Preface

Globalization has brought about cultural integration and hybridization and multiplicity of communicators’cultural identities.This poses a great challenge to some traditional scientific approaches to intercultural communication that focus primarily on the stable and orderly characteristics of culture and culture’s deterministic influence on human communication.The primary goal of this book was to develop a cultural process model focusing on dynamic cultural processes and human agency and conduct initial tests to confirm its viability and utility in intercultural communication research.A historical review，critical analyses，and integrative syntheses based on interdisciplinary bibliographic and empirical data were involved in the theoretical exploration.The psychological experimental method of priming was employed in two empirical studies.Case analysis was conducted in the third study.

The book set out to map out the diverse ways of conceptualizing culture in the current field，explore their philosophical foundations，and provide evidence and explanations for the prevalence of the fixed-traits view in contemporary intercultural scholarship.This view has three distinctive features：first，culture is defined in terms of its static and orderly characteristics；second，culture is internalized by individuals in their socialization and becomes guidance principles for their behaviors；and finally，culture’s behavioral influence is seen as linear and deterministic.This view was then historically reviewed and critiqued from a functionalist perspective with both its conceptual and empirical challenges explored.

Following the critique was a critical analysis of some improvements for this view across related disciplines and a review of the emerging dynamic process view of culture along with issues of cultural identity management and motivation to accommodate in communication.Based on these reviews and a critical discussion of selected key intercultural models，a cultural process model of intercultural communication was proposed.This model，departing from the assumption that culture is a coherent meaning system，sees culture as a coalescence of loosely-connected knowledge systems.It posits that the role of culture takes the form of applying cultural knowledge，which follows the principle of availability（certain cultural knowledge is available in the communicator’s mind），accessibility（certain cultural knowledge is accessible in the communicator’s mind），and applicability（the accessed knowledge is only applied when deemed applicable to the immediate context）（Chiu&Hong，2006，2007；Hong，2009）.The application of cultural knowledge is moderated by one’s cultural identity and motivation to accommodate.This model，which stresses multiple cultural origins of communicators’knowledge repertoire，contextual constraints on cultural functioning，and communicators’selective use of their cultural knowledge，seeks to establish some kind of cultural causation in intercultural communicative settings.

Three studies were conducted to test the model.Study I investigated how temporary accessibility of cultural knowledge（some“Chinese”and“American”conditions）influences social attribution and how cultural identity moderates this process.Ninety-nine three-year diploma（vo-tech）sophomore English majors were randomly assigned to three priming conditions（Chinese，American，and neutral）and completed the exact same attribution task.Significant differences in situational attributions were found between the Chinese and American primed groups.Specifically，the Chinese participants gave contrastive responses to the primed culture（e.g.，they used more situational attributions when primed with American culture than when primed with Chinese culture，a tendency contrary to the empirically established cultural differences in social attributions between North Americans and East Asians）.

Study II examined how contextual cues influence the chronic accessibility of cultural knowledge in an intercultural situation and how cultural identity and communication accommodation moderate this process.One hundred and sixteen Chinese university students were randomly assigned to two priming conditions（Chinese and American experimenters as the culture prime）and were asked to write down eight proverbs and sayings that guided their action.Findings suggest that the participants generated a more converged sayings pool before an American experimenter than before a Chinese experimenter，suggesting that high intergroup salience in the American priming condition led to the affirmation of Chinese cultural identity and hence a collection of more traditional and more widely circulated sayings.Furthermore，in terms of sayings content，a relatively stronger individualistic value orientation was found in the Chinese priming condition than in the American priming condition.Taken together，the participants seem to have given contrastive responses in the task.

Study III was a case study aimed at understanding the nature of the over-tuning effect in intercultural communication using the process model.Human agency in culture and communication，cultural identity management，motivation to accommodate，dynamics between the assumed cultural knowledge applicability and communication appropriateness were all highlighted.

The three studies thus have initially confirmed the viability and utility of the model in framing intercultural communication.The principles of cultural knowledge application was revealed in the tests，demonstrating the fact that culture’s impact on communicative behaviors is not deterministic，that one’s cultural identity and motivation to accommodate do moderate the application of cultural knowledge，and that one key factor influencing communication effectiveness is whether the assumed cultural knowledge applicability is consistent with socially established appropriateness in its application.Overall，the three tests have uncovered human agency in culture and communication and enabled us to establish some kind of causal link between cultural knowledge and individual communicative behavior.The present research has implications for developing dynamic approaches to intercultural communication，reframing cultural differences，reconsidering intercultural competence research，and enriching research methodology.

We can no longer see cultures as static entities defined by certain prevalent shared values.It is preferable to see them as dynamic entities within which certain ways of construing oneself and others are constantly being reciprocally primed.

（Peter B.Smith，2009：159）

...[W]e[should]reframe thinking of cultures in isolation to the manner they interact dynamically with each other，and...we[should]move from looking at mean tendencies that distinguish one culture conveniently from another to tackling the contact zone of living with and committing to multiple cultures.

（Kimberly A.Noels et al.，2011：60）

Culture does not rigidly determine human behaviors，nor are individuals passive recipients of their cultural environment.Instead，individuals flexibly shift their responses and use culture as a cognitive resource for grasping their experiences.

（Ying-yi Hong，2009：9）