Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
11
DOI: 10.2478/jolace-2021-0008
An exploration of Chinese students’ perceived barriers to effective
intercultural communication
Xiaotian Zhang & Mingming Zhou
University of Macau, China
Abstract
Chinese students nowadays have more opportunities to engage in interactions with people from
different cultures, but meanwhile, their performance in authentic intercultural communications may be
impeded by a variety of barriers. In this study, we qualitatively explored and summarized various types of
barriers of intercultural communication as perceived by 40 Chinese students, based on Rozkwitalska’s
(2010) model. The findings revealed a series of universal barriers that coincided previous studies (e.g., lack
of confidence, shyness, feelings of remoteness, nonproficient use of functional language), and enriched
Rozkwitalska’s (2010) model with newly identified barriers (e.g., lack of stress tolerance, self-centered
communication, protection of face, discrepant performance concerning SES and age). Our study examined
intercultural communications in a more comprehensive manner and made an attempt to develop a well-
established, coherent frame of theory-building in international education research. Practical implications
for educators and schools are discussed.
Key words: intercultural communication, barriers, intercultural competence
1. Introduction
In recent years, China has witnessed a significant growth of students studying
internationally. In 2019, around 703,500 Chinese students pursued studies overseas,
making China the largest country of origin for international students in the world (Textor,
2021). Along with the increasing opportunities for Chinese young people to get involved
in intercultural communication due to globalization and internationalization (Wang,
Deardorff, & Kulich, 2017), research on a wide range of problem areas among Chinese
students abroad has been initiated. Henze and Zhu (2012) reviewed existing research on
Chinese students studying abroad and observed highly diverse research literature in this
field, with such topics as academic culture, learning style, interpersonal communication,
psychological adjustment, coping strategies, personal growth, and etc.
During the process of studying abroad, languages and cultures are inevitably exchanged
and challenges arise in intercultural communicative encounters. A range of factors have
been identified to impede the development of IC, including perceived cultural distance
(Rozkwitalska, 2010), shyness and competitiveness (Hawke, Vaccarino, & Hawke, 2011),
language differences (Peltokorpi & Clausen, 2011), and culture shock (Belford, 2017). As
Streitwieser, Le, and Rust (2012) posited, a coherent frame of theory-building has been
relatively lacking in international education research, particularly concerning the
experience of studying abroad. It is thus necessary to develop a comprehensive framework
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
12
by consolidating the various stumbling blocks to their effective performance in
intercultural exchange. The purpose of this study was hence to explore Chinese students’
perceptions of factors that hinder effective intercultural communication using a
qualitative approach. The findings would allow us to develop a framework which informs
scholars and educators in the field of cross-cultural studies of the perceived challenges and
obstacles such that corresponding interventions or solutions could be proposed and
implemented.
2. Literature review
2.1 Intercultural communication and intercultural competence
Gudykunst and Kim (2003) conceptualized intercultural communication as “...a
transactional, symbolic process involving the attribution of meaning between people from
different cultures” (p. 17), which explained how different cultural perceptions and
symbolic systems of people could alter their communication practices. Stier (2006) argued
that intercultural communication should be analyzed as a complex process, not merely as
an encounter. Indeed, the concept of intercultural communication is not confined to
communication over language barriers; rather, it includes all types of communication with
other cultures (Pergert & Tiselius, 2020). To ensure effective communication, individuals’
ability to behave and communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations
is one of the keys. Such an ability is also known as intercultural competence (Deardorff,
2009).
Intercultural competence refers to “the ability to communicate effectively in cross-
cultural situations and to relate appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts” (Bennett &
Bennett, 2004, p. 149). As Deardorff (2009) maintained, the development of intercultural
competence is an ongoing process. Engagement in intercultural communication allows
individuals to reflect on and assess the level of their own intercultural competence, which
in turn, may improve their intercultural competence. Although intercultural competence
has been differently conceptualized within intercultural communication across
disciplines, scholars generally reached a consensus on three assumptions (see Leung, Ang,
& Tan, 2014 for a review). First, intercultural competence is an integration of a range of
cognitive (knowledge), affective (attitude and motivation), and behavioral skills . Second,
the end result of the communication should cover both effectiveness and appropriateness.
Third, intercultural competence is universal. It is an ability that individuals can develop
without specifying to any culture. Individuals high in intercultural competence are
typically (a) more attentive, (b) better able to perceive intercultural signals and adjust
their behaviours, (c) more self-monitoring, (d) more empathic, and (e) more effective in
intercultural interactions (Chen & Starosta, 2000).
2.2 Barriers to intercultural communication: Rozkwitalska’s model
To achieve high levels of intercultural competence is not an easy task. Researchers have
identified a range of barriers to intercultural communication which hinder the
development of intercultural competence. To name a few, Akhmetshin and others (2017)
identified seven types of cross-cultural barriers that arise in the educational environment
in the process of intercultural interaction: emotional barriers, phonetic barriers, stylistic
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
13
barriers, intellectual barriers, semantic barriers, motivational barriers, and the barriers
initiated by the structure of the group and scheme of creating of interpersonal relations.
Azadipour (2019) posited that one’s personality types was also an important factor to
trace the barriers in cross-cultural learning context. With Chinese samples, Zhu (2020)
studied the affective barriers in intercultural communication, and put forward some
effective strategies to help communicators enhance their intercultural competence.
One major shortcoming in the past studies is that the barriers were typically treated
independently with no interrelations among one another. Given the main aim of this study
is to develop a comprehensive framework that delineates the types of barriers during
intercultural communication as well as the relationships among these different types, we
borrowed Rozkwitalska’s (2010) model of cross-cultural interactions and sources of
cultural barriers. This model presented a comprehensive set of obstructive factors for
effective intercultural communications. The original model was contextualized in cross-
cultural workplace. We deem it is applicable in most intercultural communication
scenarios in educational settings as well, as educational settings share many similarities
with workplace. For example, collaborative learning activities and teamwork that require
frequent interactions are quite common in today’s multicultural classrooms (Elliott &
Reynolds, 2014) and workplaces (Lee & Bonk, 2014). Further, both a classroom and a
company represent a social environment that would either facilitate or hinder
communication.
Rooted in major determinants of human actions (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2007),
Rozkwitalska (2010) identified three major categories of barriers influencing interactions
between people from different cultures: cultural, individual, and organizational factors.
Culturally bounded barriers can influence other communicators’ perceptions and
attitudes towards them. In this category, misunderstanding between the communicators
can easily result in communication breakdown (Korkut, Dolmaci, & Karaca, 2018), due to
the differences in language (del Pino, Higginbottom, 2013), values and standards of
behavior (Lifintsev & Canavilhas, 2017), and ways of thinking (Hawke, Vaccarino, &
Hawke, 2011). Individually rooted barriers can exert a direct impact on individual’s
behaviors in intercultural scenarios, such as feelings of remoteness (del Pino et al., 2013),
low motivation and interest (Peltokorpi & Clausen, 2011), ethnocentric viewpoints (Keles,
2013), insufficient intercultural knowledge (Lifintsev & Canavilhas, 2017), stereotypes
and inherent shyness (Keles, 2013). Organizational barriers pertain to hierarchical factors
within any organization such as inefficient information systems, lack of supervision or
training, and other deficiencies in organizational design (Rozkwitalska, 2010). Within
institutions, characteristics such as the curriculum design, pedagogy, teacher support,
classroom activities and vibes can also become facilitating or hindering factors for
students’ performance in authentic intercultural interactions. They form boundaries for
human actions, which can strengthen the cultural barriers. Using this theoretical
framework, the current paper explores the perceived barriers.
3. Present study
With the rapid development of the society and economy, Chinese students nowadays
have more opportunities to engage in intercultural communications. Peng and colleagues
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
14
(2015) maintained that Chinese students face various difficulties in authentic intercultural
communication. According to Wang and others (2010), compared to barriers to
communication with distinctly different cultural members (e.g., individualist cultures),
some barriers perceived by Chinese students are more easily removed with culturally
similar others (e.g., collectivist cultures). Additionally, Chinese students’ perceived
barriers could differ from students from other cultures due to their particular cultural
backgrounds (Xiao & Petraki, 2007). However, research showed that most college
students in China, especially non-English major students, had an inadequate level of
competence for effective intercultural communications (Fan, Wu, & Peng, 2013). Some
ascribed their ineffective performance to their inadequate intercultural knowledge and
inflexibility in intercultural interactions (Li & Sun, 2006), and preference of using hint and
maladjustment to the western thinking style (Heng, 2018).
To our knowledge, there have been some studies that tapped into barriers to
intercultural communication of Chinese students. For example, Holmes (2004) conducted
an ethnographic study on Chinese students studying in New Zealand. These students were
found not prepared for the dialogic nature of classroom communication, which created
difficulties in listening, understanding, and interacting. They also held different
expectations of writing styles, and understandings of critical analysis and plagiarism. Xiao
and Petraki (2007) examined intercultural communication competence of Chinese
students who were studying at an Australian University with questionnaires and
interviews. They found that the Chinese students encountered many difficulties when
interacting with students from other countries which they ascribed to lack of knowledge
of intercultural communication, cultural shock and differences in nonverbal
communication and politeness strategies. Gu and Maley (2008) explored the way Chinese
students in the UK adapted to their new learning environment. Both Chinese students and
their British teachers stressed the need for mutuality of understanding and action.
Personal, pedagogical and psychological factors were equally important in influencing the
intercultural adaptation process and outcomes. More recently, God and Zhang (2019)
investigated how Chinese international students and local students understand and
experience intercultural communication in an Australian university. Being restricted by
intracultural practices and norms, the students in their study were not able to fully utilise
communication techniques to establish common grounds between language and cultural
variations via meaning negotiation. This, in return, affected their motivations to have
further intercultural interactions.
The above studies revealed various barriers from different angles. However, as
Streitwieser et al. (2012) argued, we need a well-established, coherent frame of theory-
building in international education research, particularly concerning the experience of
studying abroad. Rozkwitalska’s (2010) model has been applied widely in intercultural
communication in workplace. Despite a big overlap with perceived barriers during
intercultural communication in educational settings, we expected outstanding types of
barriers that could be peculiar to Chinese students. Therefore, our investigation not only
built on the findings of previous studies, but also extended past findings with a
comprehensive model articulating the sources of cultural barriers to intercultural
interactions. By additionally taking Chinese characteristics of interpersonal
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
15
communication (e.g., value of harmony, implicit in expression) into consideration, the
present study was expected to examine intercultural communication in a more
comprehensive manner.
4. Methodology
A qualitative interview method allows us to probe the meaning or underlying reasons
of participants’ different performances and feelings in intercultural communications (Qu
& Dumay, 2011). The data was therefore collected through semi-structured interviews
which was considered as an effective way to investigate intercultural encounters
experienced by individuals (Peltokorpi & Clausen, 2011).
4.1 Participants and procedure
Previous studies on barriers to intercultural communication suggested that a number
of 30-60 participants would guarantee the data saturation (del Pino et al., 2013). Eligible
participants for this study are those have rich experiences of actual intercultural
exchanges and have not undertaken any ICC course or received ICC training. 40 Chinese
undergraduate (n = 29) and graduate (n = 11) students from 23 different universities were
recruited using respondent-driven sampling by first reaching out to 1) students majoring
in foreign language; and 2) students in overseas study/internship programs. Of these, 20%
of the participants were males, with an average age of 22.55 years (SD = 1.72). The majors
of participants were diverse, including liberal arts degrees such as Education, English,
Journalism, and science degrees such as Engineering and Bioengineering. Before the study,
consent letters were collected through the participants’ willingness to give their responses
after being explicitly informed of the nature and purpose of the study. In-depth semi-
structured interviews about users’ intercultural communication experiences, and their
perceptions of barriers to effective outcomes were conducted with each participant
individually via WeChat (a popular social networking software) using voice call.
The interviews were conducted by the first author following the three steps as
suggested by Qu and Dumay (2011). First, we prepared an interview guide outlining
questions to be addressed based on Rozkwitalska’s (2010) model. Second, we polished the
interview guideline by specifying different types of questions used, i.e., direct questions to
elicit direct responses (e.g., In your past communications with culturally different others,
did you feel your knowledge of of the communicator’s culture influence the effectiveness
of your communication?); probing questions to draw out more complete narratives (e.g.,
Could you give a more detailed description of what happened?). Third, we started the
interviews while being mindful of all prepared questions as well as necessary interpreting
questions (e.g., Is it correct that you feel that [...]?) and throw away questions (e.g., Oh, I
forgot to ask you [...]). In order to avoid participants’ misunderstanding about the
interview questions or obstacles in accurately expressing their ideas, all the interviews
were conducted in the participants’ mother tongue (Mandarin). All the interviews lasted
for 50-80 minutes. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed on verbatim.
The transcriptions were sent to the participants for confirmation.
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
16
4.2 Interview guideline
Our interview guideline was based on the model of cross-cultural interactions and
sources of cultural barriers by Rozkwitalska (2010). Interview probes were developed by
following the elements depicted in this model. Given that our targets of investigation were
university students in China, we adapted the model by replacing organizational factors
with institutional factors. Example questions were “Do you tend to be
shy/nervous/restless/incoherent when interacting with people from [countries of
interviewees’ communication partners]?” (Individually rooted factors), “During your past
communication with people from [countries of interviewees’ communication partners],
when you expressed your needs, would you tell the other person directly, or would you
try to throw a hint at the other person?” (Culturally bonded barriers), “Did the courses you
took and the clubs you joined at your university help you learn about different cultures?”
(Institutional factors). Additionally, barriers documented in existing literature that can be
mapped to this model were further used to generate interview questions. Questions about
participants’ past intercultural communication experiences were also solicited. Each of the
direct interview question were followed up with probing questions to obtain detailed
description or examples of interviewees’ experiences, so as to ensure the interview
questions are sufficiently in-depth for quality interview responses and analysis (Qu &
Dumay, 2011).
4.3 Data analysis
The interviews transcripts were analyzed following Miles and Huberman’s (1994)
scheme of qualitative data analysis. In both inductive and deductive manners, the authors
looked for evidence about the participants’ perceived barriers to effective performance in
their previous intercultural communications. Based on the structure of the interview
guideline, the headings of different dimensions of intercultural competence were first
taken as the initial categories (e.g., individually rooted-barriers). Subheadings of the
interview guideline was then served as sub-categories (e.g., personality). As the analysis
went more in-depth, specific codes were generated according to relevant content that fell
into any of the categories. To enhance the validity of the data analysis, the two authors
analyzed the data independently and conducted several rounds of discussion comparing
the codes and categories on the common highlighted statements, until a final agreement
was reached. During the whole process, the authors have also engaged in reflection with
continuous self-critique and self-appraisal to minimize the influence of their own
experiences on the stages of the research process (Koch & Harrington, 1998).
5. Results and discussion
5.1 Experiences of intercultural communications
Before delving into the barriers perceived by our participants, their past intercultural
communication experiences were first investigated. As shown in Table 1, participants in
the present study encountered culturally different people from different continents in
various situations, three major categories were identified as academic study, workplace,
and personal life. This evidenced that intercultural dialogues with different degree of
cultural distance are now permeating different aspects of everyday life of Chinese
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
17
Category
Specific Occasions
Number
Academic
Study
Attending courses with classmates from different cultures
10 (25%)
Attending courses instructed by foreign instructors
5 (12.5%)
Exchange programs to foreign universities
5 (12.5%)
Graduate studies supervised by foreign professors
1 (2.5%)
Research projects with participants from foreign countries
1 (2.5%)
Workplace
Internships in foreign countries
13 (32.5%)
Internships in China with foreign colleagues/clients
6 (15%)
Part-time jobs as an interpreter or a translator
5 (12.5%)
Personal Life
Friendship/relationship with foreigners
9 (22.5%)
International trips
6 (15%)
Continents
Cultures of participants’ communicatees
Number
Africa
Tanzania
4 (10%)
Nigeria
2 (5%)
Egypt
1 (2.5%)
Kenya
1 (2.5%)
Madagascar
1 (2.5%)
America
USA
25 (62.5%)
Canada
7 (17.5%)
Brazil
2 (5%)
Argentina
1 (2.5%)
Columbia
1 (2.5%)
Mexico
1 (2.5%)
Asia
Thailand
15 (37.5%)
Korea
7 (17.5%)
Japan
6 (15%)
Vietnam
4 (10%)
India
3 (7.5%)
Cambodia
2 (5%)
The Philippines
2 (5%)
Bangladesh
1 (2.5%)
Israel
1 (2.5%)
Kazakhstan
1 (2.5%)
Mongolia
1 (2.5%)
Nepal
1 (2.5%)
Pakistan
1 (2.5%)
Europe
UK
9 (22.5%)
France
5 (12.5%)
Germany
4 (10%)
Russia
4 (10%)
Ireland
3 (7.5%)
Italy
3 (7.5%)
Portugal
3 (7.5%)
Switzerland
3 (7.5%)
Spain
2 (5%)
Austria
1 (2.5%)
Czech Republic
1 (2.5%)
Denmark
1 (2.5%)
Finland
1 (2.5%)
Norway
1 (2.5%)
Oceania
Australia
5 (12.5%)
New Zealand
1 (2.5%)
Palau
1 (2.5%)
Table 1. Intercultural communications experienced by participants
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
18
students. The increasingly culturally diversified communities in China, the growing
opportunities for overseas study, as well as the international connections allowed by
technological advancement, have all provided Chinese university students ample
opportunities for both abroad and inland intercultural interactions.
5.2 Culturally bonded barriers to effective intercultural communication
Seventeen types of barriers in total were identified after in-depth analysis of the
interview data. We described the barriers by varying levels as depicted in Rozkwitalska’s
(2010) model.
5.2.1 National culture: SES, age, listening-centered style of communication, and
culture of face
Culture plays a central role in effective communication because it does not only
represent the total of shared experiences but also shapes the life experiences of the
individuals who occupy a particular culture as members of that community (Nieto, 2010).
In our study, culture is also reflected as family culture. Traditional parenting style in China
has been variously labeled as “authoritative”, “controlling”, and “restrictive” (Ang & Goh,
2006). Such family atmosphere was reported to develop children’s internal problems for
interpersonal communication as reflected in their self-contained and reserved
performance when individual-level power distance appeared between the communicators
(Lu & Chang, 2013). This coincides Bruner’s (1990) framework of cultural psychology,
which denoted that distinct patterns with cultural differences in individuals’ behaviors
mainly stemmed from the default strategies which individuals come to rely on in familiar
situations. Based on our dataset, the first identified subcategory was concerned with
discrepant performance when facing communicators of different social economic status
(SES) and age. Thirty-eight participants indicated that the distance between one’s own and
the other person’s SES often result in their reserved and inauthentic self-impression, and
the low efficiency of the communication. As some participants recalled, this could largely
be ascribed to their self-abasement in front of authority as developed under traditional
Chinese parenting style, wherein the children’s opinions were often ignored. As some
participants reflected, in their past interactions with people with higher SES, they inclined
to express ideas in an explicit way, be more tolerant to ideas that out of line with theirs,
then hide their real thoughts or beliefs about the topic of concern. For example,
“I am a little bit of fear of power and stuff, even when I disagreed with my
student’s parent [official of the government], I would say something
complimenting on her ideas, and gave up my opinions. She never knows the
real me.” (Participant 8)
When interacting with culturally dissimilar people of different ages, our participants
pointed out that their performance could be different in aspects of the breadth and depth
of topics discussed, motivation for and authenticity of information delivery, and tolerance
to offensive speech from the communicator. The effectiveness of relevant communication
was considered to be lower when communicators were much younger or older than the
participants.
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
19
“My culture requires me to respect the elders, those from other cultures are
no exception. My attitude of being not so serious, or very tolerant about their
messages as right or wrong, invalidated the information I send out.”
(Participant 40)
Fifteen of the participants related their communication style to the education they
received which encouraging an individual to show respect to others by being a good
listener, and to stay low-key and modest in communication. Directed by this
communication style, participants found themselves could be easily misunderstood by the
communicators for being indifferent or weak-minded in giving responses.
“He [colleague] thought I was not interested in the topic he started, but I
was just trying to show respect and give him enough room to express his ideas.”
(Participant 13)
The notion of face in Chinese culture demonstrates aspects of social image unfolded to
others, including one’s self-respect, honor, status, reputation, credibility, and competence
(Oetzel et al., 2001). The notion of face constitutes the deep mental structure of Chinese
people (Liu, 2017). Even in large metropolitan, relatively ‘Westernized’ cities, face is
visible in such scenario as inter- and intra-company communication (Upton-McLaughlin,
2013). As Holmes (2006) observed, this virtue in interpersonal interactions could prompt
individuals’ frequent face-giving and face-protecting behaviors along with an indirect or
listening-centered style of communication. Goffman (1959) illuminated that when
individuals foreboded to present an incompetent image of self during communication with
others, the face could be saved or protected through restrained performance. As four
participants recalled, once they placed much attention on not making fool of themselves
during the communication, they would restrain their curiosity for the communicators’
cultures, and deliver inauthentic or reduced information.
“Making mistakes in front of others could be humiliating, as my parents
taught me, talks more, errors more.” (Participant 28)
5.3 Individually rooted barriers to intercultural communication
5.3.1 Personality: Shyness and lack of confidence
An overwhelming majority of participants (97.5%) believed that personality of
individuals can greatly influenced their performance in intercultural communications.
After an intensive recall of the authentic intercultural communications they have
experienced before, the participants reported two major personality-related barriers:
shyness and lack of confidence. Research on Asian people’s intercultural communication
showed that sometimes Asian people (e.g., Thai) deliberately appeared to be shy in order
to maintain social harmony. Shyness then became a strategic performative behavior which
is not a result of external factors or incompetent behavior per se (Vinitwatanakhun, 2019;
Chaidaroon, 2003). However, in our dataset, eight participants who perceived themselves
as introverted people considered shyness as the largest barrier to intercultural
communications. Specifically, when participants felt shy and anxious, they took a negative
part in the communication with culturally dissimilar others by spontaneously avoiding
any possible verbal communication or cutting down necessary information so as to end
the communication as fast as they could. Importantly, an in-depth probing of the
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
20
underlying reasons of the shyness as admitted by these participants indicated that the
nonproficient use of the foreign language to communicate greatly fueled their shyness. For
example,
“…my focus was not on what other group members were saying, I couldn’t help
checking whether what I said was correct and polite or not, and that how I missed
some important information from them.” (Participant 17)
“...but I would definitely do much better and be less shy if I was speaking my
mother tongue.” (Participant 36)
Lack of confidence is a common problem for individuals speaking another language.
The associated anxiety may decrease the chances for conversation (Lin, 2012). People may
fear that their low language competence will affect their impression in front of others.
Three participants in this study admitted that when they were involved in intercultural
communication, their lack of confidence often led them to truncated or unsmooth
interactions. This personality trait was particularly linked to underdeveloped skills of
using functional language for effective information delivery and reception. For example,
“He [a Japanese driver] might thought I was not interested in their culture,
but my reserved responses were just because I was not confident enough in
well expressing myself in Japanese.” (Participant 10)
5.3.2 Human nature: Self-absorption in communication
Nakayama and Martin (2014) critically maintained that how humans can equivalently
consider the interests and needs of communicators during communication is limited, as
humans are by nature self-centered and egocentric. Previous studies consistently implied
that when people ignored the role of intercultural communication as an ego-reduction and
self-decentering practice, they seemed more inclined to concern solely or chiefly about
one’s own interests and needs throughout the communication (Brooks & Pitts, 2016).
Five participants acknowledged that they could be sometimes self-absorbed in
interpersonal communications. They would withdraw their attention from information
delivered or queried by other communicators, after they caught the information they
intended to obtain in a conversation. In subsequent information exchange, the participants
would neglect the information from the others, or merely responded in a perfunctory way.
For example,
“My aim in group discussion was to get helpful information to complete my
part of the assignment, after that, I easily got distracted and became less
talkative.” (Participant 29)
5.3.3 Attitude: Feelings of remoteness
Hofstede (1980) identified cultural distance as an important stimulus for
communicators’ uncomfortable feelings with unfamiliarity and uncertainty during
intercultural interactions. Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) asserted a strong impact
of such unfamiliarity and uncertainty avoidance on intercultural relationships, denoting
that individuals from two cultural extremes would particularly experience a high degree
of feeling of remoteness from each other. Such feelings of remoteness caused by cultural
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
21
distance was perceived by sixteen of the participants to hinder their intercultural
communications. Our findings coincided previous studies suggesting that the greater the
difference between two cultures, the more problems the communicators may encounter
in communicating effectively (del Pino et al., 2013; Hawke, Vaccarino, & Hawke, 2011).
Factors that could estrange participants from potential communicators including cultural
differences in lifestyle, ways of doing and thinking. This would directly produce
misunderstandings, impair individual’s motivation for information delivery, and even
lead to the deliberate avoidance and other negative emotions of such communication. For
example,
“… when I was with classmates from, say, Columbia, I felt at odds more often,
did not think we would have much common topics or hobbies, so I was reluctant
to hang out with them. Even when the dialogues had to happen, I was not the
active one.” (Participant 3)
5.3.4 Perception: In-group favoritism, prejudices and stereotypes
In-group favoritism, or ethnocentric viewpoints held by any communicators displaying
the pride of one’s cultural symbols and values while despising that of the others, can
influence all intercultural interactions (Dong, Day, & Collaço, 2008). As profiled in past
studies, the major syndromes of such perceptions (i.e., ingroup solidarity and outgroup
hostility) can limit mutual understanding yet breed conflict and avoidance of interaction
(Jacobi, 2018; Nameni, 2020). Thirteen participants have perceived the destructive effects
of such perceptions on their intercultural communications. According to these
participants, it was natural to make comparisons between different cultures during
intercultural communication. However, so long as any of the communicators made
superior judgement regarding the cultural differences under discussion, the other side(s)
would very likely to experience feelings of aversion, and diminished motivation for
communication.
“Once he (classmate) believed I was arrogant about my culture, he started
to ‘beat back’ by listing the weaknesses under his impression about my culture.
That just made the communication worse.” (Participant 39)
Prejudices and stereotypes, as the extension of ethnocentrism, are repeatedly
identified obvious barriers to intercultural communication (del Pino et al., 2013).
According to Samovar and Porter (1991), intercultural communication can be continually
impeded when individuals interpret the behaviour of communicators with unfounded
and biased preconceptions to categorize and classify people and situations. Eighteen of
the participants reported that their prejudices and stereotypes for communicators
generated conflicts, misunderstandings, and uncomfortable feelings during intercultural
communications. As the participants commented, such negative outcomes could be of no
benefit to eradicate the existing prejudices and stereotypes one had for other cultures.
“I argued with him [classmate] for a long time, but we were not solving the
misunderstandings, instead, we brought out more prejudices and stereotypes we
had for each other.” (Participant 4)
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
22
5.3.5 Motivation: Lack of motivation for intercultural communication
Lack of motivation for intercultural communication was often observed in participants’
unwillingness to play an active role in initiating communications, or being informative
during the communication. This barrier was perceived by eleven participants in their low
frequency of information exchange and awkward communication vibes. This is consistent
with previous results (Xiao & Petraki, 2007) indicating that the nature, purpose, and
audience of the communication, and the knowledge about the topic could influence the
degree of their motivation.
“I was more interested in people from cultures that were quite different from
mine, seldom approached those from similar cultures as mine, so when I had to
talk to them, I became short-spoken.” (Participant 7)
5.3.6 Knowledge: Insufficient intercultural knowledge
Wiseman, Hammer, and Nishida (1989) asserted that knowledge of the host and target
culture is crucial for an individual to minimize possible misunderstandings, as it proffers
important information about the norms and communication rules for communicators to
understand each other’s behaviors. Intercultural knowledge (i.e., language, dominant
values, beliefs, customs, and prevailing ideology), therefore, has been consistently posited
to be imperative for effective intercultural communication (God & Zhang, 2019). Lack of
knowledge of individual’s own culture and communicator’s culture were deemed by
thirty-one participants to decrease the effectiveness of their communications with people
from different cultures. These participants repeatedly reported their insufficient
knowledge about Chinese culture in aspects of politics, history, and religion. When these
topics appeared in intercultural communications, they always found it difficult to provide
accurate information queried by the communicators.
“I couldn’t tell clearly about that historical event of my country, the teacher
looked confused, I was quite embarrassed.” (Participant 11)
Deficient knowledge about the communicator’s culture, as clarified by the participants,
incomprehensive or inaccurate understanding of cultural behaviors thwarted active
delivery of information, reduced topics and depth of communication, and gave rise to
misunderstandings, stereotypes and prejudices.
“I thought he [colleague] had some moral issues when I happened to know he
had two wives at the same time. So my attitude was really bad during our first
few communications. I later learned that it was actually legal for men to have
more than one wife.” (Participant 24)
Lack of knowledge in terms of language differences between different cultures was
found to boost misunderstandings and lags in responses during communications. This
included styles of humor, nonverbal expressions, use of expression symbols in online
communication and etc. For example,
“He (language partner) thought I was upset for what he said, but it turned out
that I just used the same emoji in his cultural context showing sad feelings to express
something funny, as used frequently in my cultural context.” (Participant 7)
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
23
Interestingly, although have recognized it as a barrier, few students also considered
the lack of intercultural knowledge as potential facilitator for intercultural
communication. That is, the lack of knowledge of certain topics may actually create
valuable opportunities for promoting the communication, and knowledge construction.
For example,
“Just because of the lack of knowledge, there were lots of questions, and
questions are good topics for communication.” (Participant 15)
5.3.7 Skills and abilities: Non-proficient use of functional language and lack of
stress tolerance
The fundamental ways in which language can be a barrier to intercultural
communication are problems of vocabulary, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual
equivalence, especially when communicators do not share a common language (Jandt,
2001). Previous studies have observed individuals’ reduced engagement in intercultural
communication because of their perceived imperfect command of foreign language (God
& Zhang, 2019). Insufficient linguistic skill, from our research findings, was emphasized
by twenty-two participants to be a salient barrier to effective intercultural
communication. These participants realized that because they were not well versed in
using the functional language for information exchange was problematic more often than
not. This paramount basis for further interpretation or decoding of the information was
hence ill-established. One participant particularly pointed out, even though he had
sufficient intercultural knowledge for proceeding effective communication, language
barrier could make the sharing process to be bristled with difficulties.
“The hotel receptionist had to repeat for many times to let me understand
what she was trying to say, that had really slowed our communication.”
(Participant 33)
Communicating with culturally different others generates varying levels of
psychological and sociocultural stress requiring adjustment (Barna, 1983). As Redmond
and Bunyi (1993) identified, how well an individual was able to tolerate or cope with
stress and perform consistently in situations with unforeseen challenges, depended on
one’s skills for intercultural communication and acculturation (e.g., resilience, language
proficiency, cultural knowledge, adaption to different communication styles, etc.). Lack of
stress tolerance as a barrier was noted by six participants when the surroundings and
topics under discussion made them nervous. In other words, participants’ inability for
actively coping with stress made their performance out-of-kilter in intercultural
communication. This is mainly caused by the intense exposure to stressful environment,
or challenging topics that required high concentration and immediate response.
“Sometimes the topics I needed to interpret are complicated and difficult, I
made more mistakes than usual as I got more and more nervous and even
distracted a bit from what my employer was saying.” (Participant 1)
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
24
5.3.8 Intelligence level: Lack of cultural intelligence
Cultural intelligence or cultural quotient (CQ) deals with an individual’s capability to
accurately grasp and reason with cultural concepts, solve problems, and behave
effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity (Ang et al., 2007). As one major
dimension of CQ, metacognitive CQ reflects the mental process that individuals use their
abilities of planning, monitoring and revising the communication to acquire and
understand cultural knowledge (Earley & Ang, 2003). CQ was found to influence cultural
judgement and decision-making during interactions (Rozkwitalska, 2010). Four
participants perceived their low metacognitive CQ as a barrier to intercultural
communications. In their attempts to monitor and evaluate the process of intercultural
communication, these participants found themselves struggling with drawing an accurate
and timely conclusion, particularly in terms of the progress and enjoyableness of the
current communication. This was also considered to impede individuals to fine-tune the
subsequent communication.
“I hesitated a lot on the timing to facilitate or end a topic, as I found it difficult
to tell whether the other side had well gotten my message, or whether he or she
was offended by any of my words or nonverbal actions.” (Participant 25)
5.4 Organizational barriers to intercultural communication
5.4.1 Institutional ethnocentrism: Ethnocentric viewpoints concerning school ranking
and country’s development level
Ethnocentric viewpoints at an institutional level, based on six participants’
illustrations, depicted individual’s sense of superiority over the communicators regarding
the rank of their universities, and their country’s level of development. Similar as the way
that general ethnocentric perceptions hinder effective intercultural communication,
participants would neglect or despise communicator’s opinions, and tended to actively
express themselves during the communication. As a result, participants were less likely
to effectively receive messages delivered by the communicators. Our findings echoed
Rozkwitalska’s (2010) study in which staffs in transnational corporations perceived their
institutional ethnocentric attitudes, on the other hand, enlarged the distance between the
communicators, and consequently made the communication unpleasant.
“I thought they [student visitors] might not see as much as we did, so when I talk
with them, I always assumed I knew much more than them.” (Participant 17)
5.4.2 Cultural characteristics of institutions: Lack of opportunities for intercultural
communication
Growing evidence (Eisenchlas & Trevaskes, 2007; Zhang & Zhou, 2019) suggests that
intercultural communication skills can best be developed through experiential learning,
wherein knowledge is created through individuals’ grasp and transformation of
experiences during frequent exposure to different cultures. However, the majority of
participants in this study did not have much experience in cross-cultural communication
due to the cultural characteristics of their universities. As Lough (2011) noted, sufficient
opportunities for intercultural integration can facilitate the understanding and
acceptance of different cultures. Lack of opportunities for authentic intercultural
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
25
communication in universities, according to eight participants, would generate gaps
between the intercultural knowledge and skills they acquired from relevant courses or
textbooks, and the expected effective performance in authentic intercultural
communications. From their points of view, frequent intercultural contacts during college
years would offer students ample opportunities to validate the authenticity of theoretical
knowledge they learned in classroom.
“If I had more opportunities to get along with international students before
my internship, I believe I could perform better in later real intercultural
communication I encountered…..” (Participant 29)
6. Conclusions and implications
In this study, we explored and summarized various types of barriers of intercultural
communication as perceived by Chinese students, based on Rozkwitalska’s (2010) model
(see Figure 1).
Fig. 1: Model of cultural barriers during intercultural interactions. (The underlined
categories were newly added based on the current study.) Source: Rozkwitalska, 2010,
Chapter 2.1, Figure 2.1 (Permission obtained from the author).
A unique contribution of this study is the enrichment of Rozkwitalska’s model by the
emergence of new subcategories as reflected by our data. Specifically, the 17 types of
barriers include: personality (i.e., shyness, sensitivity, lack of confidence), culturally
Per son
Country
A
Per son
Country
B
Cross-cultural (intercultural) interactions
Determinants of behaviour:
lIndividual factors:
◦Attitudes
üFeelings of remoteness
◦Perception
üIn-group favoritism
üPrejudices and stereotypes
◦Motivation
üLack of motivation for intercultural communication
◦Individual characteristics:
▪Knowledge
üInsufficient intercultural knowledge
üInsufficient knowledge of language differences
▪Skills, abilities
üNonproficient use of functional language
üLack of stress tolerance
▪Intelligence level
üLack of cultural intelligence
lOrganisational factors:
◦Institutional ethnocentr ism
üEthnocentric viewpoints concerning rank of school and
country’s level of development
◦Cultur al character istics of institution
üLack of opportunities for intercultural communication
Levels of mind programming:
lPersonality
üShyness
üLack of confidence
lNational culture
üDiscrepant performance concerning SES and age
üListening-centered style of communication
üProtection of face
lHuman nature
üSelf-absorption in communication
1Culturally bonded barriers
2Individual rooted barriers
3Organisational barriers
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
26
bonded barriers (i.e., discrepant performance concerning SES and age, listening-centered
style of communication, protection of face), human nature (i.e., self-absorption in
communication), attitudes (i.e., feelings of remoteness), perception (i.e., ethnocentric
viewpoints, prejudices and stereotypes), motivation (i.e., lack of motivation), knowledge
(i.e., insufficient intercultural knowledge, insufficient knowledge of language differences),
skills and abilities (i.e., nonproficient use of functional language, lack of stress tolerance),
intelligence level (lack of cultural intelligence), institutional ethnocentrism (i.e.,
ethnocentric viewpoints concerning school ranking and country’s level of development),
and cultural characteristics of institution (i.e., lack of opportunities for intercultural
communication).
Massive efforts made by scholars in this field undoubtedly advanced the development
of assessment tool of and intervening practice for improving intercultural competence
(Deardorff & Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017). Considering the influence of individually and
culturally rooted factors as discussed in previous sections, however, the real-world face-
to-face or online intercultural situations can often bring individuals unpredictable
challenges (Logan, Steel, & Hunt, 2015). It is therefore unlikely for researchers and
practitioners to rely on one-size-fits-all tools to meet the various needs of individuals from
different cultures. We hereby argue that it is of equal importance to identify individuals’
perceived barriers, with and without specific cultural characteristics, in the authentic
intercultural encounters. These identified barriers are believed to provide a fuller picture
for researchers who aim at developing effective tools to assess intercultural competence
of, and to identify hindering factors to effective intercultural communication perceived by
individuals with similar cultural background as our participants.
Important implications can also be drawn from our findings for educators and schools.
For educators, a deeper understanding of potential barriers that students may experience
in authentic intercultural communication, can help teachers to equip learners with needed
intercultural communication skills through effective pedagogical design to avoid such
barriers, as well as to understand communicators’ culturally bonded barriers with a
decent level of dissimilarity openness (Lloyd & Härtel, 2003). For schools, it appears to be
important for curriculum designers to avail ample opportunities for optimal development
to learners’ intercultural communication competence, by integrating real-life intercultural
communications into textbook-based teaching. As such, learners will be able to
consolidate and authenticate the knowledge they have learned during personal
engagement in intercultural communications. As suggested by researchers, such
intercultural links can be effectively established using mobile technology in nowadays
classrooms in forms of peer or group collaborative learning (Mittelmeier et al., 2018).
A few limitations of this study need to be noted. First, participants of this study included
only Chinese university students, the identified barriers to their past intercultural
communications may limit the findings to be generalized to other cultural groups,
especially for members from individualist cultures. Our findings, instead, allow future
comparative studies to identify possible similarities of and differences between barriers
to effective intercultural communications from a cross-cultural perspective. Second, most
barriers as reported by our participants were based on their face-to-face intercultural
communication experiences which required more immediate reactions. Given the high
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
27
percentage of Chinese university students who are on social media platforms in the age of
connectivity, it is therefore necessary for future studies to investigate or compare possible
barriers in different platforms for intercultural communication, such as digital platform
that may ease the information exchange (Balvin & Tyler, 2006). Third, the overwhelming
majority of participants in this study were females, this could leave gender bias to our
results. Future research with similar purpose is hence suggested to take gender
differences into consideration. Fourth, due to the limited labor and time, this study failed
to scrutinize the roles that the context of communication, participants’ gender, SES, and
other demographic variables play in shaping their own perceptions of these IC
interactions. Future studies are thus encouraged to take these factors into account and
compare individuals’ perceptions of their performance in both one-off meeting and
regular interactions.
Declaration
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Akhmetshin, E. M., Makulov, S. I., Talysheva, I. A., Fedorova, S. Y., & Gubarkov, S. (2017).
Overcoming of intercultural barriers in the educational environment. Man in
India, 97(15), 281-288.
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2006). Authoritarian parenting style in Asian societies: A cluster-
analytic investigation. Contemporary Family Therapy, 28(1), 131-151.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-006-9699-y
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007).
Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision
making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization
Review, 3(3), 335-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Azadipour, S. (2019). Personality types and intercultural competence of foreign language
learners in education context. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 8, 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp44718
Balvin, N., & Tyler, M. C. (2006). Emotions in cyberspace: The advantages and
disadvantages of online communication. Organisational Psychologist, 5-8.
Barna, L. (1983). The stress factor in intercultural relations. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin
(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training volume 2: Issues in training methodology (pp.
19-49). Pergamon Press.
Belford, N. (2017). International students from Melbourne describing their cross-cultural
transitions experiences: Culture shock, social interaction, and friendship development.
Journal of International Students, 7(3), 499-521.
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v7i3.206
Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative
approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. Bennett & M. Bennett (Eds.),
Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 147-165). Sage.
Brooks, C. F., & Pitts, M. J. (2016). Communication and identity management in a globally-
connected classroom: An online international and intercultural learning experience.
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 9(1), 52-68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2016.1120849
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
28
Chaidaroon, S. (2003). When shyness is not incompetence: A case of Thai communication
competence. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 195-208.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the Intercultural
Sensitivity Scale. Human Communication, 3, 1-15.
Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Sage.
Deardorff, D. K., & Arasaratnam-Smith, L. A. (2017). Intercultural competence in higher
education: International approaches, assessment and application. Routledge.
del Pino, F. J. P., Soriano, E., & Higginbottom, G. M. (2013). Sociocultural and linguistic
boundaries influencing intercultural communication between nurses and Moroccan
patients in southern Spain: A focused ethnography. BMC Nursing, 12(1), 14-22.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6955-12-14
Dong, Q., Day, K. D., & Collaço, C. M. (2008). Overcoming ethnocentrism through
developing intercultural communication sensitivity and multiculturalism. Human
Communication, 11(1), 27-38.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford University Press.
Eisenchlas, S., & Trevaskes, S. (2007). Developing intercultural communication skills
through intergroup interaction. Intercultural Education, 18(5), 413-425.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980701685271
Elliott, C. J., & Reynolds, M. (2014). Participative pedagogies, group work and the
international classroom: An account of students' and tutors' experiences. Studies in
Higher Education, 39(2), 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709492
Fan, W. W., Wu, W. P., & Peng, R. Z. (2013). A survey on self-evaluation of Chinese college
students’ intercultural competence. Chinese Foreign Language, 6, 53-59.
God, Y. T., & Zhang, H. (2019). Intercultural challenges, intracultural practices: How
Chinese and Australian students understand and experience intercultural
communication at an Australian university. Higher Education, 78(2), 305-322.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0344-0
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Gu, Q., & Maley, A. (2008). Changing places: A study of Chinese students in the UK.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 8(4), 224-245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470802303025
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim. Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to
intercultural communication. McGraw-Hill.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication.
Sage.
Hawke, F. V., Vaccarino, F., & Hawke, E. (2011). How you doing, mate? The perceptions of
benefits and barriers in forming friendships with international students: A New
Zealand perspective. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(2), 177-189.
Heng, T. T. (2018). Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereotypes of Chinese
international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22-
36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1152466
Henze, J., & Zhu, J. (2012). Current research on Chinese students studying
abroad. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1), 90-104.
https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2012.7.1.90
Higginbottom, G. (2013). Sociocultural and linguistic boundaries influencing intercultural
communication between nurses and Moroccan patients in southern Spain: A focused
ethnography. BMC Nursing, 12(1), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6955-12-14
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
29
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2007). Kultury i organizacje. PWE.
Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning and intercultural communication:
Ethnic Chinese students in a New Zealand university. Business Communication
Quarterly, 67(3), 294-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569904268141
Holmes, P. (2006). Problematising intercultural communication competence in the
pluricultural classroom: Chinese students in a New Zealand university. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 6(1), 18-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470608668906
Jacobi, L. (2018). Ethnocentric attitudes of American and international students:
Assessing the impact of collaboration. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research, 47(6), 530-544. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2018.1506352
Jandt, F. E. (2001). Intercultural communication: An introduction. Sage.
Keles, Y. (2013). What intercultural communication barriers do exchange students of
Erasmus Program have during their stay in Turkey, Mugla?. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1513-1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.219
Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(4), 882-890. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2648.1998.00725.x
Korkut, P., Dolmaci, M., & Karaca, B. (2018). A study on communication breakdowns:
Sources of misunderstanding in a cross-cultural setting. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 18(78), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.78.7
Lee, H., & Bonk, C. J. (2014). Collaborative learning in the workplace: Practical issues and
concerns. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 7(2), 10-17.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v7i2.3850
Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M. L. (2014). Intercultural competence. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 489-519.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091229
Li, C. Y., & Sun, Y. N. (2006). An analysis of student volunteers’ intercultural
communicative competence at international conference. Journal of Suzhou University,
5, 21-23.
Lifintsev, D. S., & Canavilhas, J. (2017). Cross-cultural management: Obstacles for
effective cooperation in multicultural environment. Scientific Bulletin of Polissia, 2(10),
195-202. https://doi.org/10.25140/2410-9576-2017-2-2(10)-195-202
Lin, Y. (2012). Chinese international students’ intercultural communication competence
and intercultural communication apprehension in the USA [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. East Tennessee State University.
Liu, J. (2017). Face culture and Chinese family moral education. Moral Education China, 3,
16-20.
Lloyd, S. & Härtel, E. J. (2003). The intercultural competencies required for inclusive and
effective culturally diverse work teams. Monash Univeristy.
Logan, S., Steel, Z., & Hunt, C. (2015). Investigating the effect of anxiety, uncertainty and
ethnocentrism on willingness to interact in an intercultural communication. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114555762
Lough, B. J. (2011). International volunteers’ perceptions of intercultural competence.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(4), 452-464.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.06.002
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
30
Lu, H. J., & Chang, L. (2013). Parenting and socialization of only children in urban China:
An example of authoritative parenting. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 174(3), 335-
343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2012.681325
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Sage.
Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., Hillaire, G., & Whitelock, D. (2018). The
influence of internationalised versus local content on online intercultural
collaboration in groups: A randomised control trial study in a statistics course.
Computers & Education, 118, 82-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.003
Nakayama, T., & Martin, J. (2014). Ethical issues in intercultural communication
competence: A dialectical approach. In X. D. Dai & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Intercultural
communication competence: Conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts
and interactions (pp. 97-117). Cambridge Scholars.
Nameni, A. (2020). Research into ethnocentrism and intercultural willingness to
communicate of Iraqi and Iranian medical students in Iran. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 49(1), 61-85.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2019.1708430
Nieto, S. (2010). Understanding multicultural education in a sociopolitical context. In S.
Nieto (Ed.), Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives (pp. 38-65).
Routledge.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001).
Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan,
and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235-258.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128061
Peltokorpi, V., & Clausen, L. (2011). Linguistic and cultural barriers to intercultural
communication in foreign subsidiaries. Asian Business & Management, 10(4), 509-528.
https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2011.20
Peng, R. Z., Wu, W. P., & Fan, W. W. (2015). A comprehensive evaluation of Chinese
college students’ intercultural competence. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 47, 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.04.003
Pergert, P., & Tiselius, E. (2020). Intercultural competence and communication over
language barriers. In K. A. Mazur & S. L. Berg (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Pediatric
Hematology/Oncology (pp. 203-222). Cham.
Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in
Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238-264.
https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070
Redmond, M. V., & Bunyi, J. M. (1993). The relationship of intercultural communication
competence with stress and the handling of stress as reported by international
students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17(2), 235-254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(93)90027-6
Rozkwitalska, M. (2010). Barriers of cross-cultural communication according to the
research findings. Journal of Intercultural Management, 2(2), 37-52.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1991). Communication between cultures. Wadsworth.
Stier, J. (2006). Internationalisation, intercultural communication and intercultural
competence. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 11, 1-12.
Streitwieser, B. T., Le, E., & Rust, V. (2012). Research on study abroad, mobility, and
student exchange in comparative education scholarship. Research in Comparative and
International Education, 7(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/zc459
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2021, 9(2)
ISSN 1339-4584
31
Textor, C. (2021). Number of students from China going abroad for study from 2009 to
2019. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/227240/number-of-
chinese-students-that-study-abroad/
Upton-McLaughlin, S. (2013). Gaining and losing face in China. The China Culture Corner.
Retrieved from https://chinaculturecorner.com/2013/10/10/face-in-chinese-
business/
Vinitwatanakhun, A. (2019). Shyness and language achievement in a Thai EFL context.
Language and Communication in the Era Glocalization, 80, 85-92.
Wang, S., Sun, X., & Liu, C. (2010). Intercultural analysis of communication anxieties
encountered by international students in the United States. Intercultural
Communication Studies, 19(2), 217-234.
Wang, Y. A., Deardorff, D. K., & Kulich, S. J. (2017). Chinese perspectives on intercultural
competence in international higher education. In D. K. Deardorff & L. A. Arasaratnam-
Smith (Eds.), Intercultural competence in higher education: International approaches,
assessment and application (pp. 95-109). Routledge.
Wiseman, R. L., Hammer, M. R., & Nishida, H. (1989). Predictors of intercultural
communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3),
349-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(89)90017-5
Xiao, H., & Petraki, E. (2007). An investigation of Chinese students’ difficulties in
intercultural communication and its role in ELT. Journal of Intercultural
Communication, 13(2), 66-78.
Zhang, X., & Zhou, M. (2019). Interventions to promote learners’ intercultural
competence: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 71, 31-
47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.04.006
Zhu, S. (2020). A study on affective barriers in intercultural communication and related
strategies. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(12), 1651-1655.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1012.20
Contact:
Xiaotian Zhang
Faculty of Education
University of Macau
Av. Padre Tomas Pereira
Taipa, Macau
SAR, China
e-mail: mollyzhangxt@163.com
