By Matsumoto, David
In Kazdin, Alan E. (Ed). (2000). Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol.
2. (pp. 357-359). American Psychological Association. 502 pp.
obvious political gains. However there is a renewed in-
terest today in this approach. This validates the critical
psychiatric insight that, unlike outmoded scientific hy-
potheses that vanish when discredited, both determin-
istic psychiatry and antipsychiatry may be likened to
belief systems which retreat and reemerge depending
on cultural needs and norms.
Bibliography
Cohen, 0. (Ed.).(1990). Challenging the therapeutic state:
Critical perspectives on psychiatry and the mental
health system [Special issue]. Journal of Mind and Be-
havior, 15 ( I & 2). Twenty authors from ten disciplines
extend and refine criticisms of biological psychiatry and
medicalization.
Crossley, N. (r998). R. D. Laing and the British anti-
psychiatry movement: A socio-historicalanalysis. Social
Science and Medicine, 47v 877-889. Argues that British
antipsychiatry may be considered a social movement,
and explores its links to other “new social movements.”
Hoeller, K. (Ed.). (1997). Thomas Szasz: Moral philosopher
of psychiatry [Special issue]. Review of Existential Psy-
chology G Psychiatry, 23 (I, 2, & 3 ) . Contains several
well-documented articles on the meaning and impact
of Szasz’s entire accomplishment, including a rare dis-
cussion of his work before The Myth of Mental Illness
(196r).
Ingleby, 11. (Ed.). (1980). Critical psychiatry: The politics of
mrntal health. New York: Pantheon. Marxist-influenced,
mostly European strain of critical psychiatry,expressing
disagreements with both Szaszian and Laingian ap-
proaches.
Kotowicz, Z. (1997). R. I). Laing and the paths of anti-
psychiatry. New York: Routledge. Presents an excellent
introduction to, and contemporary reassessment of,
Laing’s contribution to critical psychiatry.
Scheper-Hughes, N., & Lovell, A. M. (Eds). (1987). Psychi-
atry inside out: Selected writings of Franc0 Basaglia (A. M.
Lovell & T. Shtob, Trans.). New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press. One of the few works on Basaglia available
in English. Displays the breadth of his thought on var-
ious topics and discusses the extent of his radical re-
form efforts on behalf of mental patients in Italy.
David Cohen
CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION refers to the
exchange of information between people of different
cultural backgrounds. It is a well-studied field of re-
search in several disciplines, including psychology,
speech and communication, sociology, anthropology,
and business.
Cross-cultural communication is highly related to a
similar term, intercultural communication. In actuality,
there is no difference between these terms in the con-
C R 0 S S - C U LT U R AL C OM M U N I C AT1 0 N 357
text of communication. However, there is an important
and notable difference between cross-cultural and in-
tercultural research. The former refers to the compari-
son of two or more cultures on some variable of inter-
est (e.g., differences between cultures A and B in the
expression of emotions). The latter refers to the study
of the interaction between people of two cultures (e.g.,
differences in how people of cultures A and B express
emotions when they are with people of cultures B and
A, respectively). There is yet a third term, iritracultural
communication, which refers to communication among
people within a culture. The bulk of information
in cross-cultural communication comes from cross-
cultural research, but has considerable application to
our understanding of intercultural and intracultural
communication processes.
Cultural Influences on the
Communication Process
These influences are at work via both verbal and non-
verbal communication.
Verbal Communication. Verbal language is a sys-
tem of symbols that denote how a culture structures
its world. As such, by examining language, it is possible
to see how a culture relates to its world. For example,
some languages have words that do not exist in other
cultures. The Eskimo language, for instance, has mul-
tiple words for snow while the English language has
only one (Whorf, 1956). The German word Schaden-
freude (joy in another person’s misfortunes) and the
Japanese word amae (sweet dependence), which do not
exist in English, are other examples.
That the words do not exist in other languages does
not mean that the concepts are nonexistent. In Amer-
ican culture, for example, it is very common to see peo-
ple derive joy from others’ misfortunes! Rather, such
words reflect the fact that the concept is important
enough to the culture for its language to have a sepa-
rate linguistic symbol for it. In this way, verbal lan-
guage is a manifestation of the larger culture within
which it exists.
Another example of this manifestation is the case of
self and other referents. In American English, for ex-
ample, we typically refer to ourselves as “I,” and to
someone else as “you.” There are many other lan-
guages of the world, however, that do not use such
simplistic terms for self and others. The Japanese lan-
guage, for instance, includes an extensive choice of
terms referring to oneself and others, all dependent
upon the relationship between the people interacting
(Suzuki, 1978). In Japanese, you refer to your teacher
as “teacher” or your boss at work as “section chief”
when in English the word you would normally be used.
In Japanese, terms denoting status are also used within
the family. There are even different terms for 1. depend-
ing on the nature of status relationships. The degree
358 CROSS-CULTURAL C O M M U N I C A T I O N
of politeness and fluency in the language and culture
is dependent on the ability to use this system properly.
When people speak the language of their culture,
they reinforce their concepts of culture. If you engage
fluently in the Japanese use of the elaborate system of
self and other referents, for example, you will reinforce
your own understanding of the Japanese culture’s em-
phasis on status relationships and interdependence. If
you engage fluently in American English’s “I” and
“you,” you will reinforce your view of the American
individuality and uniqueness. Culture and language
share a highly interrelated, reciprocal relationship.
That language helps to structure thought, and vice
versa, is a concept that is known as the Supir-Whorf
hypothesis. It suggests that people of different cultures
think differently,just by the very nature, structure, and
function of their language. Since the early 1960s, some
research has indicated that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
may not be true with regard to the influence of lexical
and semantic aspects of language (e.g., see the exper-
iments on color names reported in Rosch & Lloyd,
1978). But, many other studies have confirmed that
Sapir-Whorf is very valid with regard to the grammar
and syntax of language. Also, there is a small but
growing amount of evidence in research with biiin-
guals that supports the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Collec-
tively, Sapir-Whorf suggests that people who speak
different languages may interpret the same event dif-
ferently because the differences in their language are
associated with different thinking styles (e.g., see Mat-
sumoto, 1996, for a review of this line of research).
Nonverbal Communication. While cultural differ-
ences in language are very apparent, there are major
differences between cultures in nonverbal communi-
cation as well. In fact, ample studies have shown that
the bulk of message exchange in communication oc-
curs nonverbally; depending on the study, estimates of
the contribution of nonverbal behaviors to overall com-
munication range as high as 90%!
There are five categories of nonverbal behav-
iors: speech illustrators, conversation regulators, self-
adaptors, emblematic gestures, and emotion signals
(Ekman & Friesen, Serniotica, 1968, 19, 49-98). All
carry some kind of communicative value and are influ-
enced by culture. One of the most well-studied areas of
nonverbal behavior is gesture, and many cultural sim-
ilarities and differences have been documented (Morris,
Collet, Marsh, & O’Shaunessy, 1980).
Facial expressions of emotion is another well-studied
area of nonverbal communication. Research since the
1970s has shown that a small set of facial expressions
of emotion are universally expressed (see review of
early research in Ekman, 1972). These emotions in-
clude anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness,
and surprise. Cultures differ, however, in the rules gov-
erning how to use these universal expressions. These
rules-called cultural display rules-are learned rules
of expression management that dictate the appropri-
ateness of emotion display depending on social circum-
stances. Learned from infancy, we are so adept at using
these rules that by the time we are adults, we do so
automatically and without much conscious awareness.
There are cultural differences in other channels of
nonverbal behaviors, such as in gaze and visual behav-
ior, and in the use of interpersonal space. Each of these
is important in its own right, and contributes greatly
to communication. Mistaken inferences about feelings
and intentions easily occur because of misattributions
about gaze behavior that we are not accustomed to,
and interactions are often strained because they occur
at spaces that are too distant or close for comfort. Col-
lectively, the literature suggests that culture exerts a
considerable amount of influence over much of the
nonverbal behaviors that occur in intercultural com-
munication episodes.
The Process of Intercultural
Communication
As noted above, we all learn culturally prescribed rules
that govern our expressive behaviors and language.
These rules also help us to decode and interpret the
behaviors of others. As display rules are heavily influ-
enced by culture, so are our rules of decoding.
When we interact with others, a number of normal,
psychological processes occur. We naturally form cate-
gories about people to help us organize the information
we take in. We selectively attend to our environment,
as it is impossible to attend to all possible stimuli en-
tering our senses at any one time. We naturally ap-
praise the actions of others around us, and make at-
tributions about the causes of those actions. In most
cases, those appraisals and attributions are heavily de-
pendent on what we expect to be appropriate, which is
related to our own learned display rules. Finally, we
select attributions, appraisals, and categories to commit
to long-term memory. All of these normal psychological
processes underlie our own ethnocentrism (the ten-
dency to view the world through one’s own cultural
filters) and stereotypes (generalizations about categories
of people).
Interpreting the behaviors of others, however, is not
an entirely cognitive process. It is, in fact, heavily laden
with emotion and values, and extremely important to
our sense of self. The display and decoding rules we
learn and operate with, and the stereotypes that are
formed from normal psychological processes described
above, create expectations of behavior. These expecta-
tions are associated with value judgments of goodness,
worth, and appropriateness. In intracultural commu-
nication, these expectations are often met, and values
are reaffirmed. Positive emotions reinforce those values
and our own sense of self, or self-construals. These, in

turn, reinforce our own display and decoding rules, ex-
pectations, and stereotypes in a cyclical fashion.
During intercultural encounters, however, chances
are greater that we interact with people whose behav-
iors do not conform to our expectations. When this oc-
curs, we often interpret those behaviors, instinctively
and naturally, as transgressions against our value sys-
tem and morality. Consequently, they produce negative
emotions, which are upsetting to our self-construals.
The process of intercultural communication, therefore,
is an exciting and interesting one because of the si-
multaneous blending of different culturally based rules
of encoding and decoding. Unfortunately, because of
these dynamics, it is also a source of conflict.
When negative emotions are aroused in intercul-
tural encounters, these emotions tell us that there is
a discrepancy between our expectations, stereotypes,
value system, and reality. When this occurs, we can
either assimilate our observations into our expectations
(e.g., convince ourselves that our observations were a
fluke and our expectations and stereotypes are correct),
or we can accommodate our expectations to the reality
(e.g.. entertain the hypothesis that our stereotypes may
be incorrect). Intercultural communication processes,
therefore, have inherent potential for either self-growth
and the development of new ways of thinking, or a
crystallization of old ways of thinking, depending on
how the individual deals with the challenge to self and
expectations incumbent to the elicitation of the nega-
tive emotions produced by the interpretations of inap-
propriate behavior.
Because intercultural communication processes are
laden with such unknowns, there is a considerable
amount of uncertainty and anxiety attendant upon
such exchanges. By understanding that such uncer-
tainty and anxiety are natural, and by developing ways
of regulating one’s negative emotional reactions and
channeling them toward accommodation and self-
growth rather than stagnation, we can build bridges
across cultures that can help to reduce intercultural
conflict and produce effective communication.
Bibliography
Asante, M., & Gudykunst, W. (Eds.). (1989). Handbook of
intercultural and international communication. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Brislin. R.. Cushner, K., Cherrie, C.. & Yong, M. (1986).
Intercultural interactions: A practical guide. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Condon, J.. & Yousef, S. (1975). A n introduction to intercul-
tural communication. New York: Macmillan.
Ekman. I! (1972).Universal and cultural differences in fa-
cial expressions of emotion. In J. R. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation, 1971. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
CROSS-CULTURAL C O U N S E L I N G 359
Matsumoto, D. (1996). Culture and psychology. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P., & O’Shaughnessy, M.
(1980). Gestures: Their origins and distribution. New
York: Scarborough.
Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.). (1978). Cognition and cate-
gorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1997a). Communication be-
tween cultures. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1997b). Intercultural com-
munication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Suzuki, T. (1978). Japanese and the Japanese. Tokyo: Kodan-
sha.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
David Matsumoto
CROSS-CULTURAL COUNSELING. Any helping re-
lationship that assesses, understands, and evaluates a
client’s behavior in the multiplicity of cultural contexts
where that behavior was learned and is displayed may
be termed cross-cultural counseling. These cultural con-
texts may be narrowly defined to include ethnicity or
nationality, but they may also be broadly defined to in-
clude ethnographic, demographic, status, and affiliation
identifiers. According to the broad definition of culture,
all counseling is rightly understood to be cross-cultural
counseling. Culture is then a central rather than a mar-
ginal or exotic aspect of counseling, focused on the
client’s salient affiliation to each particular cultural
context. In recent years the term multicultural has been
preferred over cross-cultural counseling to emphasize
the multiplicity of cultural groups and contexts in
which counseling occurs.
The identification of specific competencies developed
when the Division 17 Education and Training Commit-
tee of the American Psychological Association (APA)
(Sue et al., 1982) published a position paper describing
a three-stage developmental sequence of competence
beginning with multicultural “awareness,” then mov-
ing to multicultural “knowledge,” and finally to multi-
cultural “skill” competencies. This framework has been
elaborated by Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis (1992) and
others who specify those competencies needed to serve
multicultural populations. The competency framework
has since been adopted by both Division 17 of the APA
and by the American Counseling Association. There is
a need for defined competencies in multicultural coun-
seling. The Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the
National Advisory Mental Health Council (1996) has
identified specific examples where ( I ) social and cul-
tural beliefs influence diagnosis and treatment: ( 2 ) di-
agnosis differs across cultures: ( 3 ) symptoms are