0000 Art�culo motivos interpersonales.pdf

7/15/2019 0000 Art�culo motivos interpersonales.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/0000-artculo-motivos-interpersonalespdf 1/13

International Journal of Intercultuml Relations, Vol. 16, pp. 145-151, 1992 0147.1767/92 $5.00 + .LM

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.

A CROSS-CULTURAL EXAMINATION OF

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION MOTIVES

IN MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES

REBECCA B. RUBI N

Kent State University

CARLOS FERNANDEZ COLLADO and

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ-SAMPIERI

Universidad Andhuac

ABSTRACT This study examined cultural differences in motives for interper-

sonal communication by comparing a general US. sample with student samples

from the US. and Mexico. Past research indicated six main motives that peoplehave for initiating conversations with others: Pleasure, Escape, Relaxation, In-clusion, Affection, and Control. Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions of national cul-ture-power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity-

were used to predict cross-cultural differences in these interpersonal motives.Eight hypotheses were tested. Results indicated that Mexican scores were notsignificantly higher than US. scores on interpersonal control, relaxation, and

escape motives (as predicted), but were significantly lower than US. scores oninterpersonal affection, pleasure, and inclusion motives (as predicted). Therewere significant negative relationships between the interpersonal communication

motives and age in the US. data, but not in the Mexican data. Also, significantpositive relationships between gender and the affection and inclusion motives and

negative relationship between gender and control motives were found only for theUS. samples.

In cross-cultural communication research, researchers compare one or

more cultures on the concepts of interest. In the past, researchers have

examined cross-culturally, for example, facial expression emotions

(Ekman, 1972), vocal emotions (Beier & Zautra, 1972), nonverbal sensi-tivity (Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979), emotional

states (Scherer, Wallbott, 8~ Summerfield, 1986), and communication

apprehension (McCroskey, Fayer, & Richmond, 1985). Most of these

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the International

Communication Association, May 1991, Chicago.

Reprint requests should be sent to Rebecca B. Rubin, School of Communication Studies,

P.O. Box 5190, Kent State University, Kent OH 44242.

I45



146 R. B. Rubin, C. E Collado, and R. Hernandez-Sampieri

early studies sought to describe similarities and differences between mem-

bers of different cultures.

More recently, however, researchers have grounded their research intheoretical perspectives that allow for more elaborate forms of hypothesis

testing (Gudykunst, 1987). This paper reports a cross-cultural examina-

tion of interpersonal communication motives. We expect differences to

exist because of the differences in cultural values held by U.S. and Mexi-

can citizens.

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION MOTIVES

In 1966, William Schutz proposed that people have three basic inter-

personal needs: inclusion, control, and affection. People need to be in-

cluded and to include others, to exert control over others and allow

control to be exerted over themselves, and to give and receive affection.

However, little research has been conducted over the past 20 years to

discover the validity of this proposition.

Uses and gratifications researchers, meanwhile, have searched for mo-

tives for media use (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974). Why is it that

people turn to the media? What motives are fulfilled by the media, and

what needs call forth these motives? Alan Rubin (1981) identified a vari-

ety of television motives.

Following the suggestion of media uses and gratifications researchers

(Elliott & Quattlebaum, 1979; Katz, Gurevitch, & Haas, 1973; A. Rubin

& Windahl, 1986), R. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) developed an

Interpersonal Communication Motives (ICM) Scale. In the development

of this scale, they identified six basic interpersonal communication mo-

tives: Pleasure, Escape, Relaxation, Inclusion, Affection, and Control.They discovered a negative relationship between these motives and age,

and a positive relationship between gender and the affection and inclu-

sion motives. In addition, communication apprehension was negatively

related to pleasure, affection, and control, and positively related to inclu-

sion. Communication satisfaction was positively related to pleasure, af-

fection, inclusion, and relaxation motives. The development of this scale,

then, allows researchers to test theory-based hypotheses about how cul-

ture influences the motives people have for interpersonal communica-tion.

CULTURAL VALUES

Geert Hofstede (1980), in examining organizations cross-culturally, has

found four dimensions of national culture: power distance, uncertainty

avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. These four dimensions help to

explain why and how culture shock occurs when people travel to other



I nt erpersonal M ot i ves 147

cultures. They also allow us to hypothesize cross-cultural differences in

interpersonal communication.

Power distance is the degree to which power in institutions and organi-zations is distributed unequally. Specifically, Hofstede (1980) refers to

subordinates’ perceptions of the distance between themselves and their

bosses, yet the concept is closely related to “subjective political compe-

tence,” or how people feel regarding their political efficacy (Almond &

Verba, 1963). Cultures with high scores on power distance are depicted as

ones in which all people are not equal in society. As Hofstede has argued,

people in countries that are low in power distance see others as equals,

and this affects their interpersonal relationships. People in low-power-distance cultures might readily express their feelings toward one another,

whereas those in high-power-distance cultures might use communication

to gain and retain control.

Mexico is a culture that has a high score (80) in power distance, where

“Even the middle classes seem to feel at the mercy of forces beyond their

control” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 107). According to Fuentes (1988, pp. 102-

103), “Mexico is a very formalistic country. If you don’t have a title, you

are nobody: nadie, ninguno.” The U.S. has a relatively low power

distance score (40). Thus, we might expect members of a high-power-

distance culture, such as Mexico, to use communication as a way to

maintain control, and members of a low-power-distance culture, such as

the U.S., to use communication to show affect in interpersonal relation-

ships (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).

Hypothesis 1: Mexican scores will be significantly higher than U.S.

scores on interpersonal control motives.

Hypothesis 2: U.S. scores will be significantly higher than Mexicanscores on interpersonal affection motives.

Uncertainty avoidance is the degree of threat people experience be-

cause of their lack of tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty (Hofstede,

1980). Cultures with high scores on uncertainty avoidance: (a) need and

create formal rules and regulations, (b) rely on advice of experts, and (c)

lack tolerance for deviant behaviors or ideas. Workers in high uncertainty

avoidance cultures hesitate to change jobs, avoid competition, and are

more satisfied with their country.According to Hofstede (1980), Mexico has a higher score (82) on uncer-

tainty avoidance than the U.S. (46). The more ambiguity, the higher the

anxiety and energy release. High stress results in aggressiveness, talkative-

ness, and expressiveness. Latin cultures, traditionally high on uncertainty

avoidance, tend to engage more in communication (i.e., they are more

talkative), which, in turn, reduces stress. Thus, we would expect cultures

high in uncertainty avoidance to communicate more to relax and escape

the anxiety and stress found in the uncertain nature of the culture:



148 R. 3. Rubi n, C. t;: Col l ado, and R. Hernandez-Sampieri


scores on interpersonal relaxation and escape motives.

Z~div id~al is~ represents a focus on the good of the individual rather

than the good of the collective (Hofstede, 1980). People in individualistic

cultures see their own goals as more important than those of the group.

They focus on individual pleasure and personal enjoyment in life and

have the need to communicate to form friendships. Communication in

collective countries such as Mexico (30) would not need to focus on

including others or expressing affection, because these close relationships

already exist and were predetermined early in life through family affilia-tions. People from the U.S. (91), however, must make their own way

in life and form their own collectives, or friendships. Thus, we would

expect:

Hypothesis 4: U.S. scores will be significantly higher than Mexican

scores on interpersonal pleasure and inclusion motives.

Mascul in i ty is the value of things and money rather than people, quali-

ty of life, and nurturance (Hofstede, 1980). Men are more assertive, andwomen are more nurturing, so residents of a country high in masculinity

would communicate more to control, and those in a country low in

masculinity would communicate more for affection and inclusion. Al-

though Mexico (69) and the U.S. (62) are very much alike on this dimen-

sion, we would expect small differences to emerge:

Hypothesis 5: U.S. scores will be significantly higher than Mexican

scores on affection and inclusion motives. (Note consis-tency with Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4.)


scores on control motives. (Note consistency with Hy-

pothesis 1.)

We expect, then, that the U.S. and Mexico cultures will differ on the six

basic motives for interpersonal communication. A full test of these hy-

potheses will involve testing the original factor structure of the ICM

scale, comparisons between cultures for each motive, and partial replica-tion of past results to see if demographic variables are linearly related to

the motives as they had previously been shown to be (Downs & Javidi,

1990; R. Rubin et al., 1988). We expect that Mexican college students

would produce similar patterns of relationships between communication

motives and demographics:

Hypothesis 7: There will be significant negative relationships between

the interpersonal communication motives and age.



Interpersonal Motives 149

Hypothesis 8: There will be significant positive relationships between

gender and the affection and inclusion motives, and

negative relationship between gender and controlmotives.

METHOD

Sample

The Mexican sample consisted of 225 undergraduate students from

three major universities in the Mexico City metropolitan area. Ages ofthe respondents ranged from 18 to 32 years (M = 20.55, SD = 2.38);

males accounted for 53.3% of the sample. Respondents shared their liv-

ing quarters with an average of 5.30 (SD = 1.91) other people. Of these

students, 46.22% lived in upper middle class neighborhoods, 36.44% in

middle class neighborhoods, and 17.34% in lower class areas; 83.9% of

the sample attended a private university and 16.1% a public institution

(62.7% had completed four or fewer semesters).

There were two U.S. samples. The first consisted of 504 people withages ranging from 12 to 91 years (M = 40.26, SD = 16.98); males ac-

counted for 44.8% of the sample, and respondents shared their living

quarters with an average of 3.29 (SD = 2.49) other people (R. Rubin et

al., 1988). Because this baseline sample was much broader in demograph-

ics than the Mexican sample, a second U.S. sample was obtained for

purposes of comparison in this study. This sample consisted of 477 un-

dergraduate students from Kent State University. Ages of the respondents

ranged from 18 to 47 years (M = 20.86, SD = 3.70); males accounted

for 48.2% of the sample. Respondents shared their living quarters with an

average of 3.39 (SD = 1.74) other people. Students who had completed

four or fewer semesters made up 58.7% of the sample.

Procedures

The R. Rubin et al. (1988) Interpersonal Communication Motives

Scale, consisting of 59 items, was translated into Spanish. In Mexico a

linguistic pretest was administered to 20 respondents who were represen-tative of the sample that would actually participate in the study. During

the pretest, linguistic problems were noted and necessary modifications

were subsequently made. To ensure further that the semantic content of

the Spanish version was equal to that of the U.S. version, it was translated

back into English by a bilingual individual who had not been previously

exposed to the English version. The back translation was then compared

to the original English version; no significant semantic inconsistencies

were noted.



150 R. B. Rubi n, C. E Col l ado, and R. Hernandez-Satnpi eri

Data collection procedures for the general U.S. sample are found in R.

Rubin et al. (1988). The Mexican and U.S. college samples received the

measures in questionnaire booklets in classes or outside of class (to fulfillcourse research requirements). All respondents were volunteers.

RESULTS

Factor Structure

To test the factor structure of the ICM scale, the Mexican sample’s 59

interpersonal communication motives were subjected to principal compo-nents analysis with Varimax rotation. All procedures used by R. Rubin et

al. (1988) were followed, including the second factor analysis used previ-

ously to assess stability of the factor structure. The criteria for a factor to

be retained were an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and two primary factor

loadings of at least .55 with no secondary loadings over .40. The solution

identified 15 factors that accounted for 66.1% of the initial variance.

Factors 6 to 15 were excluded from further analyses because they failed to

meet the criteria. The remaining 5 factors accounted for 44.2% of thevariance and were made up of 17 items. These 17 items were again factor

analyzed to assess the stability of the factor structure. As shown in Table

1, five of the six original dimensions of interpersonal communication

motives were represented in this sample’s factor solution. Relaxation was

not a separate factor for the Mexican sample.

Factor 1 represented a Pleasure motive. It accounted for 17.4% of the

variance after rotation. Four of the original eight items were included on

this factor.

Factor 2, Escape, accounted for an additional 15.4% of the variance. It

included three of the four original escape items and one relaxation item.

Factor 3, Inclusion, accounted for 12.8% of the variance. It included

two of the original four inclusion items.

Factor 4, Affection, accounted for an additional 12.1% of the vari-

ance. It included three of the five original affection items.

Factor 5 was a Control factor. It accounted for 9.5 % of the variance. It

included two of the three original control items.

Tests of Hypotheses

To test the hypotheses, one-way analyses of variance were performed.

First, however, subscales had to be constructed. The subscales for the six

main motives each consisted of three items; these items were essentially

those identified by R. Rubin et al. (1988), with two minor exceptions. On

the relaxation and escape motives, the items loading fourth replaced the

highest loaded items in order to increase internal consistency of the scale.For consistency, then, the same method of computing subscale scores was



Interpersonal Motives I51

TABLE 1

interpersonal Communication Motives: Primary Factor

Loadings for Mexican Sample

interpersonal Motive items Interpersonal Motive Factors

“Hablo con la gente ‘I 1 2 3 4 5

Factor 1: Pleasure

Because I just like to talk (4.09 f 0.99)

*Because I enjoy it (4.09 f 0.95)

*Because it’s fun (3.70 * 0.97)

‘Because it’s entertaining (3.80 + 0.87)

*Because it’s thrilling (3.33 f 1.05)

Factor 2: Escape

‘To get away from what I’m doing

(2.31 zt 1.13)

“To get away from pressures and

responsibilit ies (2.27 f 1.13)

*To put off doing something I should

be doing (2.30 f 1.16)

Because it makes me feel less tense

(2.92 f 1.11)

Factor 3: inclusion

*Because I just need to talk about my

problems sometimes (3.64 f 1 .Ol)

Because it helps me to feel close to others

(3.67 + 1.01)

*Because it’s reassuring to know someone

is there (3.22 f 1.21)

Factor 4: Affection

*Because I’m concerned about them

(3.42 f 1.01)

‘To help others (3.64 + 1.03)

‘To show others encouragement(3.51 zt 1.08)

Factor 5: Control

‘To get something I don’t have

(2.50 + 1.11)

“Because I want someone to do something

for me (2.44 f 1.07)

-

.79 .oo .16 .09 -.26

.79 -.02 .14 .13 -.09

.77 .16 .02 .16 .05

.70 .ll .07 .Ol .16

.64 .08 .19 .14 .32

.13 .86 .06 .05 .14

.Ol .81 .07 .09 .16

.03 .75 .lO - .09 .23

.19 .63 .40 .21 - .Ol

.ll .09 .79 .08 .13

.28 .06 .75 .12 -.04

.04 .25 .74 .19 .16

.09 .08 .19 .82 .03

.17 .12 -.02 .80 .09

.16 - .08 .34 .72 .17

.03 .21 .05 .14 .80

.09 .26 .16 .09 .77

Note 7. The parenthetical numbers are each item’s mean and standard deviation. The

varimax-rotated factor solution explained 67.1% of the common variance.

Note 2. items with asterisks were also highly loaded factor items in the original study andscale development (Rubin et al., 1988).

used for all three samples. Coefficient alphas for these 3-item subscales

for the total sample (ranging from 1184 to 1196) were: Pleasure, .78;

Affection, .75; Inclusion, .76; Escape, .71; Relaxation, .75; Control, .73.

A one-way analysis of variance was then performed for each motive,

with sample as the independent variable. As shown in Table 2, the U.S.general sample scores were significantly lower than the U.S. student sam-



152 R. B. Rubi n, C. E Col l ado, and R. Hernandez-Sampi eri

TABLE 2

Analysis of Variance of Interpersonal Communication for Three Samples

Interpersonal Mexican U.S. U.S.

Communication Students Students General

Motives (n = 216) (n = 477) (n = 504) F P

Pleasure

Affection

InclusionEscape

Relaxation

Control

3.37a

3.36a

3.28a2.20a

2.86a

2.56

3.69a

4.01a

3.71ab

2.88a

3.41a

2.66a

3.20a

3.68a

3.22b

2.36a

3.05a

2.48a

41.19 ,001

58.05 ,001

38.33 ,001

68.12 .OOl

39.16 ,001

5.18 .Ol

Note 7. Means with common subscripts across rows are significantly different using theTukey-B procedure @ < .05).

ple scores on all six motives. Table 2 also shows that the U.S. student

sample scores were significantly higher than the Mexican student sample

on all motives except control, where the scores were very much alike.

These findings indicate that Hl/H6 and H3 were not supported, while

H2/H5 and H4 were supported.

Pearson correlations were used to test the relationships predicted in H7and H8. As shown in Table 3, age was unrelated to the interpersonal

communication motives in the Mexican sample, while it was related to the

motives for both U.S. samples. Gender was unrelated to all motives for

TABLE 3

Correlations Between Interpersonal Communication Motives and Demographics

Interpersonal Communication Motives

Pleasure Affection Inclusion Escape Relaxation Control

Gender

Household size

U.S. Student

@J ;5,477,Gender

Household size

US. General

@ A=ge504’Gender

Household size

- .09

.08

.13

-.15**.27’*

.02

- .25**

.15”

.Ol

- .lO

- .Ol

.09

- .08.23* l

- .02

.13**

.26* *

- .03

- .03

.07

.14’

-.26’*.26**

- .02

-.16**

.26”

- .08

.04

-.lO

.Ol

-.20”.07

.Ol

-.22**

.05

- .Ol

- .02

- .07

.05

-.14” - .oo.19** -.24**

- .03 .12”

- .05 - .08

.20** -.21**

- .02 - .02

.02- .lO

.05

Note 7. For gender, male = 1, female = 2.

“p < .05. lp < .Ol.




the Mexican sample, but was related to pleasure, affection, inclusion, and

relaxation for the U.S. samples. Household size was virtually unrelated to

communication motives.

DISCUSSION

These data indicate that cultural differences between the U.S. and Mex-

ico might account for differences in motives for interpersonal communi-

cation. As predicted in H2, H4, and H5, the U.S. culture, having lower

levels of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, collectivity, and mascu-linity, places greater emphasis on using communication for pleasure,

affection, and inclusion: “It is important, at all ages and in all occupa-

tions, to be ‘popular’ in the United States” (Fuentes, 1988, p. 87). U.S.

citizens use communication to show affection towards others, to have

fun, and to include others. According to Octavia Paz (1961, p. 19),

Mexicans tend to withdraw and seek solitude: “We increase our solitude

by refusing to seek out our compatriots, perhaps because we fear we will

see ourselves in them, perhaps because of a painful, defensive unwilling-

ness to share our intimate feelings.” Also, Mexicans tend not to use

communication for pleasure motives, as U.S. citizens do: “We are suspi-

cious and they are trusting. We are sorrowful and sarcastic and they are

happy and full of jokes” (Paz, p. 24).

Gudykunst, Yoon, and Nishida (1987) pointed out that in collectivistic

cultures communication with out-group members is more synchronized,

and behavior is governed by situational norms, not individual needs. In

individualistic cultures, level of intimacy and self-disclosure is a result of

a person’s desire to form relationships with others. So one would expecthigher levels of affection and inclusion motives for individualistic U.S.

citizens.

Hypothesis 3 predicted higher levels of escape and relaxation for Mexi-

cans, yet the data clearly show higher scores on these two motives for the

U.S. sample. The hypothesis stemmed from Hofstede’s assumption that

aggressiveness and expressiveness result from high uncertainty avoidance

in the culture. The assumption made here was that the reason for the

higher levels of talkativeness was stress reduction (i.e., to relax and toescape). Perhaps those reasons still exist, but at levels lower than those in

the U.S. According to Paz (1961), Mexicans do not escape the unpleasant

aspects of life; they face death, horror, and sorrow. North Americans,

however, substitute “social truth for the real truth, which is always dis-

agreeable” (Paz, p. 23), whereas “the Mexican tells lies because he de-

lights in fantasy, or because he is desperate, or because he wants to rise

above the sordid facts of his life.” Perhaps U.S. citizens, having used

communication more to relax and to escape stress, (a) help form a lower



154 R. B. Rubin, C. R Collado, and R. Hernandez-Sampieri

uncertainty avoidance culture through their communication, and (b) are

better able to tolerate ambiguity, uncertainty, and change because they

use communication to relax and escape stressful situations.Hypotheses 1 and 6, predicting higher levels on the control motive for

Mexicans, also were not supported. As hinted at in the rationale for H6,

the masculinity scores of both cultures are similar, so any differences

found would be expected to be slight. Differences between the U.S. and

Mexico in power distance, however, were expected to affect power motives

for interpersonal communication.

Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) argued a strong case for use of

expressions of affect based on power distance, but the case for controlmessages was not as strong. Perhaps messages of control are unnecessary

when power distance is very high. “The language of Mexicans springs

from abysmal extremes of power and impotence, domination and resent-

ment” (Fuentes, 1988, p. 98). Communication is not very instrumental in

nature. Rather than persuade another to a diverse position, Mexicans will

lead the listener to believe that they do agree with the other; so communi-

cation is not often used for control. North Americans “consider it to be

something that can be redeemed” (Paz, 1961, p. 24). Control may not be

manifest or appropriate when power distance is great.

Collier (1988; Collier, Ribeau, & Hecht, 1986) found that Mexican-

Americans develop rules for interacting intraculturally with acquain-

tances who are not control-based. These rules stress politeness, friendli-

ness, and relationship solidarity, whereas white and black Americans

emphasize goal accomplishment (i.e., control). “The Mexican-American

is said to be very fatalistic in his view of the world, feeling that he has very

little control over nature, over institutions, over people, or over events”

(Casavantes, 1976, p. 10).Results concerning the demographic differences expected for the two

cultures are less easy to explain. We expected age and the interpersonal

motives to be negatively related. The age differences in motives, differing

slightly for affection from the general U.S. sample, were not at all appar-

ent for the Mexican sample. The age range of the U.S. student sample was

greater than that of the Mexican group, and this might be one reason for

the differences. Since the original study, Downs and Javidi (1990) have

replicated the finding that age was related to affection motives in the U.S.Another possible explanation concerns how age is defined. In the ear-

lier study (R. Rubin et al., 1988) chronological age was used, yet previousresearch looked at contextual age-an indication of life position rather

than simply number of years lived. In one contextual age study, contex-

tually younger people (defined by better health and lower economic secu-

rity) used television for escape and social interaction, whereas older peo-

ple used television for relaxation, product advertising, and behavioral




guidance (R. Rubin & A. Rubin, 1982). In another contextual age study,

all of the elderly were found to differ on communication motives, and the

contextual age factors seemed to mediate their motives for television use(A. Rubin & R. Rubin, 1982). Contextual age may prove to be more

informative in future interpersonal communication motives research.

Gender differences also failed to emerge for the Mexican sample, when

they did in the U.S. student and general samples. Cultural sex-role man-

dates that women be nurturing (communicating for affection and inclu-

sion) and that men be instrumental (communicating for control) are

apparent in the Mexican culture (Murillo, 1976), but these different sex

roles were not apparent in the interpersonal communication motives. Pastresearch has indicated that Mexican-American men and women differ on

how important assertiveness is in the Mexican American culture (Collier,

1986). Mexican men are characterized as aloof, rarely showing affection

to their children, and Mexican women are viewed as nurturing and de-

monstrative with their families and friends (Murillo, 1976; Padilla, 1976).

The Mexican sample here may have been too young to demonstrate these

expected sex-role differences. Future research should investigate more

thoroughly intracultural and cross-cultural gender differences in interper-

sonal communication motives.

Also, the samples studied here may not have been typical of the two

cultures. Hofstede (1980) based his cultural differences dimensions on

data gathered from organizational employees. College students, although

possessing general cultural traits, may be somewhat different from the

general population of organizational employees, just as a sample of or-

ganizational employees might differ from a general population. Future

research might include cultural measures to confirm the validity of the

dimensions prior to hypothesis testing.

Lastly, the results of this study help us better understand U.S.-Mexican

cultural differences and similarities. Pleasure, affection, and inclusion

had the highest means for both cultures, and control had the lowest for

both. Had control been the highest motive in one of our cultures, com-

munication between the two would probably be extremely difficult.

Multicultural comparisons would provide interesting and important in-

formation about ease of intercultural communication. Training pro-

grams, for example, could focus on the differences found and identifymethods for interacting better with people with different motives. This

sort of research might also help in translating Hofstede’s (1980) cultural

values, developed in the organizational sphere of life, into predictions

relevant for interpersonal communication settings. Research focused on

examining interpersonal communication motives at work and those in

social settings might clarify the role of context in the reasons why people

initiate conversations with others.



156 R. B. Rubin, C. E Col iado, and R. Hernandet-Sampier i

REFERENCES

ALMOND, G. A., & VERBA, S. (1963). The civic culture: Poli tical afti fudes anddemocracy in ive nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

BEIER, E. G., & ZAUTRA, A. J. (1972). Identification of vocal communication

of emotions across cultures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

34, 166.

CASAVANTES, E. (1976). Pride and prejudice: A Mexican American dilemma.

In C. A. Hernandez, M. J. Haug, & N. N. Wagner (Eds.), Chicanos: Socialand

psycho~ogical~erspectives (2nd ed., pp. 9-14). St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.

COLLIER, M. J. (1986). Culture and gender: Effects on assertive behavior and

communication competence. Communication Yearbook, 9, 576-592.COLLIER, M. J. (1988). A comparison of conversations among and between

domestic culture groups: How intra- and intercultural competencies vary. Com-

munication Quarter& 36, 122-144.

COLLIER, M. J., RIBEAU, S. A., & HECHT, M. L. (1986). Intracuitural com-

munication rules and outcomes within three domestic cultures. International

Journal of I ntercultu ral Relations, IO, 439-457,

DOWNS, V. C., & JAVIDI, M. (1990). Linking communication motives to loneli-

ness in the lives of older adults: An empirical test of interpersonal needs and

gratifications. Jour nal of Apphed Communication Research, 18, 32-48.ECKMAN, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of

emotion. Nebraska Symposium on ~ot~vatjon, 19, 207-284.

ELLIOTT, W. R., & QUATTLEBAUM, C. P. (1979). Similarities in patterns of

media use: A cluster analysis of media gratifications. Western Journal of

Speech Commun ication, 43, 61-72.

FUENTES, C. (1988). How I started to write. In R. Simonson & S. Walker

(Eds.), ~uIticuIturaI titeracy (pp. 83-111). St. Paul, MN: Graywolf Press.

GUDYKUNST, W. B. (1987), Cross-cultural comparisons. In C. R. Berger & S.

H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 847-889). New-bury Park, CA: Sage.

GUDYKUNST, W. B., & TING-TOOMEY, S. (1988). Culture and affective com-

munication. Ameri can Behavioral Scientist, 31, 384-400.

GUDYKUNST, W. B., YOON, Y.-C., & NISHIDA, T. (1987). The influence of

individualism-collectivism on perceptions of communication ingroup and out-

group relationships. Communication Monographs, 54, 295-306.

HOFSTEDE, G. (1980). Cul ture’ s consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

KATZ, E., BLUMLER, J. G., & GUREVITCH, M. (1974). Utilization of mass

communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses

of mass communications: Cur rent perspectives on grati f ications research (pp.

19-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

KATZ, E., GUREVITCH, M., & HAAS, H. (1973). On the use of the mass

media for important things. Ameri can Sociological Review, 38, 164-181.

MCCROSKEY, J. C., FAYER, J. M., & RICHMOND, V. P. (1985). Don’t speak

to me in English: Communication apprehension in Puerto Rico. Communica-

tion Quarter ly, 33, 185-192.

MURILLO, N. (1976). The Mexican American family. In C. A. Hernandez, M. J.




Haug, & N. N. Wagner (Eds.), Chicanos: Social andpsychologicalperspectives

(2nd ed., pp. 15-25). St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.

PADILLA, A. M. (1976). Psychological research and the Mexican American. InC. A. Hernandez, M. J. Haug, & N. N. Wagner (Eds.), Chicanos: Social and

psychologicalperspectives (2nd ed., pp. 152-159). St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mos-

by.PAZ, 0. (1961). The labyrinth of solitude: Life and thought in Mexico. New

York: Grove Press.

ROSENTHAL, R., HALL, J., DIMATTEO, M., ROGERS, P., &ARCHER, D.

(1979). Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS test. Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

RUBIN, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations. Com-munication Research, 8, 141-165.

RUBIN, A. M., & RUBIN, R. B. (1982). Contextual age and television use.

Human Communication Research, 8,228-244.

RUBIN, A. M., & WINDAHL, S. (1986). The uses and dependency model of

mass communication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 184-199.

RUBIN, R. B., PERSE, E. M., & BARBATO, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization

and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Commu-

nication Research, 14, 602-628.

RUBIN, R. B., & RUBIN, A. M. (1982). Contextual age and television use:Reexamining a life-position indicator. Communication Yearbook, 6, 583-604.

SCHERER, K. B., WALLBOTT, H. G., & SUMMERFIELD, A. B. (Eds.)

(1986). Experiencing emotions: A cross-cultural study. Cambridge, MA: Cam-

bridge University Press.

SCHUTZ, W. C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Science

and Behavior Books.

0000 Art�culo motivos interpersonales.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 0000 Art�culo motivos interpersonales.pdf