrants and co-culture members
in both heterogeneous and even homogenous societies, identity transformation
and complexity is here to stay. An integrative theorizing effort on intercultural–
intergroup communication competence will enhance our awareness, knowledge,
open-minded attitudes, and skills in dealing with diverse socio-culturally member-
ship groups adroitly. Understanding the distinctive and overlapped features of in-
tercultural and intergroup communication competence can pave the way to a fuller
picture of helping immigrants and co-culture members/host nationals to communi-
cate appropriately, effectively, and adaptively. Co-culture members or communi-
ties, as defined by Orbe, Everett, and Putnam (2013: 673), refer to the lived experi-
ences of a variety of “nondominant” groups, including “people of color, women,
persons with disabilities, gays/lesbians/bisexuals, and those form a lower socio-
economic background”.
As early as the 1970s, Tajfel (1978) argued that at least 70 percent of what are
termed interpersonal interactions are actually highly intergroup in nature. More
recently, Giles (2012) states that perhaps even the 70 percent number could be an
underestimate. This certainly highlights the importance and pervasiveness of inter-
cultural and intergroup interactions in everyday life. Sociocultural group member-
ships and other identity diversity issues are central to understanding both intercul-
tural and intergroup communication (Giles 2012; Ting-Toomey 1999, 2005a). The
combined factors of the larger social ecological environment, the communication
context, the sociocultural membership characteristics, the distinctive personal
identity features, the in situ encounter, and the actual strategic identity negotiation
process all play a critical role in shaping the assessment of intercultural–inter-
group communication competence processes and outcomes.
Intercultural and intergroup communication competence 505
This chapter is organized in eight sections. In the preceding section, we advo-

cated for an integrative perspective in fusing intercultural communication compe-
tence theorizing work with essential intergroup communication constructs. In the
next section, we define intercultural and intergroup communication competence
criteria in assessing intercultural–intergroup identity-based interaction. In the
third, fourth, and fifth sections, competence components of culture-sensitive and
identity-sensitive knowledge, flexible mindset, and operational competence skill-
sets are identified and discussed. In the sixth section, the role of mindfulness in
linking competence criteria and competence components is systematically ad-
dressed. In the seventh section, desired internal and external competence out-
comes are proposed. Lastly, directions for future theorizing and research efforts in
the intercultural-intergroup communication competence domain are proffered.
2 Intercultural and intergroup communication

competence criteria
Before discussing some core issues in intercultural and intergroup communication
competence, we offer an integrative working model here as a guiding framework to
connect the various key sectors in understanding the “big picture” of intercultural–
intergroup communication competence (see Figure 1).
Fig. 1: Intercultural and intergroup communication competence: A working model.

The integrative working model consists of connective pathways between the

core concepts of: intercultural–intergroup communication competence criteria,
mindfulness, competence components, and desired outcomes, and macro-to-micro
social ecological contexts. While the social ecological contexts will not be directly
addressed in this chapter (interested readers can consult Bronfenbrenner 1979,
2005; Dorjee, Baig, and Ting-Toomey 2013; Oetzel and Ting-Toomey 2011; Ting-
Toomey and Oetzel 2013), the impact of macro-exo and meso-micro contexts in
developing competence components are acknowledged in the working model. This
section begins with a discussion of the competence criteria sector.
2.1 Intercultural communication competence criteria

Multiple identity-related intercultural communication theories (e.g., Anxiety/Un-
certainty Management Theory: Gudykunst 2005; or Integrative Communication
Theory: Kim 2005) attempt to explain and unpack the phenomenon of intercultural
communication competence. However, Identity Negotiation Theory (INT: Ting-
Toomey 1986, 1999, 2005a) is most compatible with the intergroup communication
perspective because some of its select constructs were drawn from a Social Identity
Theory (SIT) lens (Tajfel 1978, 1981; Tajfel and Turner 1979).
According to SIT (Tajfel and Turner 1979), social (or socio-cultural) identities
can include ethnic membership identity, social class identity, and family role is-
sues, and personal identities can include any unique attributes that we associate
with our individuated self in comparison to the selves of others. Thus, each individ-
ual’s composite identity has group membership, relational roles, and individual
self-reflexive implications. Understanding both social and personal identities in
intercultural–intergroup communication encounters is critical because a person’s
conjoint socio-cultural and personal identities constantly shape her or his social
cognition, affective being, and behavioral tendencies. Relatedly, using a multiple-
layered, differentiated lens in assessing and relating to social and personal com-
plexity identity issues (Brewer 1991, 1997, 2010) contributes to a more nuanced and
dynamic view of communication competence.
Individuals mostly acquired their composite identity through a socio-cultural
conditioning process, individual lived experiences, and repeated intergroup and
interpersonal interaction experiences. This involves identity negotiation. The term
negotiation in INT (Ting-Toomey 2005a) refers to the exchange of verbal and non-
verbal messages between two or more communicators in maintaining, threatening,
or uplifting the various socio-cultural group-based and/or unique personal-based
identity images of the other in situ. In collectivistic group-oriented cultural commu-
nities such as Guatemala, Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam, and West Africa, indi-
viduals may be more concerned with communal sociocultural-oriented identity is-
sues. In individualistic cultural communities such as Belgium, Denmark, France,
New Zealand, and Switzerland, however, individuals may be more concerned with
individual-based personal identity issues (Triandis 1995).
In a multicultural-immigrant society, distinctive ethnic and cultural identity
salience issues (e.g., ethnic-oriented, assimilated, bicultural, or marginal identity
issues) and intergroup relationship concerns play a prominent role in the INT
framework. For example, in relating cultural/ethnic identity issues with interper-
sonal conflict communication styles in four U.S. ethnic/racial groups, Ting-Toomey
et al. (2000) uncovered that while strong ethnic identity-oriented individuals tend
to use conflict interaction styles reflecting their heritage values, bicultural identity-
oriented individuals tend to use a wider range of conflict repertoires flexibly more
so than other ethnic identity types. By understanding the role of identity negotia-
tion more in depth in the context of intercultural–intergroup competence, individu-
als can learn to monitor interaction processes and outcomes more mindfully and,
hopefully, with identity attunement.
Drawing from the INT framework, intercultural communication competence is
conceptualized as the optimal integration of the necessary culture and ethnic-iden-
tity sensitive knowledge, ethnorelative attitudes, and interaction skills to manage
identity-based issues appropriately, effectively, and adaptively and to achieve de-
sired identity outcomes with interpretive attunement. The INT has been mostly
tested by researchers (e.g., see Collie et al. 2010) in studying immigrants’ or minori-
ty group members’ acculturation processes, international sojourners’ intercultural
adjustment processes (e.g., see Hotta and Ting-Toomey 2013), and mindful identity
transformation process in unfamiliar cultural boundaries (Fisher-Yoshida 2005;
Ting-Toomey 2009a). From the INT lens, the criteria for evaluating intercultural
communication competence have been borrowed from the field of interpersonal
competence especially concerning the criteria of appropriateness and effectiveness
(Spitzberg and Cupach 1984, 1989, 2002, 2011). These two criteria, with the added
feature of adaptability (Ting-Toomey 1999), can serve as evaluative yardsticks of
whether an intercultural or intergroup communicator has been perceived as behav-
ing competently or not in an interaction episode.
Communication appropriateness refers to the degree to which the exchanged
behaviors are regarded as proper and match the expectations generated by the
insiders of the culture. To behave “properly” in any given cultural situation, com-
petent negotiators need to have the relevant value knowledge schema of the larger
situational norms that guide the interaction episode (Spitzberg and Cupach 2002).
They also need to acquire the specific knowledge schema of what constitutes ap-
propriate or inappropriate language/verbal and nonverbal style patterns that can
promote quality intercultural trust-building relationships. Communication effective-
ness refers to the degree to which communicators achieve mutually shared mean-
ing and integrative goal-related outcomes in the interaction episode (Spitzberg and
Cupach 2011). To engage in effective communication strategies, intercultural nego-
tiators need to have a wide range of verbal and nonverbal behavioral repertoires
to make mindful choices and creating momentums to move their individual or in-
terdependent goal outcomes forward. Communication effectiveness has been
achieved when multiple meanings are attended to with accuracy and in a cultural-
ly-sensitive manner, and personal and mutually desired goals have been worked
out in a strategic and creative direction (Canary, Lakey, and Sillars 2013). More
importantly, the above criteria are positively interdependent. When one manages
an interaction situation appropriately, the “good faith” behaviors can induce recip-
rocal interaction effectiveness, and vice versa.
To behave both appropriately and effectively in managing a diverse range of
intercultural situations, one needs to be mentally and behaviorally nimble and
flexible. Communication adaptability refers to our ability to change our interaction
behaviors and goals to meet the specific needs of the situation (Arasaratnam 2007;
Arasaratnam and Doerfel 2005; Molinsky 2007; Ting-Toomey 2004, 2009b). It im-
plies mental, affective, and behavioral flexibility in dealing with the minute-to-
minute unfolding intercultural drama and situation lithely and creatively. To move
towards behavioral flexibility and adaptation, a mindful communicator will need
to integrate culturally-sensitive and identity-sensitive knowledge concerning self
and others, and, infuse the knowledge base with open-minded attitudes and diver-
sified behavioral practice.
2.2 Intergroup communication competence criteria

From the lens of intergroup communication theorizing frameworks, intergroup
communication is defined in terms of how social contexts and group memberships
affect the ways in which individuals communicate with members of their own
groups (called ingroups and with a sense of interdependent shared fate and famili-
arity) and members of other groups (called outgroups and with a sense of psycho-
logical distance; Giles 2012). Intergroup communication competence can be de-
fined as individuals engaging in appropriate, effective, and adaptive interaction in
a given social context informed by knowledge, attitudes, and skills about diverse
group membership identity issues in conjunction with personal identity issues.
Considerable research informs us about interpersonal communication competence
(Canary, Lakey, and Sillars 2013; Spitzberg 2009; Spitzberg and Cupach 2011). How-
ever, theoretically, interpersonal communication competence does not necessarily
entail intergroup communication competence because the latter involves sociocul-
tural identity and relational dynamics (Petronio et al. 1998). Practically, no inter-
personal communication is totally devoid of sociocultural membership influence
during the course of the relationship development trajectory.
Most importantly, from the intergroup communication frameworks, social con-
texts are very different from interpersonal contexts (Giles and Hewstone 1982; Har-
wood, Giles, and Palomares 2005). For example, those with inter-personal (i.e.,
individuated-personalized) communication skills may competently relate to each
other as individuals; however, they may lack competent communication skills to

relate to each other as members of different social groups such as elders and ado-
lescents, or health care providers and patients (Hummert 2010; Villagran and
Sparks 2010). From a U.S.-centric research viewfinder, interpersonal communica-
tion (i.e., recognizing and valuing the unique-distinctive personal identity features
of the individuals) often connotes “better quality” communication than intergroup
communication. However, the intergroup perspective recognizes the critical impor-
tance and the pervasive influence of social group membership contexts on the min-
ute-to-minute dynamic shifting of the communication processes between the two
or more individuals from diverse membership communities (see Giles 2012; Giles,
Reid and Harwood 2010; Harwood and Giles 2005). We firmly believe that in the
field of human communication studies, it is equally important to probe the concep-
tualization of “quality intergroup communication” on par with the study of “qual-
ity interpersonal communication” in multiple interactional arenas. Intergenera-
tional communication, for example, aptly illustrates how much of communication
between elders and young adults has been mediated by stereotypic perceptions of
each other (Hummert 2010; see later section). Concurrently, identity knowledge
concerning elders and young adults’ values and communication patterns provides
some reasonable generalizations about the dyadic pairs. Mindful communicators
will utilize this knowledge-based information but not rigidly adhere to the precon-
ceived knowledge categories as mindless communicators would.
Intergroup communication competence involves mindfully communicating ap-
propriately, effectively, and adaptively to each other in social contexts. Intergroup
appropriateness refers to the extent to which the exchanged communicative behav-
iors accord with or match the social group expectations of the recipient/s of the
message. For this, intergroup interactants need to acquire the knowledge schema
of what is regarded as proper or improper behavior according to the social expecta-
tions of the respective group membership. For example, in the social context of the
North American universities, students may call their professors by their first names
whereas in other social contexts such as in India and Tibet students address their
professors by their respectful titles such as Sir, Madam, Professor Raman, or Gen
la (the term refers to gender neutral honorific title for Teacher in Tibetan). What
is considered as appropriate intergroup address is determined by the normative
expectation standards of the respective social contexts. Students must learn about
these appropriate behaviors and then mindfully practice them when relating to
their professors in the particular social context.
Intergroup effectiveness refers to the extent to which communicators assign
shared meaning to the exchanged communicative behaviors in social contexts and
achieve interactional goals such as instrumental and relational goals. From an in-
tergroup perspective, meanings are socially constructed and consensually agreed
upon by members both within and between groups. For example, Hindus, Jains,
and Buddhists regard Swastika (in its original form associated with Indus Valley
Civilization) as a symbol with positive and sacred meaning whereas others tor-
mented by the Hitler and Nazi regime regard the same symbol (diagonally placed
on the Nazi flag) with negative meaning. In the year 2010 in Pretend City – a Chil-
dren’s museum – in Irvine, CA, a Hindu Swastika woven on a tapestry was dis-
played as a part of East Indian Heritage Exhibition, which caused uproar among
diverse group members. Some voiced negative criticism of the symbol on the
ground of insensitivity and demanded the symbol to be removed from the exhibit.
The museum did that, but others voiced concerns about the importance of the
sacred symbol to the East Indians and demanded respect for it. This case vividly
illustrates the need for effective intergroup communication in addressing conflict
issues.
In the social context of the East Indian Heritage Exhibition, it seems situation-
ally appropriate and proper to hang the sacred Swastika tapestry for all to enjoy
and respect. However, in the socio-historical context of the Nazis atrocities on Jews,
the blatant display of the tapestry created further insult, injury, and hurt to some
community members. In terms of socially constructed meaning, the Indians attrib-
uted positive meanings and significance to the beautiful tapestry, while the victims
and survivors of the Nazi regime attributed negative meanings and painful memo-
ries concerning the embroidered wall-hanging in a public space. This real-life sce-
nario illustrates that intergroup communicators from both communities need to be
sensitive to the situational context of proper and improper actions. They also need
to learn to effectively negotiate the attributed meanings of verbal and nonverbal
symbols to understand each other’s group membership identity issues. Competent
intergroup communication involves mindfully attuning to the situational dynamics
and also negotiating the conflicting meanings of such symbols in a conjoint effec-
tive manner. Furthermore, intergroup communication competence also requires
adaptability.
Adaptability refers to communicators’ abilities to be cognitively, affectively,
and behaviorally flexible and agile in attuning to each other’s identity signals (and
also instrumental goals) in particular contexts. Cognitively, intergroup communica-
tors need to constantly “minding their minds” in creating identity differentiations
and identity complexities in observing and assessing the multifaceted identities of
an unfamiliar other in situ. Affectively, they need to be empathetic to each other’s
mindsets, heart-sets, worldviews, and perspectives. Behaviorally, they need to
change or adjust their actual behaviors in order to reach desired intergroup out-
comes and situational needs. For example, in resolving the above case, members
from both communities can mindfully attune to contrasting meanings of the sym-
bol in different socio-cultural contexts and interpret its meaning accordingly. Adap-
tive intergroup communication involves being mindful of when to converge to or
diverge from the distinctive style of the other group member, or maintain one’s
style in particular social contexts. Intentional code-switching or dialect-switching
to adapt appropriately is an excellent example of mindful intergroup communica-
tion adaptability.
In order to accomplish both the internal and external desired outcomes of in-
tercultural–intergroup competence development, communicators need to acquire
the necessary sociocultural -sensitive and identity-sensitive knowledge, enhance
their ethnorelative mindset, and practice elastic communication skillsets in rele-
vance to the given context. We will now turn to a discussion of these three key
components of intercultural–intergroup communication competence.
3 Culture-sensitive and identity-sensitive

knowledge content component
In the context of developing intercultural communication knowledge content com-
petence, the cognitive knowledge component here refers to the mastery and deep
understanding of the macro and micro layers, complex identity diversities, value
contents, norms, and interaction scripts of the unfamiliar cultural system. Ting-
Toomey (2009b) proposes that the following knowledge elements should constitute
the baseline cognitive knowledge structures of a competent intercultural communi-
cator: developing deep knowledge contents of the cultural worldviews and value
variation dimensions, understanding cultural/ethnic and social/personal identity
issues, mastering language proficiency and distinctive verbal interaction styles,
and appreciating commonalities and differences of cross-cultural nonverbal codes.
3.1 Intercultural value patterns’ knowledge

Understanding the cultural value patterns of individualism–collectivism and
small–large power distance (Hofstede 2001) is a useful starting point to gain aware-
ness of broad-based value dimensions of multiple cultures. Indeed, the GLOBE re-
search project (House et al. 2004) provided evidence that the foundational con-
structs of individualism–collectivism and small–large power distance permeate 62
countries (and with a sample size of 17,370 middle managers from three industries)
at societal, organizational, and individual levels of analysis.
Individualism refers to the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasizing
the importance of the “I” identity over the “we” identity, individual rights over
group interests, and ego-focused emotions over socially-focused emotions. In com-
parison, collectivism refers to the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasiz-
ing the importance of the “we” identity over the “I” identity, ingroup interests over
individual wants, and other-face concerns over self-face concerns. The meaning of
face is generally conceptualized as how we want others to see us and treat us
and how we actually treat others in association with their social self-conception
expectations. In everyday interactions, individuals are constantly making con-
scious or unconscious choices concerning face-saving and face-honoring issues

across interpersonal, intercultural, and intergroup contexts. While face is about a
claimed sense of interactional identity in a particular situation, facework is about
verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors that protect/save self, other, or
mutual face (Ting-Toomey 1999, 2005b). The meaning construction of the role of
face and the strategic competence of enacting various facework strategies vary in
accordance to cultural system values’ level, individual level, and situational level.
Indeed, we would like to point out here that both Hofstede’s (2001) and House
et al.’s (2004) international research studies have been critiqued for using overgen-
eralized value dimensions to superimpose on an entire national group and treating
national culture as a homogeneous entity (Thomas 2006; Ting-Toomey 2010b) and
neglecting nuanced differentiations within broad-based identity categories. We
agree with this assessment to a certain extent, however, we also believe the impor-
tance of using some cultural or more importantly identity-based (recognizing the
importance of multiple personal and also socio-cultural identities in situ) explana-
tions to advance theories in the multiple camps of interpretive, critical, and func-
tional research paradigms. As a suggestion, by viewing individualism and collectiv-
ism as a dynamic continuum in a particular situation (and chrono-developmental
time) with conflicting and complementary elements and multiple layers, cultural
and ethnic and personal identity diversities within a particular situation and a larg-
er sociocultural speech community can be accounted for (see Ting-Toomey 2010b).
Another important value dimension that is critical in understanding communi-
cation competence is the dimension of power distance (Carl, Gupta, and Javidan
2004). Power distance, from the workplace values’ analysis standpoint, refers to
the way in which a corporate culture approaches and deals with status differences
and social hierarchies. People in small power distance corporate cultures tend to
value equal power distributions, symmetrical relations, a mixture of positive and
negative messages in feedback sessions, and merit-based equitable reward and
cost distributions. People in large power distance corporate cultures tend to accept
unequal power distributions, asymmetrical relations, authoritative feedback from
experts and the likes, and rewards/sanctions based on rank, role, status, age, and
even gender identity.
In combining both individualism–collectivism and small–large power distance
value patterns, four predominant corporate value dimension approaches emerge
along the two continua: impartial, status-achievement, benevolent, and communal
(Ting-Toomey and Oetzel 2001, 2013). The impartial approach reflects a combina-
tion of an individualistic and small power distance value orientation; the status-
achievement approach consists of a combination of an individualistic and large
power distance value orientation; the benevolent approach reflects a combination
of a collectivistic and large power distance value orientation; and the communal
approach consists of a combination of collectivistic and small power distance value
orientation.
Additionally, the following intercultural knowledge structures are critical: com-

prehending culture shock and adjustment/reentry issues, recognizing immigrants’
and refugees’ complex acculturation processes in a diverse society, realizing the
filters of ethnocentrism-stereotypes-prejudice-power dynamic issues between co-
culture groups, practicing flexible intercultural conflict styles and collaborating
on common-interest goals, grappling with diverse forms of intercultural–intimate
relationships, and last but not least, developing a meta-ethics principled stance
(Ting-Toomey and Chung 2012).
3.2 Intergroup identity-sensitive knowledge

A plethora of meta-analytic studies investigated intergroup contact – real or imag-
ined – to reduce prejudice and improve intergroup relations among other things
(Beelmann and Heinemann 2014; Miles and Crisp 2014; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006,
2008; Pettigrew et al. 2011; Riek, Mania, and Gaertner 2006). Taken together, many
of these studies indicate that intergroup contact involving positive attitudes and
positive interaction (accommodative behaviors) and moderators (e.g., lowering
anxiety about intergroup contact and enhancing empathy and perspective taking)
reduce intergroup biases and further intergroup relations. Harwood and Joyce
(2012) argued that communicative variables such as communicative anxiety, self-
disclosure, and relational solidarity among others can mediate intergroup contact’s
effects.
According to Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), effectively com-
municating with each other at interpersonal and intergroup levels requires conver-
gence or accommodation (Gallois, Ogay, and Giles 2005). Convergence or accom-
modation involves matching the communication styles, such as speech patterns
and dialects, and paralinguistic features and nonverbal gestures, of each other in
social context. In contrast, divergence is a communication strategy that accentu-
ates the language/verbal distinctiveness and other nonverbal features between the
intergroup communicators, especially in perceived undesirable intergroup situa-
tions. In general, when people want to increase attraction and approval, they
choose to converge or accommodate toward the other’s interactional style in the
interdependent social context (Dorjee, Giles, and Barker 2011).
Intergroup communication competence involves understanding and compe-
tently negotiating identity orientations, motivations, and communicative strategies
between interactants in social contexts. According to CAT (Gallois, Ogay, and Giles
2005), social history contexts can shape initial orientations toward each other in
an encounter. In the absence of intergroup conflict history and intergroup vitality
factors, people are likely to orient to each other interpersonally. The term “inter-
group vitality” refers to the strength and density of socio-cultural groups based on
status, demographic strength, and institutional support (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor
1977). In other words, when intergroup antecedents are not salient, different people
from diverse identity membership groups can and may possibly communicate in-
terpersonally with each other. Conversely, any salient intergroup social context
factors such as intergroup hostility or even intergroup vitality characteristics can
orient people to relate to each other as social group members as in intergeneration-
al interactions and police and civilian interactions (see Giles, Choi, and Dixon 2010;
Hummert 2010). Thus, social contexts (i.e., settings with unfamiliarity/degree of
strangeness, and with salient role-based features) frame initial orientations in en-
counters leading to intergroup or interpersonal interactions.
Intergroup communication competence involves knowing these distinctions.
Social identity orientation emphasis changes the dynamics of communication from
interpersonal to intergroup interactions. For example, divergent or consensual in-
terpretations of race relational history between African Americans and European
Americans in the United States can change the dynamics of communication be-
tween two individuals from these ethno-racial backgrounds (Hecht, Jackson, and
Ribeau 2003). In this case, identity-sensitive knowledge about the slavery history
of the African American socio-cultural membership group and the differentiated
knowledge concerning the personal/unique identity stance of the communication
partners may help to promote competent or incompetent intergroup interaction.
Concurrently, if intergroup threat is perceived, personal identity is de-emphasized
and polarized social identity is primed in the process, in turn affecting relationship
trust-building levels and desired outcomes. Competent intergroup communicators
need to attend to these matters from a co-orientation standpoint and from both a
situated social identity and personal identity lens. Furthermore, realizing one’s
own and other motivations in an intergroup communicative situation can also
shape and change the dynamics of the process and outcome of communication.
4 Developing flexible mindset and open-hearted

attitudes’ component
According to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009), dominant models of human compe-
tence since 1950s assume that knowledge, motivation, and skills are the core com-
ponents of competence. We prefer to use the term “flexible mindset” – a broader
term – rather than motivation to discuss intercultural and intergroup communica-
tion competencies. Flexible mindset includes motivational drives as well as a host
of other concomitant attitudes (e.g., mindful attunement and intergroup attitudes)
that could affect intercultural–intergroup communication competencies. From a
motivational point of view, willingness to interact is vital to competent interactions
among individuals from different social-cultural backgrounds. Additionally, how
individuals perceive each other can affect social interaction and communication
outcomes. Arguably, willingness to interact and affective attunement are filtered
through intercultural–intergroup perceptions, ethnocentrism, and stereotypes (see

Giles, Reid, and Harwood 2010).
An open-hearted attitude implies the combination of compassion for self and
empathy for others, and at the same time exercising due wisdom and balance. An
open-hearted attitude is nonjudgmental and acknowledges things as they are, with
equanimity and transparency. The Dalai Lama, for example, connects with people
from all walks of life with an open-hearted attitude and emphasizing the deep
commonality and the interdependent fate of humanity on physical, mental, affec-
tive, ethical, and ecological levels. He treats all individuals equally without being
judgmental and emphasizes being transparent in all interactions, with courage and
without fears. Competent intercultural and intergroup communicators need to de-
velop a keen sense of self-awareness of their own ethnocentric mental habits and
learn to intentionally shift their ethnocentric tendencies to alternative ethnorela-
tive worldviews.
4.1 Recognizing the developmental states of ethnocentrism and

ethnorelativism
Ethnocentrism comes from two Greek words. Ethno refers to “one’s own ethnic or
cultural group”, and centrism means that “one’s own group should be looked upon
as the center of the world”. Ethnocentrism refers to considering the views and stan-
dards of our own ingroup as more important than any outgroups. Outgroups are
at a disadvantage because we constantly judge them based on our own group’s
standards and values. Examples of such standards include beliefs that one’s own
group practices the correct religion, employs the best ways of educating their chil-
dren, and votes for the most qualified political candidates.
Ethnocentrism is a defense mechanism that elevates our own culture above
other cultures, and we expect that all other groups should follow our way of living
and behaving because it is the most reasonable and proper way. Ethnocentrism is
reinforced and learned through a deep cultural conditioning process. We favor in-
group standards and communication practices because we are familiar and feel
secured with those standards and norms. Ethnocentrism consists of both implicit
and explicit attitudes toward outgroup members’ customs or behaviors. We display
ethnocentric tendencies for three reasons: 1. we tend to define what goes on in our
own culture as natural and correct and what goes on in other cultures as unnatural
and incorrect; 2. we tend to perceive ingroup values, customs, norms, and roles as
universally applicable; and 3. we tend to experience distance from the outgroup,
especially when our group identity is threatened or under attack (Stephan, Stephan
and Gudykunst 1999; Ting-Toomey and Chung 2012). While interacting with out-
group members, our ethnocentric tendencies may be blurred by our perception of
privilege. Privilege is an “invisible package of unearned assets” (McIntosh 2002:
424) that one is oblivious to, and it can be based on group membership color,
ethnicity, gender, social status, and geographical location. By assuming even on

an unconscious level that we “deserve” certain rights or advantages over others,
this attitude represents one aspect of ethnocentric thinking.
To counteract rigid ethnocentric attitudes, Bennett and Bennett (2004) devel-
oped the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), which captures
how individuals experience cultural difference via various change zones. The core
assumption of the DMIS is that as an individual experiences cultural differences in
a more complex and nuanced manner, her competence in dealing with these cul-
tural differences increases. The DMIS identifies three “states” of ethnocentrism and
three “states” of ethnorelativism. Each state reflects a particular cognitive-affective
worldview expressed in certain kinds of attitudes and behaviors related to cultural
differences. The three states of ethnocentrism include: denial of cultural difference,
defense against cultural difference, and minimization of cultural difference. Denial
of cultural difference is the state in which one’s own cultural difference is experi-
enced as the only real one. Other cultures are avoided by maintaining psychologi-
cal or physical isolation. If “dissimilar others” impinge on our ingroup existence,
we may act aggressively to eliminate the difference. Defense against cultural differ-
ence is the state in which one’s own culture (or adopted culture) is experienced as
the only good one. The world is organized as “we” versus “them” – we are the
“superior” group, and they are the “inferior” one. Individuals in this state are high-
ly threatened by outgroup members and they tend to be hyper-critical of outgroups.
Alternatively, individuals can also experience a “reverse defense” state in which
their “adopted culture” is viewed as far superior to their homeland culture. Minimi-
zation of cultural difference is the state in which elements (e.g., nonverbal eye con-
tact system or value dimensions) of one’s own culture are viewed as “universals”.
Individuals under this state tend to proclaim that beyond superficial food customs
or holiday celebration differences, at the core, human beings are all the same –
the same like my preferred behaviors or values in my own familiar ingroups (Ben-
nett and Bennett 2004).
The next set of three states reflects the development of ethnorelativism. The
three ethnorelative states include: acceptance of cultural difference, adaptation to
cultural difference, and integration of cultural difference (Bennett and Bennett
2004). Acceptance of cultural difference is the state in which one’s own culture is
experienced as one out of many possible diverse and complex cultural experiences.
Individuals at this state are curious and respectful of cultural differences on the
cognitive level. Adaptation to cultural difference is that state in which the experi-
ence of another culture yields perceptual shifting – seeing things from the other
cultural angle – and also behavioral adaptation appropriate to that cultural frame
of reference (e.g., viewing “lateness” differently and based on the new culture’s
polychronic “sense making” norms and practices). Integration of cultural difference
is the state in which the individual intentionally (on cognitive, affective, and be-
havioral levels) incorporates diverse cultural worldviews into one’s identity and is
able to transform polarized value sets into complementary value sets. In this state,
a person can communicate fluidly as a cultural bridge person or mediator in a
culturally appropriate and globally effective manner (Leung et al. 2008; Maddux
and Galinsky 2009; Mezirow 2000; Pusch 2009).
4.2 Recognizing intergroup attitudes based on group vitality

Intergroup attitudes based on group vitality can affect communication competence
perceptions among members of different social groups. Vitality of a group can be
measured at three levels: demography, status, and institutional support (Giles,
Bourhis, and Taylor 1977; Giles and Johnson 1987). Demography includes popula-
tion, immigration, emigration, birth, and mortality factors. Status includes social
standing and economic status. Institutional support includes governmental, school,
university, and organizational support to sustain and promote group vitality factors
such as language, arts, cultures, and education. In social interactions, these group
vitality factors influence intergroup relations and communication (see Clement,
Baker, and MacIntyre 2003).
A society or nation consists of many groups which are referred to by terms
such as dominant versus subordinate or co-culture groups (Orbe, Everett, and Put-
nam 2013). For example, in the United States of America, European Americans con-
stitute the dominant group while others (e.g., African Americans, Latino/Hispanic
Americans, and Asian Americans) constitute subordinate groups or co-culture
groups (Orbe, Everett, and Putnam 2013). These groups differ widely across the
above-mentioned group vitality dimensions, shaping intergroup communication
dynamics and competence perceptions. For example, subordinate or co-culture
group members who perceive low ingroup vitality may defer to asymmetrical power
distance interaction and accommodate to dominant group members’ interaction
styles. Conversely, co-culture members who perceive high-status group vitality or
pride and solidarity may enact or even dramatize ingroup interaction styles or
speech dialects.
The default mindset appears to be that individuals who experience high group
vitality on a consistent daily basis would more likely expect individuals with low
group vitality to accommodate to them in most social interactions. Anecdotal evi-
dence indicates that in the United States of America, which is considered the land
and home of immigrants, many individuals from the dominant group do demand
or expect recent immigrant group members to learn and speak English fluently in
a relatively short time span and in any social setting. Theoretically, communication
accommodation can come from either side in social interaction, however, in reality,
dominant group members tend to expect minority or co-culture group members
to accommodate to their communicative needs due to their sometimes unearned
cultural/societal privilege of birth, inherited wealth, namesake, or being white
(McIntosh 2002). The greater the perceived ingroup vitality and intergroup gap, the
greater the role of power and its effects on intergroup interactions.
In particular, intergroup attitudes can hamper or facilitate intergroup commu-
nication competence (e.g., Giles and Rakic 2014). CAT argues that social-historical
contexts and intergroup perceptions are critical to intergroup communication and
accommodative practices (Gallois, Ogay, and Giles 2005; Soliz and Giles 2014). For
example, in WWII, many mainstream U.S. Americans harshly stereotyped and en-
acted direct prejudice and racism against Japanese Americans based on intergroup
fear and anxiety. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 and
thus officially uprooted and imprisoned 120,000 plus first-generation, second-gen-
eration to third-generation Japanese Americans and sending them to internment
camps in Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and remote parts of California and elsewhere.
Many of these native-born Americans of Japanese descent experienced first-hand
direct institutional prejudice and discrimination from their mainstream American
cohorts. Fast forward to recent event, since 9/11 many mainstream U.S. Americans
have developed negative stereotypes of Muslims including Muslim Americans.
These stereotypes and intergroup hostility between many Muslim countries such as
Iran and Iraq and the United States of America hinder intergroup communication
competence among the members of these groups. Thus, all forms of ethnocentrism
(indifference, avoidance, and disparaging remarks) prevail in intergroup hostility
and polarized situations.
Unfortunately, much of communication among people from these groups is
filtered through ethnocentrism and stereotypes. Members from these groups tend
to perceive others’ identity and existence as threats to their own identity (e.g.,
Middle East Conflict). On either side, group members accentuate intergroup differ-
ences for ingroup identity solidarity and distinctiveness and ignore possible com-
monalities. Conversely, intergroup attraction and approval among friendly nations
and groups such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom facilitate
intergroup cooperation and, concurrently, more opportunities to practice compe-
tent communication processes and outcomes. Positive intergroup attitudes such as
intergroup appreciation and win–win benefits and rewards help to enhance further
intergroup dialogue and attunement and promote inclusive communication prac-
tices. In fostering more intergroup cooperative opportunities, intergroup differen-
ces are attenuated whereas intergroup commonalities are accentuated. As a result,
ethnorelativism prevails in favorable intergroup settings. Thus, favorable inter-
group attitudes promote intergroup relations and competent interactions (e.g., Ellis
and Moaz 2012; Kim 2013).
In sum, intergroup attitudes matter for intergroup communication competence.
While negative or unfavorable intergroup attitudes such as intergroup hostility,
ethnocentrism, and stereotypes hinder intergroup communication competence,
positive or favorable intergroup attitudes such as ethnorelative mindset together
with an open-hearted posture promote intergroup communication competence.
These attitudes are related to practicing competence skills.
5 Activating competent intercultural–intergroup

communication skillsets’ component
Dynamic and flexible intercultural and intergroup attitudes have to be translated
and connected to concrete verbal and nonverbal behavioral practices. Intercultur-
al–intergroup communication competence skillsets refer to the operational skills
that are needed to negotiate appropriately, effectively, and adaptively on multiple
levels of content, relationship, and identity issues coupled with accurate meaning
encoding and decoding processes. While host nationals need to increase their
knowledge, open-hearted attitudes, and culture-sensitive skills in dealing with the
macro–micro interactional issues that impact incoming strangers, immigrants, ref-
ugees, and co-culture group members, co-culture group members also need to
learn to swing between the various identity dialectical poles creatively and elasti-
cally in crafting their strategic identity negotiation processes and desired out-
comes.
According to Figure 1, competent intercultural and intergroup communication
desired outcomes include the capacity to frame-switch (an internal cognitive-affec-
tive transformation process and moving from ethnocentric to ethnorelative state)
and code-switch (an external language–dialect convergence/divergence, to verbal
and nonverbal dynamic adaptive process) in conjunction with instrumental pro-
ductivity and deriving communication satisfaction on multiple situational levels.
Satisfactory identity negotiation outcomes include the feeling of being understood,
respected, and affirmatively valued between the local hosts and incoming guests,
sojourners, transplanted immigrants, and minority identity or co-culture members
(Ting-Toomey 2005a). These are important internal and external factors affecting
the activation of general and particular intercultural and intergroup communica-
tion identity-supportive skillsets.
5.1 General identity-support and identity-distancing

communicative strategies
Identity-support communicative strategies such as mindful listening and dialogue,
shared empowerment and alliance formation strategies, identity confirmation and
empathetic inclusion behaviors, and social justice advocacies are some productive
identity interaction moves that can promote satisfactory intergroup and interper-
sonal relationships. Identity-rejection strategies such as mindless attendance and
ego-focused monologue, power dominance or patronization, indifferent attitudes
or identity-minimizing messages can maximize intergroup distancing. Unfortunate-
ly, in most emotionally aggravating situations between polarized identity groups,
individuals’ sociocultural memberships or personal identities are often being disre-
spected and even bypassed.
From an intergroup theorizing standpoint, as social beings, people generally

seek social approval from each other in interactions. CAT (Gallois, Ogay, and Giles
2005) contends that the extent to which social approval is sought can shape com-
municative accommodation in interactions. Accommodation leads to fulfilling in-
teractional needs and goals (i.e., identity and relational maintenance goals) and
therefore, it is central to interpersonal and intergroup communication competen-
cies. Accommodation is defined as adjusting to or from the communicative styles
of each other in interactions. An intergroup perspective informs us that every indi-
vidual has at least two types of identity, namely a personal/unique individual iden-
tity and social/group membership identity (Ting-Toomey and Dorjee 2014). If per-
sonal identity were primed and emphasized in interactions, the concerned commu-
nicators would more likely than not accommodate to each other’s interpersonal
identity needs and goals. However, if social identity were primed and emphasized
in interactions, they would more likely than not accommodate to each other’s inter-
group identity needs and goals.
CAT provides three communicative strategies for effectively communicating in
interpersonal and intergroup contexts and these are: convergence or accommoda-
tive strategy, divergence or nonaccommodative strategy, and maintenance strategy
(Gallois, Ogay, and Giles 2005; Giles, Coupland, and Coupland 1991). In general,
these strategies are used in social interactions such as how elders and youngsters
relate to each other. Group memberships influence their perceptions and situated
communication strategies. In the following discussions, these ideas are defined
and clarified via more specific CAT terms.
Convergence or accommodation is a communicative strategy through which
interactants adjust or converge towards each other’s communicative behavior (e.g.,
matching the other’s accents, paralinguistic qualities, or use of phrases). Converse-
ly, divergence or nonaccommodation is a communicative strategy through which
interactants accentuate their differences in communicative behaviors (e.g., code
switching, speaking mixed languages or accents, and avoiding interaction). Main-
tenance is a communicative strategy through which interactions persist in their
original communication style regardless of each other’s communicative behavior
(e.g., speaking Indian English as usual, speaking American English as usual, or
speaking native language as usual). All these critical CAT concepts also correspond
to the general criterion of communication adaptability in the intercultural commu-
nication competence context. For the last two and half decades, intercultural com-
munication scholars have attached much research importance to the phenomenon
of intercultural communication competence as supported by extant theorizing and
substantive research work (see Deardorff 2009; Wiseman and Koester 1993). An
added nuanced intergroup communication perspective with its emphasis on inter-
group identity motivations, filtered perceptions, situations, and practice of stra-
tegic intergroup communicative strategies can greatly enhance our theorizing of
intergroup–intercultural communication competencies.
For example, according to Hummert (2010), individuals who belong to inter-

generational groups perceive each other as members of different social groups
while relating to each other. For competent communication to take place, both
generational members need to be mindful of what is regarded as appropriate, effec-
tive, and adaptive communication from an ethonorelative point of view. From eld-
erly members’ viewpoint, competent communication involves young individuals
accommodating to their styles and needs appropriately, effectively, and adaptively.
For example, if they have a hearing problem (which may happen due to aging),
then young adults should speak louder to promote effective communication, but
if they hear well, then speaking loudly would be perceived as incompetent and
patronizing communicative behavior. Elders do not appreciate over-accommoda-
tion or under-accommodation by young interactants in particular situational
scenes. Over-accommodation – such as overly expressive and excessive concern
for vocal clarity enunciations, verbal message over-simplifications, verbatim repeti-
tions, and artificial nonverbal posturing – is a case of patronizing behavior that is
perceived to be demeaning and humiliating to elders. In contrast, under-accommo-
dation is a failure to adapt to the communicative needs and styles of others and
reflect communication insensitivity and incompetence (in this case, for example to
the elders who have hearing or impaired vision problem).
Intergenerational communication competence should be devoid of over- and
under-accommodation styles. In other words, accommodative strategies used by
the young adults for elders should be appropriate to the situations and, concurrent-
ly, promote effective intergroup and interpersonal communication goals. Likewise,
elders should adopt intergroup-sensitive convergence or even maintenance com-
municative strategies sometimes if they are appropriate to the particular elder–
youngster social interactive situations. For some young adults, when elders behave
inappropriately, they feel embarrassed, especially in front of their peers. However,
if the elders do not display some intergenerational communication sensitivity, they
may also be perceived as rigid and creating identity intergroup communicative
distance. It is important to note here that perceived accommodation or non-accom-
modation is often much more important than actual behavioral accommodation or
divergence. Intergenerational communication competence entails mindfully nego-
tiating these intergenerational perceptual and actual encounters and moving to-
ward desired internal and external outcomes. Overall, competent intergroup com-
municators must attend to the influence of social-historical relationships, the actu-
al ongoing interpersonal relationship formation, and inter-subjective perceptions
of communication especially in problematic intergroup–interpersonal conflict
situations.
5.2 Enacting competent intergroup conflict dialogue: Principles

and strategies
Conflict is an inevitable part of interpersonal, intercultural, and intergroup rela-
tionships and conflict partners need competent negotiation skills based on know-
ledge, ethnorelative mindset and open-hearted attitudes, and situational savviness
to handle diverse conflict topics and contexts. In particular, competent intergroup
negotiation skills include mindfully and appropriately communicating to each
other identity sensitivity, respect, and identity understanding in intergroup conflict
situations (Barge 2006; Broome 2013). A polarized intergroup conflict is an antago-
nistic, emotionally-laden process embedded in social categorization and social
group memberships (Harboom and Wallensteen 2010). Intergroup dialogue is one
of the most reasonable ways to address and resolve intergroup conflict issues
(Broome 2013; Saunders 2009). Among recent intergroup conflict studies, Dorjee
(2013) provided a unique and concrete dialogic approach to intergroup conflict res-
olution. It is a constructive win–win integrative approach that essentially takes
into account the superordinate goals of both conflict parties.
Dorjee (2013) recommended the Middle Way Approach-Based Dialogue (MWA-
D) and a win–win intergroup attitude to competently resolve intergroup conflict
issues. MWA-D is theoretically grounded in the Middle Way Philosophy of Bud-
dhism (Gyatso 1999; Tsong-Khapa 2000). In Buddhism, practitioners adopt a Mid-
dle Way compass that is free of extreme antithetical standpoints such as nihilism
(i.e., absolute nonexistence) and eternalism (i.e., reification of intrinsic and objec-
tive existence). MWA-D translates this philosophy into conflict resolution ap-
proach.
MWA-D is based on five core principles: 1. Dialogue is central to resolving the
core issue of intergroup conflict; 2. recognizing a positive interdependent relation-
ship in conflict situations can lead to intergroup harmony; 3. advocating high mu-
tual face concerns can lead to intergroup harmony; 4. creative thinking to tran-
scend polarized hardline positions is essential to resolve intergroup issues; and
5., middle way solutions can resolve intergroup conflicts amicably (for details see
Dorjee 2013). Intergroup and intercultural conflict parties have to think for both
sides and think outside the usual toolbox to creatively resolve issues with imagina-
tion, conviction, and “big picture” vision. Dorjee (2013) applied this challenge to
the Sino-Tibetan conflicts. However, the complex intergroup conflicts still contin-
ue, primarily because only Tibetan representatives have committed themselves to
the MWA-D, but not their conflict cohorts (i.e., the Communist Chinese leadership).
The Dalai Lama advocates on the global level that all human conflicts should be
resolved through mindful dialogue and nonviolence (www.dalailama.com). His Ho-
liness de-emphasizes polarized social categorizations such as “We” and “They”
and accentuates the notion of the superordinate identity of “One World and Hu-
manity” to address various worldwide conflicts and peacemaking issues. At least
two implications can be proffered based on MWA-D. One, intergroup communica-

tion competence requires both conflict parties to be mindful of identity sensitivity,
respect, and identity understanding in the dialogue process, and sustained-mind-
ful dialogues take time. Two, superordinate goals may resolve intergroup hostility
and conflict provided all concerned parties recognize and support them in dia-
logue. To promote the recognition of the development of superordinate goals, we
may have to hold on to hope in a tenacious manner and not give up too easily and
practice the inhale–exhale communicative role of mindfulness.
6 Mindfulness: The connective link among

competence criteria, components, and outcomes
As discussed in Section 5, in order to be a competent intercultural–intergroup com-
municator, an individual needs to develop a sense of mindful orientation to self-
identity and other-identity issues, the perceived intercultural–intergroup situation,
the unfolding process and desired outcomes. According to Figure 1, mindfulness
promotes increased culture-sensitive and identity-sensitive knowledge, open-heart-
ed attitudes, and communication skillsets, and vice versa. As an individual com-
municator increases her or his identity-sensitive knowledge, ethnorelative atti-
tudes, and skillsets, she or he also increases her or his mindfulness quotient. All
these enhanced capacities for mindfulness and competence components ultimately
prompt constructive transformation in internal frame-shifting of ethnocentric state
to ethnorelative state and also external code-switching of verbal and nonverbal
adroitness.
6.1 Mindfulness: General characteristics

The roots of mindfulness practice are in the contemplative practices common to
both Eastern and Western spiritual traditions. It is, at once, a spiritual, meditative,
reflective, psychological, and an applied way of intentional living and communi-
cating. According to Buddhist practice, mindfulness means attending to one’s own
internal assumptions, emerging emotions, intentions, cognitions, attitudes, and
behaviors. Mindful reflexivity requires us to tune in to our own cultural and person-
al habitual assumptions in scanning a communication scene. It also means “emp-
tying our mindset” and de-cluttering internal noises so that we can listen with an
in-the-moment pure heart (Ting-Toomey 1999, 2009b). Following the works of
Thich Nhat Hanh (1991, 1998) and Jon Kabat-Zinn (1994), mindfulness means track-
ing an unfolding communication episode with one-pointed wakefulness and
watchfulness.
From a Western psychological lens, mindfulness means attuning to the other

person’s communication assumptions, attitudes, perspectives, and communication
styles (Burgoon, Berger, and Waldron 2000). Langer’s (1989, 1997) concept of mind-
fulness includes these characteristics: a) learning to see the unfamiliar behaviors
presented in the communication situation as novel or fresh, b) learning to view the
interaction situation from multiple viewpoints or angles, c) learning to attend to
the communication situation and the person with whom we are interacting holisti-
cally, and d) learning to create new categories through which the unfamiliar behav-
ior may be understood. Applying this mindfulness orientation to intercultural and
intergroup interaction situations suggests a readiness and commitment to shift
one’s frame of reference from an ethnocentric lens to an ethnorelative viewfinder
and increases the possibility of interpreting events from the other person’s cultural
frame of reference.
In a recent theorizing effort, a threefold-faceted prism of mindfulness was in-
troduced (Ting-Toomey 2010a): being present in the immediate time and space ori-
entation, meta-cognition awareness, and affective attunement. The core ideas of
the threefold facets of mindfulness have been derived from an integration of three
strands of research studies: research on mindfulness (e.g., Baer, Smith, and Allen
2004; Brown and Ryan 2003; Hoskins 1999; Siegel 2007), research on cultural intel-
ligence (e.g., Earley and Ang 2003; Earley and Peterson 2004; Thomas 2006), and
research on intercultural–interpersonal conflict competence (Canary and Lakey
2013; Canary, Lakey, and Sillars 2013; Ting-Toomey 2009a, 2009b, 2011; Ting-Toom-
ey and Kurogi 1998).
6.2 Mindfulness: The threefold facets

6.2.1 The being present orientation facet
The key to cultivating mindfulness is being fully present to attend to the self,
others, and the communicative situation within multilayered socio-ecological con-
texts including the sociocultural membership context. On the micro-level, there are
two foci of practicing “being present”: in-the-moment orientation to experience
and in-the-moment self-regulated judgment. The former refers to developing an
acute sense of awareness of one’s bodily and emotional sensations toward the
problematic intercultural encounter situation. According to Nagata (2004), the
term “body-mindfulness” refers to the ability to tune into one’s own state of being
and the ability to manage one’s own energy via conscious breathing. In-the-mo-
ment orientation to experience connotes sustained awareness and attention of
one’s ebbs and flows of emotional states, bodily sensations, moods, and behavioral
swings.
In-the-moment self-regulated judgment means being aware of our own ethno-
centric judgments and intentionally shifting focus to suspend our reactive lens to
an ethnorelative viewfinder. Countless intercultural studies have provided evi-

dence that open-mindedness, cultural curiosity, and high tolerance for ambiguity
are some of the key features of an ethnorelative mindset. In fact, according to Baer,
Smith, and Allen’s (2004) “Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills” (KIMS),
mindfulness has four factors: observing internal and external stimuli, describing
and labeling phenomena nonjudgmentally, acting with awareness and undivided
attention, and accepting events and experiences without judging them. Another
study on mindfulness (Brown and Ryan 2003, the “Mindful Awareness Attention
Scale” or “MAAS”) emphasizes the “sustained attention to the present moment” as
a core component of mindfulness. Thus, the radiant facet of “being fully present
and observing without judgment” may undergird the other two mindfulness facets.
6.2.2 The meta-cognition awareness facet
Thomas (2006) uses the concept of mindfulness as the metacognitive strategy that
links meta-thinking, knowledge, and behavioral flexibility. The “cultural intelli-
gence” research team led by Van Dyne, Ang, and Koh (2009) also emphasize the
concept of meta-cognition as a higher-order cognitive process of “thinking about
thinking” (i.e., awareness, planning, and checking) and the importance of monitor-
ing and modifying reactive cognitive schemata to understand the new cultural en-
vironment.
Awareness in this context refers to the real-time consciousness of understand-
ing how the role of culture influences one’s own and other’s mental processes and
behaviors, in association with the actual cultural situation. Planning refers to think-
ing “strategically” ahead and being aware of the short-term and long-term implica-
tions of such behaviors. It also implies cultivating multiple visions and diverse
behavioral strategies to handle the challenging intercultural or intergroup situation
astutely. Checking connotes the intentional review of mental maps and adjusting
habituated mental patterns to new mental maps and novel cultural scripts.
6.2.3 The affective attunement facet
Identity negotiation work in vulnerable intercultural–intergroup encounters is fun-

damentally an affective arousal experience (e.g., in perceived intergroup identity
threat or face loss situations). According to Nabi’s (2010) research, human emotion
is a psychological construct with five defining characteristics: 1. a subjective feel-
ing state, 2. the physiological feature of arousal, 3. cognitive appraisal or assess-
ment of a situation, 4. a motivational feature (including behavioral intentions or
action readiness), and 5. motor actions. Two dimensions generally undergird the
motivational base of human affective experience: an emotional arousal dimension
(intensity: high/low activation) and a valence dimension (direction: pleasure/dis-

pleasure; approach/flee). Bolls (2010) argues that emotion is “the fuel that energi-
zes human communication” and that our brains are equipped with an embodied
affect system that codes the encounter episode as a high or low emotional arousal
episode, and a pleasant or unpleasant interpersonal experience.
When an emotional arousal episode is triggered (e.g., “Swastika Story” as iden-
tified earlier), emotions such as surprise, fear, anger, pain, or contempt may be
experienced and aroused, and particular patterns of thoughts are instantaneously
recalled or formed. Such patterns of thoughts and reactive emotions are usually
subconsciously acquired from our socio-historical contexts, past experiences, reli-
gious identity, everyday social surroundings, social media, peer group influence
and family socialization upbringing. In a typical intergroup stereotyped or preju-
diced scenario, the short-cut social emotive and social cognitive appraisal process
often primes our motivation to either react in flight or flee mode. Alternatively,
competent intergroup communicators can choose to mindfully attune to their
emerging emotional states, practice some body-mindfulness, and intentionally cre-
ate particular strategic options and choices. According to Devine’s (1989) research,
for example, both high-prejudiced and low-prejudiced individuals activated their
cultural stereotypes in the presence of the stereotyped group, but the low-preju-
diced individuals were able to exercise intentional self-monitoring in replacing
their stereotypes with alternative mental images more so than the high-prejudiced
individuals. They used a mindful attunement process to create a more differentiat-
ed and complex view of the dissimilar, stereotyped group.
In sum, the cultivation of mindfulness is an art form of reconciling several
communication paradoxes: being strategic versus being spontaneous, being fo-
cused versus being expanding, and digging in versus reaching out. Harnessing
mindful communication practice relies heavily on inter-subjective perceptions:
from reflexive self-perception to introducing perception shifts about others to being
aware of how one is being perceived by others in a stigmatized or a non-stigma-
tized manner. Interpersonal competence/incompetence perception is often formed
based on the criteria of perceived communication appropriateness, effectiveness,
and adaptability and filtered through the threefold facets of mindfulness. This
threefold prism of mindfulness is also directly linked to the developmental acquisi-
tion of culture-sensitive and identity-sensitive knowledge, ethnorelative attitudes,
and operational skillsets’ competence components. Reciprocally, increased know-
ledge, open-hearted attitudes, and competent skills also concomitantly enhance
the mindfulness quotient and “being-in-the-moment” context-sensitive practice.
We believe that the paths between mindfulness and the various competency com-
ponents are bi-directional as opposed to a one-way linear trajectory.
7 Intercultural–intergroup communication
competence: Desired outcomes
According to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) and Deardorf (2009), one of the fu-
ture directions for theorizing about intercultural–intergroup communication com-
petence is to include the component of desired outcomes in framing the various
competence issues. We concur with their viewpoint, and we believe that mindful-
ness of both internal process-outcomes such as cultural frame-switching (Hong et
al. 2000) and external process-outcomes such as goal achievements and face iden-
tity support will propel individuals forward to complete the intercultural–inter-
group communication competence cycle. We also emphasize here the tight inter-
connection between the terms “process” and “outcome” as dynamic processes of
transformation – from appropriate and adaptive internal frame-shifting to external
code-switching in attunement to the multiple identities and needs of the communi-
cators, the interactional process, and the situational goals. We view “competence
outcomes” as the continuous development of internal mental agility, flexibility,
and an open-hearted ethnorelative attitude, and the “external outcomes” as identi-
ty, relational, and situational goal accomplishments, and a general sense of instru-
mental productivity and communicative satisfaction (Hecht, Jackson, and Ribeau
2003; Hecht et al. 2005).
For example, Nguyen and Benet-Martinez (2010) uncovered that bicultural or
multicultural immigrant individuals can utilize a cultural frame switching strategy
by switching between two or more cultural cognitive schemata or frames to guide
the application of appropriate and effective behaviors in diverse cultural settings –
depending on whom they are interacting with and the conversational goals and
contexts. These bicultural individuals often utilize their sensitivity to socio-cultural
membership cues to “shift” between the two cultural interpretive schemata – for
example, from small to large power distance respect-deference attitudinal dimen-
sions. They can also cognitively “put forth” one cultural interpretive frame (e.g.,
utilizing a collectivistic reasoning frame versus an individualistic reasoning frame)
in the foreground over another to negotiate their identity strategically in intercul-
tural–intergroup interactions. They can also integrate both cultural cognitive
frames in synchronicity (Benet-Martinez and Haritatos 2005; Benet-Martinez, Lee,
and Leu 2006). In fact, Toomey, Dorjee, and Ting-Toomey’s study (2013) provided
additional evidence that competent bicultural individuals (i.e., Asian-Caucasian bi-
cultural-biracial individuals) can swing adaptively in a cultural frame-switching
and frame-shifting progression of a double-swing dance model in activating their
communal mindset versus their individualistic mindset.
In the interpersonal–intercultural conflict competence research realm, desired
external outcomes often emphasize the achievement of instrumental, relational,
and/or self-presentation interactional goals (Canary and Lakey 2013; Ting-Toomey
and Oetzel 2001). Interculturally stated, the satisfaction and the active negotiation
of face identity issues constitute one of the premium interactional goals in manag-
ing intercultural–intergroup conflicts competently (Ting-Toomey 2005a, 2005b).
While face is about a claimed sense of favorable interactional identity in a
particular situation, facework is about verbal and nonverbal communication behav-
iors that protect/save self, other, or mutual face (Oetzel and Ting-Toomey 2003;
Oetzel, Garcia, and Ting-Toomey 2008). Thus, from the integrative framework of
the intergroup-intercultural competence lens, the satisfaction of group member-
ship approval, inclusion, and acceptance, and the satisfaction of ingroup/outgroup
membership identity respect or face validation issues may constitute some core
desired external (and also internal) outcome scopes. The more mindful communi-
cators can satisfy multiple face needs (e.g., autonomy face, inclusion face, status
face, competence face, and moral face), the more they are likely to be perceived as
competent and dynamic communicators within a given situational context (Ting-
Toomey, 2005b).
In particular, facework competence emphasizes the mindful capacity of con-
flict negotiators in managing emotional frustrations non-reactively and transform-
ing ingrained conflict habits flexibly. A respectful, mutual-face and communal-face
sensitive lens would likely cultivate productive conflict dialogue openings, entries,
passages, and closures. When both conflict parties from divergent socio-cultural
membership groups are committed to working hard in developing a “third ear” to
listen mindfully and empathetically and a “third eye” to observe holistically, they
are more likely to move toward a transformational facework path and a mutual-
attuning face-saving and face-honoring satisfying outcome. Lastly, according to
INT (Ting-Toomey 2005a), the broader needs to be understood, respected, and af-
firmatively valued on the core humanistic level, the socio-cultural membership
level, and the personal identity level are some evolving outcomes in the movement
toward intercultural and intergroup communication satisfaction and fulfillment.
8 Intercultural–intergroup communication
competence: Recommendations
This chapter presented an extensive discussion of the complementary nature of
intercultural and intergroup communication competence issues – from identifying
particular criteria to evaluating intercultural and intergroup competence to the
skillsets that are needed to become a competent intercultural–intergroup negotia-
tor. We have also offered an integrative working model (see Figure 1) as a guiding
framework to thread through the various criteria, components, mindfulness, and
outcomes of intercultural–intergroup communication competence.
We have elaborated on the importance of understanding the three competence
criteria of appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability, and the importance of
acquiring culture-sensitive and identity-sensitive knowledge, developing an ethno-
relative mindset and open-hearted attitudes, and activating competent intercultur-

al–intergroup communication skillsets. We have also expanded on the general
characteristics and the particular threefold facets of mindfulness in connecting
with the three competence components and final outcomes.
8.1 Future theorizing and researching directions

We acknowledge that our proposed working model needs further theorizing effort
and empirical testing. For the purpose of this chapter, the model worked as an
organizational map and compass to connect sectors and link various theoretical
components. Some future directions that can be gleaned from this working model
and the ideas discussed in this chapter include researching the role of mindfulness
and the mutual identity attunement process. While we have identified three facets
of mindfulness, more rigorous testing of these facets in connection with the three
components of communication competence is critically needed. Which facet of
mindfulness links meaningfully and in an explanatory manner with which compe-
tence component(s) would be a fascinating future investigation.
Furthermore, Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) lamented the neglected study of
physiological and emotional aspects of intercultural–interpersonal communication
competence in the field. We believe the deeper exploration of the concepts of
“body-mindfulness” (Nagata 2004) and “emotional attunement” (Ting-Toomey
2014) may yield some fruitful directions for future research. Competence-related
emotions such as anger and compassion, hurt and emotional repair, forgiveness
and reconciliation can be more deeply probed to understand the vulnerable tipping
points for why individuals are motivated to engage in identity-support or identity-
rejection communication strategies in intergroup and intercultural relationship
trust-building or trust-busting interactive processes.
In the realm of intergroup communication research, to the best of our know-
ledge, the construct of “competence” appears to be a sorely neglected area in theo-
rizing and research (Giles 2012; Taylor, King, and Usborne 2010). Furthermore, the
“desired internal and external outcomes” component appears to remain fuzzy and
elusive for both intergroup and intercultural competence researchers to ponder.
Gudykunst (2005) defined effective communication in terms of minimizing misun-
derstanding in intercultural and intergroup interactions. We took this effective
communication idea further and focused our attention on “identity negotiation”
appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability via the multifaceted prism of
mindfulness. We also have incorporated some of the concepts from Identity Negoti-
ation Theory (Ting-Toomey 2005a), Face-Negotiation Theory (Ting-Toomey 2005b),
and Communication Accommodation Theory (Gallois, Ogay, and Giles 2005) in
piecing the possible internal and external outcomes for understanding intergroup
and intercultural interactional competence. Many of these concepts and connective
pathways in the context of developmental intercultural–intergroup competence
practice await further rigorous testing, analysis, and probing. We appreciate and
value a diversity of meta-theoretical lenses and theoretical perspectives from multi-
ple academic disciplines to theorize and grapple with the fascinating intertwined
phenomena of intercultural communication competence and intergroup communi-
cation competence.
We also recognize the balanced importance, validity, and utility of interpretive,
critical, positivistic research perspectives in enhancing our understanding of inter-
group and intercultural communication adroitness. Accordingly, we acknowledge
the use of both qualitative/critical and quantitative methodologies (and also trian-
gulated or mixed methods) as viable ways to capture the breadth and depth of
communication competence on multiple social ecological analytical levels. Our ap-
proach to intercultural and intergroup communication competence avoids extreme
“objectivist” and “subjectivist” assumptions and factors in the all-important and
critical mediating role of “mindfulness” for communication competence across di-
verse cultures, ethnicities, and membership communities. We believe in the twin
directions of pursuing fully both a situational-general and a situational-specific
perspective in understanding intercultural and intergroup communication compe-
tence and incompetence issues especially concerning interactions between stigma-
tized identity groups with non-stigmatized identity groups at multiple levels of
identity contact complexity.
Generally, we believe that the goals of the particular competence research to
be pursued should determine the most appropriate methodology/ies to be adopted,
because attachment to a particular methodology may suggest selective bias. Re-
search questions should guide our research design, not one’s preferential method-
ology. We do appreciate a diversity of methodologies to research intercultural and
intergroup communication competence on multiple social ecological systems
levels. Large-scale longitudinal communication survey studies, interaction analysis
experimental studies, real-life news case studies from global and local arenas, co-
orientation/network views and narratives of interviewees from diverse stigmatized
identity groups will further enhance the researching effort of intercultural–inter-
group communication competence. Other methodological approaches such as com-
munity-based participatory research method, mixed-method and triangulation
method designs, alternative creative methods such as incorporating identity arti-
facts/images, self-identity mapping and story-telling memoirs, social media text-
messages and journals will also contribute to a deeper understanding of topical-
sensitive and situational-sensitive issues of intercultural and intergroup communi-
cation competence.
8.2 Conclusion
To conclude, intercultural communication competence scholars, while borrowing
ideas heavily from the interpersonal communication competence field, appear to
have glossed over some essential constructs such as social identity phenomenon,
intergroup attitudes, group vitality, communication accommodation, and the dy-
namics of intergroup dialogue in the intergroup communication field that can sure-
ly enhance our understanding of intercultural and intergroup interaction com-
petence. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, intergroup communication
scholars have also paid negligible attention to theorizing about the particular phe-
nomenon of “intergroup communication competence” and moving beyond the in-
vestigation of communication effectiveness on the message exchange level to in-
cluding particular outcome concepts such as internal frame switching, external
code-switching, to intergroup and intercultural communication productivity and
satisfaction.
In both research domains, a shared vocabulary can be developed to more sys-
tematically account for the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of identity-sensi-
tive intergroup–intercultural competence issues. Our proposed working model on
intercultural–intergroup communication competence in this chapter is meant as
an opening for a dialogue in probing the commonalities and distinctive concepts
existing in intercultural communication competence and intergroup communica-
tion encounter. Given the pervasive nature and identity diversity of intergroup in-
teractions in everyday life, intergroup communication scholars are best positioned
to use their expertise to contribute theoretically to the knowledge and application
of intergroup and intercultural communication competence. Concurrently, the cri-
teria and components of intercultural communication competence in general and
the conjoint phenomenon of “mindfulness” gleaned from the intercultural conflict
interaction literature can also help to clarify the boundary conditions in which
communicators are perceived as competent or incompetent negotiators as they
strategically converge toward or diverge from their fellow communication partners
in particular intergroup encounters.
Overall, competent intercultural–intergroup communicators are adaptive indi-
viduals who mindfully attune to self-identity and other-identity issues in a given
context. Having the astute ability to read the situation holistically, they have the
nimble mindset and open-hearted attitudes to acknowledge socio-cultural group
membership issues and distinctive personal identity issues with a nuanced, differ-
entiated lens. Mindful intercultural–intergroup communicators assume a non-re-
active and non-judgmental role in their initial stance. They also practice the use of
meta- ethics contextualism view in actively seeking information from multiple cul-
tural and group membership sources (Dorjee, Baig and Ting-Toomey 2013; Ting-
Toomey 2011) before rendering a culturally-sensitive and also culturally-inclusive
decision. Not only can they maintain their equanimity during the intense commu-
nication turbulence stage, but they can also visualize multiple explanations, path-
ways, detours, and solutions through the give-and-take, middle-way dialogue fo-
rum. Interculturally and intergroup-wise, dynamic competent communicators use
their identity-sensitive knowledge, their open-hearted attitudes, and their optimal
operational communication skills to make the outsiders and unfamiliar others feel
welcomed and connected in multiple situations – from breath-to-breath, identity-
to-identity, and heart-to-heart.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank the editors, Dr Annegret F. Hannawa and Dr Brian H.
Spitzberg, for their astute comments and detailed reviews of this manuscript.
References
Arasaratnam, Lily. 2007. Research in intercultural communication competence. Journal of
International Communication 13. 66–73.
Arasaratnam, Lily and Marya Doerfel. 2005. Intercultural communication competence: Identifying
key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 29. 137–163.
Baer, Ruth, Gregory Smith and Kristin Allen. 2004. Assessment of mindfulness by self-report:
The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment 11. 191–206.
Barge, Kevin. 2006. Dialogue, conflict and community. In: John Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey
(eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and
Practice, 2nd ed., 517–44. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beelmann, Andreas and Kim S. Heinemann. 2014. Preventing prejudice and improving Intergroup
attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal Of Applied
Developmental Psychology 35. 10–24.
Benet-Martinez, Veronica and Jane Haritatos. 2005. Bicultural identity integration (BII):
Components and socio-personality antecedents. Journal of Personality 73. 1015–1049.
Benet-Martinez, Veronica, Fiona Lee and Janxin Leu. 2006. Biculturalism and cognitive
complexity: Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37.
386–407.
Bennett, Janet and Milton Bennett. 2004. Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative
approach to global and domestic diversity. In: Dan Landis, Janet Bennett and Milton Bennett
(eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training, 3rd ed., 147–165. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bolls, Paul. 2010. Understanding emotion from a superordinate dimensional perspective:
A productive way forward for communication processes and effects studies. Communication
Monographs 77. 146–152.
Brewer, Marilyn. 1991. The social self: On being same and different at the same time. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 17. 475–482.
Brewer, Marilyn. 1997. The social psychology of intergroup relations: Can research inform
practice? Journal of Social Issues 53. 197–211.
Brewer, Marilyn. 2010. Social identity complexity and acceptance of diversity. In: Richard Crisp
(ed.), The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity, 11–31. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and
Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 2005. Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human
Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Broome, Benjamin. 2013. Building cultures of peace: The role of intergroup dialogue. In: John
Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication:
Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed., 737–762. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, Kirk and Richard Ryan. 2003. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and the
psychological role of well-being. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 84. 822–848.
Burgoon, Judee, Charles Berger and VincentWaldron. 2000. Mindfulness and interpersonal
communication. Journal of Social Issues 56. 105–127.
Camara, Sakile and Mark Orbe. 2010. Analyzing strategic responses to discriminatory acts: A co-
cultural communicative investigation. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication
3. 83–113.
Canary, Daniel and Sandra Lakey. 2013. Strategic Conflict. New York: Routledge.
Canary, Daniel, Sandra Lakey and Alan Sillars. 2013. Managing conflict in a competent manner.
In: John Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict
Communication, 2nd ed., 263–289. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carl, Dale, Vipin Gupta and Mansour Javidan. 2004. Power distance. In: Robert House, Paul
Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter Dorfman and Vipin Gupta (eds.), Leadership, Culture, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, 513–563. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clement, Richard, Susan C. Baker and Peter D. MacIntyre. 2003. Willingness to communicate in a
second language: The effects of contexts, norms, and vitality. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology 22. 190–209.
Collie, Phillippa, Sara Kindon, James Liu and Astrid Podsiadlowski. 2010. Mindful identity
negotiation: The acculturation of young Assyrian women in New Zealand. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 34. 208–220.
Deardorff, Darla K. 2009. Synthesizing conceptualizations of intercultural competence:
A summary and emerging themes. In: Darla K. Deardorff (ed.), The Sage Handbook of
Intercultural Competence, 264–269. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deutsch, Morton, Peter T. Coleman and Eric C. Marcus (eds.). 2006. The Handbook of Conflict
Resolution: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Devine, Patricia. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56. 5–18.
Dorjee, Tenzin. 2013. Intercultural and intergroup conflict resolution: Nonviolence and middle way
approaches. In: John G. Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict
Communication, 2nd ed., 687–711 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dorjee, Tenzin, Noorie Baig and Stella Ting-Toomey. 2013. A social ecological perspective in
understanding “honor killing”: An intercultural moral dilemma. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research 42. 1–21.
Dorjee, Tenzin, Howard Giles and Valerie Barker. 2011. Diasporic communication: Cultural
deviance and accommodation among Tibetans in exiles in India. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 32. 343–359.
Earley, P. Christopher and Soon Ang. 2003. Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across
Cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Earley, P. Christopher and Randall S. Peterson. 2004. The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural
intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of
Management Learning & Education 3. 100–115.
Ellis, Donald G. and Ifat Moaz. 2012. Communication and reconciling intergroup contact.
In: Howard Giles (ed.), The Handbook of Intergroup Communication, 153–166. New York:
Routledge.
Fisher-Yoshida, Beth. 2005. Reframing conflict: Intercultural conflict as potential transformation.
Journal of Intercultural Communication 8. 1–15.
Gallois, Cindy, Tania Ogay and Howard Giles. 2005. Communication accommodation theory. In:
William Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, 121–148. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giles, Howard (ed.). 2012. The Handbook of Intergroup Communication. New York: Routledge.
Giles, Howard and Miles Hewstone. 1982. Cognitive structures, speech, and social situations.
Language Sciences 4. 187–219.
Giles, Howard and Patricia Johnson. 1987. Ethnolinguistic vitality theory: A social psychological
approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68.
69–99.
Giles, Howard and Tamara Rakic. 2014. Language attitudes: Social determinants and
consequences of language variation. In: Thomas M. Holtgraves (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Language and Social Psychology, 11–26. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giles, Howard, Richard Y. Bourhis and Donald M. Taylor. 1977. Towards a theory of language in
ethnic group relations. In: Howard Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations,
307–348. London: Academic Press.
Giles, Howard, Charles W. Choi and Travis L. Dixon. 2010. Police–civilian encounters. In: Howard
Giles, Scott Reid and Jake Harwood (eds.), The Dynamics of Intergroup Communication, 65–
76. New York: Peter Lang.
Giles, Howard, Nikolas Coupland and Justine Coupland. 1991. Accommodation theory:
Communication, context, and consequences. In: Howard Giles, Justine Coupland and Nikolas
Coupland (eds.), Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Linguistics, 1–68.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, Howard, Scott Reid and Jake Harwood (eds.). 2010. The Dynamics of Intergroup
Communication. New York: Peter Lang.
Gudykunst, William B. 1993. Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup
communication. In: Richard Wiseman and Jolene Koester (eds.), Intercultural Communication
Competence, 33–71. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, William B. 2005. An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective
communication: Making the mesh of the net finer. In: William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing
About Intercultural Communication, 281–322. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gyatso, Tenzin. 1999. Opening the Eye of New Awareness. (Donald S. Lopez Jr., and Jeffrey
Hopkins, trans.). Boston, MA: Wisdom.
Harboom, Lotta and Peter Wallensteen. 2010. Armed conflicts (1946–2009). Journal of Peace
Research 47. 501–509.
Harwood, Jake and Howard Giles (eds.). 2005. Intergroup Communication: Multiple Perspectives.
New York: Peter Lang.
Harwood, Jake, Howard Giles and Nicholas A. Palomares. 2005. Intergroup theory and
communication processes. In: Jake Harwood and Howard Giles (eds.), Intergroup
Communication: Multiple Perspectives, 1–20. New York: Peter Lang.
Harwood, Jake and Nick Joyce. 2012. Intergroup contact and communication. In: Howard Giles
(ed.), The Handbook of Intergroup Communication, 167–180. New York: Routledge
Hecht, Michael, Ronald Jackson and Sidney Ribeau. 2003. African American Communication:
Exploring Identity and Culture, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hecht, Michael, Jennifer Warren, Eura Jung and Janice Krieger. 2005. A communication theory of
identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In: William B.
Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing About Intercultural Communication, 257–278. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations across Cultures, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hong, Ying Yi, Michael Morris, Chi-Yue Chiu and Veronica Benet-Martinez. 2000 Multicultural
minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologists
55. 709–720.
Hoskins, Marie L. 1999. Worlds apart and lives together: Developing cultural attunement. Child &
Youth Care Forum 28. 73–85.
Hotta, Jean and Stella Ting-Toomey. 2013. Intercultural adjustment and friendship dialectics in
international students: A qualitative study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13.
550–566.
House, Robert, Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman and Vipin Gupta (eds). 2004.
Leadership, Culture, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hummert, Mary L. 2010. Age group identity, age stereotypes, and communication in a life span
context. In: Howard Giles, Scott Reid and Jake Harwood (eds.), The Dynamics of Intergroup
Communication, 41–52. New York: Peter Lang.
Kabat-Zinn, Jon. 1994. Wherever You Go There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life.
New York: Hyperion.
Kim, Young Y. 2005. Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In: William
B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, 375–400. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kim, Young Y. 2013. The identity factors in intercultural conflict. In: John G. Oetzel and Stella Ting-
Toomey (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication, 2nd ed., 639–660. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Langer, Ellen. 1989. Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Langer, Ellen. 1997. The Power of Mindful Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Leung, Angela K-Y., William W. Maddux, Adam D. Galinsky and Chie-Yue Chiu. 2008. Multicultural
experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist 63. 169–181.
Maddux, William W. and Adam D. Galinsky. 2009. Cultural borders and mental barriers:
The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 96. 1047–1061.
McIntosh, Peggy. 2002. White privilege: Unpacking the invisible backpack. In: Suzanne Kelly,
Gowri Parameswaran and Nancy Schyneiderwind (eds.), Women, Images, and Realities:
A Multicultural Anthology, 424–426. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mezirow, Jack. (ed.). 2000. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in
Progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, Eleanor and Richard J. Crisp. 2014. A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact
hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17(1). 3–26.
Molinsky, Andrew . 2007. Cross-cultural code-switching: The psychological challenges of adapting
behavior in foreign cultural interactions. Academy of Management Review 32. 622–640.
Nabi, Robin. 2010. The case for emphasizing discrete emotions in communication research.
Communication Monographs 77. 153–159.
Nagata, Adair. 2004. Promoting self-reflexivity in intercultural education. Journal of Intercultural
Communication 8. 139–167.
Nguyen, Angela M. and Veronica Benet-Martinez. 2010. Multicultural identity: What is it and why
it matters? In: Richard J. Crisp (ed.), The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity, 87–114.
West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Oetzel, John and Stella Ting-Toomey. 2003. Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-
cultural empirical test of the face-negotiation theory. Communication Research 30. 599–624.
Oetzel, John and Stella Ting-Toomey. 2011. Intercultural perspectives on interpersonal
communication. In: Mark Knapp and John Daly (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication, 4th ed., 563–596. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oetzel, John, Adolfo Garcia and Stella Ting-Toomey. 2008. An analysis of the relationships among
face concerns and facework behaviors in perceived conflict situations: A four-culture
investigation. International Journal of Conflict Management 19. 382–403.
Oliha, Hannah. 2012. Critical questions: The impact and the import of the contradictions and
epistemic denials in the field of intercultural communication research, theorizing, teaching,
and practice. International Communication Gazette 74. 586–600.
Orbe Mark, Melodi Everett and Angela Putnam. 2013. Interracial and interethnic conflict and
communication in the United States. In: John G. Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey (eds.), The
Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication, 2nd ed., 661–685. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Petronio, Sandra, Naomi Ellemers, Howard Giles and Cynthia Gallois. 1998. (Mis)communicating
across boundaries: interpersonal and intergroup considerations. Communication Research
25. 571–595.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. and Linda R. Tropp. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90. 751–783.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. and Linda R. Tropp. 2008. How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice?
Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology 38. 922–934.
Pettigrew, Thomas F., Linda R. Tropp, Ulrich Wagner and Oliver Christ. 2011. Recent advances in
intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35. 271–280.
Pusch, Margaret D. 2009. The interculturally competent global leader. In: Darla K. Deardorff (ed.),
The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, 66–84. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riek, Blake M., Eric W. Mania and Samuel L. Gaertner. 2006. Intergroup threat and outgroup
attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10. 336–353.
Saunders, Harold H. 2009. Dialogue as a process for transforming relationships. In: Jacob
Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk and I. William Zartman (eds.), The Sage Handbook on Conflict
Resolution, 376–390. London: Sage.
Siegel, Daniel J. 2007. The Mindful Brain: Reflection and Attunement in the Everyday Life. New
York: Bantam Books.
Soliz, Jordan and Howard Giles. 2014. Relational and identity processes in communication:
A contextual and meta-analytical review of communication accommodation theory. In: Elisia
L. Cohen (ed.), Communication Yearbook 38. 107–144. New York: Routledge/Taylor and
Francis Group.
Spitzberg, Brain H. and Gabrielle Changnon. 2009. Conceptualizing intercultural competence.
In: Darla K. Deardorff (ed.), The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, 2–52. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, Brian and William Cupach. 1984. Interpersonal Communication Competence. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, Brian and William Cupach. 1989. Handbook of Interpersonal Competence Research.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Spitzberg, Brian and William Cupach. 2002. Interpersonal skills. In: Mark Knapp and John Daly
(eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 3rd ed., 564–611. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, Brian and William Cupach. 2011. Interpersonal skills. In: Mark Knapp and John Daly
(eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 4th ed., 481–524. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Spitzberg, Brian. 2009. Axioms for a theory of intercultural communication competence [invited
article, Japanese Association of Communication and English Teachers]. Annual Review of
English Learning and Teaching 14. 69–81.
Stephan, Walter G., Cookie W. Stephan and William B. Gudykunst. 1999. Anxiety in intergroup
relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat
theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 23. 613–628.
Tajfel, Henri. 1978. The achievement of group differentiation. In: Henri Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation
between Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 77–100. London:
Academic Press
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Tajfel, Henri and John Turner. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Steven
Worchel and William G. Austin (eds.), The Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33–47.
Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Taylor, Donald, Michael King and Esther Usborne. 2010. Towards theoretical diversity in
intergroup communication. In: Howard Giles, Scott Reid and Jake Harwood (eds.), Dynamics
of Intergroup Communication, 263–276. New York: Peter Lang.
Thich Nhat Hanh. 1991. Peace is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life. New York:
Bantam Books.
Thich, Nhat Hanh. 1998. The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching. Berkeley, CA: Parallex Press.
Thomas, David C. 2006. Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The importance of
mindfulness. Group and Organizational Management 31. 78–99.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1986. Interpersonal ties in intergroup communication. In: William.B.
Gudykunst (ed.), Intergroup Communication, 114–126. London: Edward Arnold.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1999. Communicating across Cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2004. Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. In: Dan
Landis, Janet Bennett and Milton Bennett (eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training, 3rd ed.,
217–248. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2005a. Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In: William.
CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2005b. The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In: William.
CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2009a. A mindful approach to managing conflicts in intercultural-intimate
couples. In: Terry A. Karis and Kyle D. Killian (eds.), Intercultural Couples: Exploring Diversity
in Intimate Relationships, 455–458. New York: Routledge.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2009b. Intercultural conflict competence as a facet of intercultural
competence development: Multiple conceptual approaches. In: Darla K. Deardorff (ed.),
The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, 100–120. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2010a. Mindfulness. In: Ronald L. Jackson (ed.), Sage Encyclopedia of
Identity, Vol. 1. 455–458. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2010b. Applying dimensional values in understanding intercultural
communication. Communication Monographs 77. 169–180.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2011. Intercultural communication ethics: Multiple layered issues. In: George
Cheney, Steve May and Debashish Munshi (eds.), The ICA Handbook of Communication
Ethics, 335–352. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2014. Managing identity issues in intercultural conflict communication:
Developing a multicultural identity attunement lens. In: Veronica Benet-Martinez and Ying-Yi
Hong (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity, 485–506. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ting-Toomey, Stella and Leeva C. Chung. 2012. Understanding Intercultural Communication, 2nd
ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ting-Toomey, Stella and Tenzin Dorjee. 2014. Language, identity, and culture: A process
competence perspective. In: Thomas Holtgraves (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Language and
Social Psychology, 27–45. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ting-Toomey, Stella and Atsuko Kurogi. 1998. Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An
updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22. 187–225.
Ting-Toomey, Stella and John G. Oetzel. 2001. Managing Intercultural Conflict Effectively.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella and John G. Oetzel. 2013. Culture-based situational conflict model: An update
and expansion. In: John G. Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey (eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Conflict Communication, 2nd ed., 763–789. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella, Kimberlie Yee-Jung, Robin Shapiro, Wintilo Garcia, Trina Wright and John G.
Oetzel. 2000. Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four U.S. ethnic groups.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24. 47–81.
Toomey, Adrian, Tenzin Dorjee and Stella Ting-Toomey. 2013. Bicultural identity negotiation,
conflicts, and intergroup communication strategies. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research 42. 112–134.
Triandis, Harry. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tsong-Khapa. 2000. The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment: Lamrim
Chenmo (Vol. 3. Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.
Van Dyne, Linn, Soon Ang and Christine Koh. 2009. Cultural intelligence: Measurement and scale
development. In: Michael A. Moodian (ed.), Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural
Competence: Exploring the Cross-cultural Dynamics within Organizations, 233–254.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Villagran, Melinda M. and Lisa Sparks. 2010. Social identity and health contexts. In: Howard
Giles, Scott Reid and Jake Harwood (eds.), Dynamics of Intergroup Communication, 235–247.
New York: Peter Lang.
Wiseman, Richard and Jolene Koester (eds.). 1993. Intercultural Communication Competence.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
View publication stats

Ting ToomeyDorjee2015

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ting ToomeyDorjee2015

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Ting-Toomey & Dorjee (2015), Intercultural and intergroup communication

Chapter · January 2015

Stella Ting-Toomey Tenzin Dorjee

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Face saving and izzat in India View project

Intercultural Communication Perspectives View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Keywords: affective attunement, competence desired outcomes, conflict compe-

This chapter is organized in eight sections. In the preceding section, we advo-

2 Intercultural and intergroup communication

Fig. 1: Intercultural and intergroup communication competence: A working model.

The integrative working model consists of connective pathways between the

2.1 Intercultural communication competence criteria

2.2 Intergroup communication competence criteria

other as individuals; however, they may lack competent communication skills to

3 Culture-sensitive and identity-sensitive

3.1 Intercultural value patterns’ knowledge

scious or unconscious choices concerning face-saving and face-honoring issues

Additionally, the following intercultural knowledge structures are critical: com-

3.2 Intergroup identity-sensitive knowledge

4 Developing flexible mindset and open-hearted

through intercultural–intergroup perceptions, ethnocentrism, and stereotypes (see

4.1 Recognizing the developmental states of ethnocentrism and

ethnicity, gender, social status, and geographical location. By assuming even on

4.2 Recognizing intergroup attitudes based on group vitality

5 Activating competent intercultural–intergroup

5.1 General identity-support and identity-distancing

From an intergroup theorizing standpoint, as social beings, people generally

For example, according to Hummert (2010), individuals who belong to inter-

5.2 Enacting competent intergroup conflict dialogue: Principles

two implications can be proffered based on MWA-D. One, intergroup communica-

6 Mindfulness: The connective link among

6.1 Mindfulness: General characteristics

From a Western psychological lens, mindfulness means attuning to the other

6.2 Mindfulness: The threefold facets

an ethnorelative viewfinder. Countless intercultural studies have provided evi-

6.2.2 The meta-cognition awareness facet

6.2.3 The affective attunement facet

Identity negotiation work in vulnerable intercultural–intergroup encounters is fun-

(intensity: high/low activation) and a valence dimension (direction: pleasure/dis-

relative mindset and open-hearted attitudes, and activating competent intercultur-

8.1 Future theorizing and researching directions

View publication stats

Potrebbero piacerti anche