ABSTRACT
These distinctions are evident, and perhaps clearer, in the types of research in which CC and IC measures have been used. First, examples abound of the use of such instruments within one culture. Some studies focus on respondents’ own culture. For example, Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai (2000) investigated facework with best friends and strangers in the same culture. Naumov and Puffer (2000) examined Russian culture using Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions. Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimizu (2004) studied willingness to communicate in a second language in Japan. Other studies use CC and IC measures in only one culture, but it is a different culture from that of the research participants. For instance, Crano and Crano (1993) reported six dimensions of strain in international students’ adjustment to a new culture. Zimmermann (1995) examined international students’ perceptions of intercultural communication competence and adaptability to education in the United States, and found that they varied along affective and behavioral dimensions. B. Lee and Chen (2000) looked at communication competence related to the immigrant family’s transition from China to Canada. Monthienvichienchai, Bhibulbhanuwat, Kasemsuk, and Speece (2002) studied the communication competence, cultural awareness, and apprehension of United Kingdom teachers in an international school in Thailand. S-K Lee, Sobal, and Frongillo (2003) analyzed acculturation of Korean Americans.
