Park- Asian and European American cultural values and communication styles among Asian American and European American college students.

Participants

  • Sample Size: 346 college students (210 Asian American, 136 European American).

    • Asian Americans: 114 female (54.3%), 96 male (45.7%).

    • European Americans: 81 female (59.6%), 55 male (40.4%).

  • Mean age of Asian Americans: 20.24 years (SD = 2.21), range 18-26.

  • Mean age of European Americans: 19.84 years (SD = 1.49), range 18-23.

  • Breakdown of Asian Americans by generation:

    • 1st gen: 29%

    • 2nd gen: 59.9%

    • 3rd gen: 2.4%

    • 4th gen: 3.3%

    • 5th gen: 1.9%

    • Others: 4.3%

  • Breakdown of European Americans by generation:

    • 2nd gen: 10.3%

    • 3rd gen: 10.3%

    • 4th gen: 12.5%

    • 5th gen: 38.2%

    • Others: 28.6%

Cultural Values and Communication

  • Communication literature suggests cultural influences on communication style vary notably across groups.

  • Asian cultures tend to use high-context communication:

    • Information is derived from context rather than explicit communication (Hall 1976).

    • Emphasis on making inferences based on context.

  • Western cultures mostly use low-context communication:

    • Information heavily derived from explicit codes (Hall 1976).

  • Communication styles identified include:

    • High-context: indirect, inferring meaning, interpersonal sensitivity, feelings-guided behavior, silence.

    • Low-context: dramatic, dominant, animated, open, friendly, contentious, impression-leaving.

Influence of Confucianism

  • Confucianism impacts Asian communication, emphasizing harmony and context.

  • Informs how Asian individuals relate to social status and context in conversations.

  • Use of indirect communication helps maintain harmony and avoids direct confrontation (Searle 1969).

Study Purpose

  • Examine how cultural values influence communication styles in a college-aged context.

    • Higher adherence to emotional self-control in Asian Americans relates to differences in communication styles compared to European Americans.

Hypotheses

  • Hypothesis 1: Both groups will show low context communication styles (contentious, dramatic, open, precise) versus high context styles (indirect, inferring meaning, interpersonally sensitive).

  • Hypothesis 2: Asian Americans will show lower use of low context and higher use of high context styles compared to European Americans.

  • Hypothesis 3: Adherence to Asian values will relate positively to high context and negatively to low context styles.

Methodology

Power Analysis

  • Conducted prior to the study to confirm adequate sample size based on regression analyses outcomes.

  • Calculated sample sizes for different effect sizes (small, medium, large) using Cohen’s (1988) guidelines.

Participants

  • 346 participants as previously detailed.

Measures

Cultural Value Scales

  • Asian American Values Scale—Multidimensional (AAVS-M): Measures adherence to Asian cultural values.

    • Subscales:

    • Collectivism (n = 7, α = .89)

    • Conformity to Norms (n = 7, α = .79)

    • Emotional Self-Control (n = 8, α = .80)

    • Family Recognition (n = 14, α = .90)

    • Humility (n = 6, α = .81)

    • High scores indicate strong adherence.

European American Values Scale for Asian Americans—Revised (EAVS-AA-R)

  • Measures Asian Americans' adherence to European values (25 items, α = .78).

Survey of Asian American Communication (SAAC)

  • Measures communication styles across various dimensions: contentious, dramatic, open, precise, indirect, interpersonal sensitivity, inferring meaning.

  • Items rated on 7-point Likert scales; higher scores reflect greater use of the communication style.

Results

  • Communication Style Loadings:

    • PCA revealed two components for both groups reflecting expected high and low context styles (except for indirect communication style in Asian Americans).

  • Sex and Race Effects were accounted for during analysis with significant differences noted between groups regarding openness and indirect styles, after adjusting p-values.

  • Variables explained variance in communication styles through regression analyses were noted:

    • Contentious: 11% variance explained

    • Indirect: 17% variance explained

    • Open: 11% variance explained

    • Interpersonal Sensitivity: 7% variance explained.

Discussion

  • Study supported the hypothesis regarding communication styles; significant differences were observed between cultural groups.

  • Mediational analysis noted emotional self-control’s significant roles in explaining group differences for indirect and open styles.

  • Adherence to Asian values was linked to indirect strategies and lower openness; contrasting European dependency on assertiveness and self-expression.

  • Indications for further research include the contextuality of interactions and the complexities of normative expectations affecting communication outcomes.

  • Limitations include sampling constraints and measurement reliability issues.

References

  • Multiple academic references cited regarding communication theory, cultural values, and psychological assessments relevant to the study.