Understanding Cultural Variations in Giving Advice Among Americans and Chinese

Abstract

This study examined underlying mechanisms of cultural variations in giving advice between American and Chinese college students by assuming a belief framework specified in the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). American (N = 289) and Chinese college students (N = 227) first completed belief-based measures of attitudes and subjective norms of giving advice, and later completed measures of behavioral intentions of giving advice. Results revealed that there were similarities as well as noteworthy cultural differences with respect to ratings of the TRA components and strengths of associations between attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions. The TRA model showed relatively stronger prediction for giving advice intentions for Chinese than it did for Americans. A belief framework specified by the TRA demonstrated stronger power to capture finer cultural variations in giving advice as a form of support provision.

Keywords

giving advice belief attitude subjective norm behavioral intention

Giving advice is a problem-focused approach-based support behavior (Barbee & Cunningham, 1995). Advice is a regular component of supportive interactions during which one person makes the effort, or is perceived as making the endeavor, to help someone else with a problematic situation (Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002; Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1990). It is particularly useful in the context of controllable events, that is, situations in which something can be done to prevent, eliminate, or diminish the source of stress (Cutrona & Suhr, 1992). Research has shown advice likely would be perceived and evaluated differently by people from dissimilar cultures (e.g., Burleson & Mortensen, 2003; Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997). However, extant literature in supportive communication has yet to present powerful explanations of these cultural variations. As a result, we know little about the mechanisms through which people from different cultures perceive advice as a problem-focused support.

Among extant research on cultural variations in giving advice or providing problem-focused support of which advice is a component (e.g., Burleson & Mortensen, 2003; Burleson, Liu, Liu, & Mortensen, 2006; Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012; Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997), national culture or cultural values (e.g., Individualism–Collectivism) have been used to explain the variations in giving advice or problem-focused support. Using nation to represent culture is sometimes problematic. “Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling, and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts, the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values” (Kluckhohn, 1951, p. 86). Nations are political units which rarely coincide with cultural units. Most nations comprise many diverse cultures. So using citizenship as a proxy for sampling culture is not appropriate (Fiske, 2002). On the other hand, cultural values transcend specific situations, are not function specific, and can be activated in a variety of situations such as conflict or social support. These limitations weaken the explanatory power of national culture or cultural values. Thus, it is important to find relevant mediating variables to understand what it is in culture that accounts for a larger amount of variance regarding giving advice.

To fill this gap, this study provides an alternative framework which focuses on beliefs about giving advice. This research assumes a belief framework specified in the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The TRA holds that a person’s belief systems serve as the informational base that ultimately determines his or her attitudes and subjective norms (i.e., perceived social stress) which in turn affect the person’s behavioral intention. Specifically, this study examines (a) how Americans and Chinese are similar and different in their ratings on attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions of giving advice, and (b) how people in the two cultures vary regarding the associations between attitudes and intentions of giving advice and subjective norms and intentions of giving advice. In building the rationale for this research, I first define giving advice, document cultural variations in giving advice, assess existing accounts for those cultural variations, and then propose an alternative framework of beliefs defined by the TRA as accounts for cultural variations in giving advice.

Defining Giving Advice

Giving advice is one type of problem-focused support. Effective advice demonstrates attention to support seeker’s positive and/or negative face needs, addresses possible limitations of the recommended action and explains why the action is useful and feasible (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000; MacGeorge, B. Feng, Butler, & Budarz, 2004). I define advice in this study as messages recommending certain course of (in)action to solve a support seeker’s problem. Specifically, messages regarding giving advice on how to solve a problem are statements that include facework supporting the distressed person’s face, provide possible ways of responding to a problematic situation, explain why the advised action is useful and feasible, and address possible limitations of the advised action. Among a variety of perspectives of studying advice, research exploring culture and advice or problem-focused support provides evidence for variations in giving advice as a function of culture.

Cultural Variations in Giving Advice

Culture is an important source of variability in the meanings of giving advice. In Western cultures, giving advice has been found to be a common response to a close relationship partner’s disclosure of a problem (Cutrona & Suhr, 1994), yet advice is not always appreciated and it is more often mentioned as an example of an unhelpful attempt at support (e.g., Dunkel-Schetter, Blasband, Feinsterin, & Herbert, 1992). Emerging account from the literature demonstrates that giving advice faces the dilemma of being helpful and being intrusive. From the linguistic perspective, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory places “advice” among those face-threatening speech acts that threatens the negative face (i.e., wants of freedom and autonomy) of the addressee. Leech (1983) similarly regards advice as violating politeness rules because a speaker’s superiority in knowledge, experience, or judgment to the hearer is taken for granted in advice giving. Further, research in cultural psychology distinguishes between the concepts of independent self and interdependent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In Western cultures, the independent view of the self is prevailing, which highlights autonomy, independence, and competence of the individual. Within this cultural context, advice could generate tension between the desire to share information and to help and concerns about threatening the recipient’s independence and autonomy (Goldsmith, 2004; Wilson, Aleman, & Leatham, 1998). Specifically, Goldsmith (2004) contends that giving advice as a form of supportive communication has profound identity and relational implications: advice messages that demonstrate high regard for recipients’ wants of autonomy are rated as more effective than messages that fail to do so.

In contrast to the perception of giving advice in Western individualistic cultures, a number of studies show that advice is viewed differently in East Asian cultures and other collectivistic cultures. Burleson and Mortenson (2003) examined cultural variations in problem-focused support of which advice is a part. They found that Chinese participants gauged problem-management support goals as more important and evaluated problem-management behaviors as more appropriate than did their American counterparts. Xu and Burleson (2001) also found Chinese reported that they wish to receive advice. Advice was perceived as more positive in a Colombian speech community where extensive involvement in the lives of others were appreciated and symbolized by common and explicit acts directing others’ behavior (Fitch, 1994). Advice was also widely used in Turkish to underscore and consolidate solidarity in close relationship partners (Bayraktaroglu, 2001). Russians were more likely to give advice and viewed advice as more supportive than European Americans (Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012).

The prevailing interdependent view of self in collectivistic cultures holds that the self is primarily a relational entity interdependent with others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Within this cultural context, advice could be less problematic because involvement in the lives of others is valued. The advice giver sometimes feels obligated to do so when observing a problem from a relational other. For example, Chinese tend to provide unsolicited advice when knowing a close friend is experiencing a problem with his or her romantic relationship partner. They feel that there is a responsibility to help out given their close relationships even though help is not sought.

However, other scholars (e.g., Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012) contend that East Asians may have concerns that giving advice threatens relational harmony and face of the advice recipient. This argument is developed based on the body of research which demonstrates that East Asians are more reluctant to solicit advice because they concern about putting burden to advice givers, losing face, disrupting harmony of relationships, and making relationships worse (Kim, Sherman, Ko, & Taylor, 2006; Taylor, Welch, Kim, & Sherman, 2007). Nevertheless, when balancing the forces of showing care and threatening relational harmony and face, giving advice is still perceived as relatively less troublesome in East Asian cultures than that in Western cultures, particularly when East Asians are reluctant to talk about emotions during a stressful event but instead tend to focus on solving problems (Burleson, 2003).

Without much exception, existing research about culture and advice use the individualism and collectivism theoretical framework¹ to predict and explain differences in advice giving. Despite the reasonable accounts on cultural variations regarding advice giving, Burleson and Mortenson (2003) found that individualism and collectivism explained only a small percentage of difference in the evaluations of comforting message (4.3%) and coping behavior (3.3%). Individualism and collectivism are used across a variety of functions and contexts. However, each specific communicative function has its own characteristics. For example, social support is characterized by a support provider who focuses primarily on the well-being of a support seeker, which is different from conflict management or influence. Furthermore, a specific communication function can occur in a variety of situational and relational contexts which will influence the communicative behaviors of involved parties. Given this, it is not surprising that the explanatory power of individualism-collectivism is limited.

In an effort to go beyond the current limitations, this study provides an alternative framework which focuses on beliefs about giving advice to account for cultural variations in advice. Individualism-collectivism transcends situations whereas beliefs have the capacity to focus on specific situations. Therefore, beliefs of giving advice should relate to intentions of giving advice or action of giving advice in a closer manner than individualism-collectivism, which sometimes functions as cultural values. Recent research suggests a structural model connecting culture, values, beliefs, and behaviors (Burleson & Mortenson, 2003; Feng & Wilson, 2012; Nisbett, 2003). The cultural environment, both physical and social, shapes perceptual processes of which culture values and beliefs are major portions. This body of research suggests that culture apparently exerts influence on values and beliefs, with beliefs having a proximal influence on behaviors and values having a relatively distant influence through the mediation of beliefs.

An Alternative Framework: Beliefs About Giving Advice

A belief is defined as any verifiable statement about an attribute associated with an object (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Rokeach, 1968). Giving advice can be treated as an object and people may associate particular attributes with giving advice. For example, giving advice on solving a problem may be associated with showing care. People from different cultures may differ in the various attributes they associate with giving advice and in the strength of those beliefs because beliefs are strongly influenced by an individual’s culture and socialization.

Specifically, this research assumes a belief framework specified in the TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to the TRA, behavioral intentions are guided by two kinds of beliefs: behavioral beliefs are the likely consequences of the behavior and normative beliefs are about the normative expectations of other people. Behavioral beliefs about a particular behavior and their outcome evaluations produce individuals’ attitudes toward the behavior. An attitude is a relatively enduring organization of beliefs around an object predisposing one to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Rokeach, 1968). Individuals’ normative beliefs and their motivation to comply with these beliefs result in subjective norms. A subjective norm is the person’s perception that most people who are important to him or her think he or she should or should not perform the behavior in question. In combination, attitudes and subjective norms lead to the formation of behavioral intentions which are defined as “indicators of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181; see Figure 1). Intention is thus assumed to be the immediate antecedent of behavior. This study tests some specific propositions about giving advice that fall within the purview of the TRA.

Figure 1.

The theory of reasoned action.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Associations Between Attitude, Subjective Norm, and Behavioral Intention

According to the TRA, the more favorable the attitude and the stronger the subjective norm toward a behavior, the stronger should be an individual’s intention to perform the behavior. This claim is supposed to be universal across cultures as explained by the TRA and tested in a variety of cultures (e.g., Bagozzi, Lee, & Van Loo, 2001; Lee & Green, 1991; Park, 2000). Therefore, for giving advice on how to solve a problem, regardless of their cultural origins, the support providers’ attitudes and subjective norms should be positively associated with their intentions to give advice. In cross-cultural comparison, this reflects cultural similarities regarding the predictive function of attitudes and subjective norms for behavioral intentions. Accordingly, the first hypothesis (H) is proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Participants’ attitudes regarding giving advice on how to fix a problem (H1a), subjective norms for giving advice on how to fix a problem (H1b) will be positively associated with their intentions of giving advice on how to fix the problem.

Cultural Influences on Attitude, Subjective Norm, and Behavioral Intention

Culture could impact the results of this study in one of two ways. First, Americans and Chinese could differ in the favorability of their attitudes, the degree of subjective norms, or the strength of their intentions of giving advice. Second, Americans and Chinese could differ in terms of the degree to which key components in the TRA are associated, that is, association between attitudes and intentions, and association between subjective norms and intentions.

Regarding attitudes favorability, as reviewed earlier, because of the different views of relationship between self and other, when giving advice, Americans have a relatively stronger concern with threatening the advice receivers’ autonomy and independence, whereas Chinese may associate giving advice more with obligation, involvement, and care. This has been supported by empirical research from the advice giver’s perspective (Burleson & Mortenson, 2003) and the advice recipient’s viewpoint (Xu & Burleson, 2001). Accordingly, it is reasonable to think that Chinese would hold more favorable attitudes toward giving advice. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Chinese on average will hold more favorable attitudes toward giving advice than will Americans.

With respect to subjective norms, as stated earlier, compared with Americans, for Chinese, actively helping a relational partner solve problems is more associated with the social meanings of fulfilling obligations and maintaining relationships (Potter, 1988). Hence, H3 is proposed:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Chinese on average will have stronger subjective norms to give advice on how to fix a problem than will Americans.

The TRA component of behavioral intention is similar to a goal. Behavioral intention represents a person’s motivation in the sense of being that person’s conscious plan or decision to exert effort to perform a behavior. And a goal is a cognitive representation of the end state on a hope to achieve. Intention and goal therefore both relate to plans of doing something. Earlier findings indicated that Chinese regarded problem-management goals as more important than did Americans (Burleson & Mortenson, 2003). Based on this, it is reasonable to propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Chinese will hold stronger intentions of giving advice on how to fix a problem than will Americans.

The TRA is a context-specific theory. The relative importance of attitudes and subjective norms in the prediction of intentions are expected to vary across behaviors and populations. This general characteristic about the TRA opens the possibility of culture moderating the strengths of associations between attitudes and intentions and subjective norms and intentions.

Research applying the TRA across cultures has found significant variations in the relative importance of attitudes and subjective norms in predicting intentions. Lee and Green (1991) found that subjective norms were more important than attitudes in the determination of behavioral intention of buying a pair of sneakers for the South Koreans, while attitudes were the primary determinant of the behavioral intention for Americans. This is consistent with research (e.g., Triandis, 1995) implicating social norms are relatively more important than attitudes in predicting behavioral intentions for East Asians, while in the West attitudes are comparatively more important. Therefore, it is expected that subjective norms will influence the intentions of giving advice more for Chinese than for Americans whereas attitudes will influence intentions of giving advice more for Americans than for Chinese. However, as contended earlier, Chinese may feel more of an obligation to give advice than do Americans. This may change the attitudes and intention association. Hence the influence of attitudes on intention of giving advice is unclear in the two cultures. Accordingly, the following research question (RQ) and hypothesis are proposed:

Research Questions 1 (RQ1): Does culture moderate the influence of attitudes on intentions of giving advice on how to fix a problem?

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Culture will moderate associations between subjective norms and intentions of giving advice. Specifically, association between subjective norms and intentions of giving advice will be stronger for Chinese than that will be for Americans.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Undergraduate students from a mid-sized Midwestern university in the United States (N = 289; 62% females; age: M = 20.51, SD = 2.46) and undergraduate students from a large university in Northern China (N = 227; 77.5% females; age: M = 19.52, SD = 1.08) participated in this study.

The majority of the American participants were European Americans/Caucasians (N = 251, 86.9%) but the sample also included a small percentage of Asian Americans (N = 24, 8.3%), Latino(a)/Hispanic Americans (N = 7, 2.4%), and African Americans (N = 5, 1.7%), along with 0.7% (N = 2) missing data. All Chinese participants were resident Chinese.

Participants were given belief-based measures of attitudes and subjective norms first; a week later, the same group of participants were given a giving advice intention questionnaire. American participants used the English version of the questionnaire and Chinese participants used the Chinese version. To ensure accuracy and appropriateness in translation, the Chinese version of the materials was back-translated into English by two bilingual Chinese graduate students who were proficient in both languages and had professional experience translating between the two languages. Another two bilingual Chinese graduate students did cross-examination of the two sets of translation. They first took careful reading of the original English materials and the translated Chinese materials; and then they read the translated Chinese and back-translated English materials. Some minor revisions were made based on the examination. Overall, this cross-examination indicated that the Chinese version of the questionnaires and related materials were appropriate. American participants received extra credit for their participation. Chinese participants were given a small token of appreciation (a pen) for their participation.

Salient Outcomes and Referents

A pilot study was conducted first to identify salient behavioral outcomes and referents which helped compose behavioral beliefs and normative beliefs of giving advice (Ajzen, 2002). The open-ended pilot questionnaire asked: (a) participants’ beliefs about the advantages and disadvantages of giving advice on how to fix a problem, and (b) significant individuals around them who would (dis)approve of this support behavior. Twenty eight American college students and 31 Chinese college students participated in the pilot study. The determination of salient outcomes and referents was done independently in the two cultures. Frequently mentioned salient behavioral outcomes of giving advice and referents were identified after comparing results in the two cultures. Table 1 displays the results which were used to construct a belief-based measurement for attitudes and subjective norms of giving advice.

Table 1.

Elicited Behavioral Outcomes and Referents for Giving Advice.

Positive outcomes	Providing the support seeker (distressed person) with a different perspective on how to deal with the problematic situation
	Helping the distressed person face the problem and see what went wrong
	Providing the support seeker with more options in terms of how to solve his/her problem
	Helping the distressed person get out of the problematic situation sooner
	Improving the distressed person’s abilities to cope with difficulties in the future
	Helping the distressed person regain his/her confidence
	Making the distressed person feel more in control
	Helping the distressed person relieve his/her stress
	Helping the distressed person realize that s/he needs to change
	Enhancing the closeness between the support provider and the distressed person
	Showing that the support provider does care about the support seeker
Negative outcomes	Offending the support seeker
	Making the distressed person feel defensive and angry at the support provider
	Making the support provider seem nosy and pushy
Referents	Support provider’s parents
	Support provider’s close friends
	The distressed person (the support seeker)
	Mutual friends of the support provider and the support seeker

Measures

The salient behavioral belief outcomes and referents from the pilot study were used in developing measures of attitudes and subjective norms of giving advice. Belief composite measures of attitudes and subjective norms were formulated in general conformance to the measurement methods that have been introduced by Ajzen (2002).

Behavioral belief outcomes

Belief outcomes of giving advice were measured with 14 Likert-type items on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unlikely, 7 = extremely likely). Among the 14 outcome items, there were 11 positive outcome and three negative outcome items. An example of a positive outcome is “When a person I care about is upset, giving advice to that person on how to fix his/her problem will provide him/her with a different perspective on how to deal with the problematic situation.” An example of a negative outcome is “When a person I care about is upset, telling that person how to fix the problem will offend that person.”

Outcome evaluations

The evaluative component corresponding to each of the salient belief outcomes was measured with 14 Likert-type items on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely bad, 7 = extremely good). Among the 14 outcome evaluation items, there were 11 positive outcome evaluation items and three negative outcome evaluation items. An example of positive outcome evaluation is “When a person I care about is upset, providing that person with a different perspective on how to deal with the problematic situation is: extremely bad: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : extremely good.” An example of negative outcome evaluation is “When a person I care about is upset, doing things that will offend that person is: extremely bad: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : extremely good.”

Attitudes toward performing giving advice were obtained from the sum of the products of behavioral belief outcome values and outcome evaluation values as specified in the formula: A_B = ∑ b_i e_i . When calculating attitude scores, the unipolar scoring system (i.e., 1 to 7) for behavioral belief outcome items and their corresponding outcome evaluations items were transformed into a bipolar scoring system of −3 to +3 (i.e., −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3). The transformation was done by subtracting four from the original score. For example, if a participant’s original score for one behavioral belief item was 5, then the transformed score would be 1. This score transformation allowed positive attitudes to be based on strong belief in positive outcomes of the action or strong disbelief in negative outcomes of the action. Thus, the possible range for product scores for a single belief went from −9 to 9 (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

After obtaining product scores² for attitudes, confirmatory factor analyses³ using structural equation modeling (SEM) were performed separately for American and Chinese data and confirmed the structure specified for the attitude instrument in each cultural group.⁴ The American sample fit the data well (CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.00; χ²= 0.71; df = 2), as did the Chinese sample (CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.00; χ²= 1.64; df = 2). The scale of attitudes exhibited acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.73 for Americans and 0.77 for Chinese).

Normative beliefs

Normative beliefs were measured with four Likert-type items on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unlikely, 7 = extremely likely). Participants were asked to indicate the likelihood that each referent (e.g., parents, close friends) would think they should give advice to the person on how to solve his/her problem. Higher numbers indicate stronger normative beliefs. A sample normative belief item is “When someone I care about is feeling down, my close friends would think that I should tell that person on how to fix the problem.”

Motivation to comply

Motivation to comply with referents about giving advice was measured with four Likert-type on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Participants were asked to indicate how much they want to do what the referents think they should do. Higher numbers indicate stronger motivation to comply. An example of the motivation to comply items is “When a person you care about is upset, how much do you care about what your parents think you should do?”

Subjective norm scores on giving advice were obtained from sum of the products of normative beliefs values and motivation to comply values as specified in the formula: SN = ∑ nb_i mc_i. When calculating subjective norm scores, the unipolar scoring system (i.e., 1 to 7) of normative belief items was transformed into a bipolar scoring system of −3 to +3 to allow strong normative pressure to be based on either strong desire to comply with normative referents or strong desire not to comply with discouragement from normative referents (e.g., reactance). The operation of the transformation was the same as behavioral belief scores described above. However, motivation to comply was remained on the original scale from 1 to 7. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), one’s motivation can hardly be understood as negative. Thus, product terms for a single normative belief could range from −21 to +21. Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the structure specified for the subjective norm instrument in each cultural group. The American sample fit the data well (CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.05; χ²= 3.50; df = 2), so did the Chinese sample (CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.10; χ²= 6.70; df = 2). The scale of subjective norms showed excellent internal consistency (α = 0.83 for Americans and 0.82 for Chinese).

Behavioral intentions

Intention of giving advice was measured with 12 Likert-type items on a 7-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). Specifically, behavioral intentions of giving advice were measured by 12 messages that could be delivered in three different scenarios. One reason for making this choice was to avoid measuring behavioral intentions in abstract. Whether someone “intends” to give advice depends—in part—on how the advice would be given.

The three scenarios of upsetting situations involved finding out that a close same-sex friend has: (a) done poorly on an exam, (b) just learned that his/her romantic partner has been unfaithful, and (c) learned that his/her parents don’t support his/her choice of taking creative writing as an academic major. The scenarios were selected or composed to ensure they happen relatively frequently in both cultures. The failed exam and unfaithful partner situations were adopted (Burleson & Mortenson, 2003). They were slightly modified to fit the current study. The family conflict situation was developed for this study. Twelve messages with four under each scenarios were composed or adopted from previous research with modification. Scenarios and messages were rated for realism by American and Chinese scholars who were faculty or advanced PhD students in communication. Chinese scholars read the Chinese version of the questionnaire. Modifications were made based on raters’ feedback.

Participants were asked to indicate the likelihood of saying four specific messages under each of the three scenarios. For example, under the family conflict scenario, one of the giving advice messages is:

Lots of creative writing majors have trouble convincing their parents that they will be able to make a career out of their training. Maybe you can find information regarding possible paths for your major from some of the creative writing faculty or from the career center. They might be able to give you examples of others who have been able to do this successfully. This could be a way of helping your parents broaden their perspective on this issue. It may take a few days to collect and prepare the information, but showing these materials to your parents may help persuade them to re-think their stance on your chosen major.

Confirmatory factor analyses were performed for the giving advice intention measures for Americans and Chinese respectively⁵ and confirmed the single-factor structure of this instrument in each cultural group. Both the American sample and the Chinese sample fit the data perfectly (CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.00; χ² = 0.00; df = 0) as the measurement models were just identified. The scale of giving advice intentions showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.72 for Americans and 0.69 for Chinese).

Cross-cultural invariance of the attitude, subjective norm, and intention measures were tested.⁶ Table 2 presents means and standard deviations for all variables in this study.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for Independent and Dependent Variables.

	U.S.		China
	M	SD	M	SD
Attitudes	1.81	1.51	3.29	2.21
Subjective norms	5.16	5.12	6.87	6.13
Behavioral intentions	4.61	.79	4.69	.86

Results

The findings are presented in three segments. First, a comparison of overall performances of the TRA model among the U.S. and Chinese samples is presented. Second, comparisons of causal paths between the American and the Chinese samples in the TRA model are presented. And finally, cultural influences on ratings of attitudes, perceived subjective norms, and behavioral intentions are presented. Correlations among the variables tested in the model are featured in Table 3.

Table 3.

Correlations among Independent and Dependent Variables in the U.S. and Chinese Samples.

Variables	1	2	3
1. Attitudes	1.00	0.51**	0.22**
2. Subjective norms	0.38**	1.00	0.24**
3. Behavioral intentions	0.22**	0.35**	1.00

Note. Correlation coefficients above the diagonal represent U.S. participants, and coefficients below the diagonal represent Chinese participants. **p < .01.

Comparison of the TRA Model’s Overall Performance

Figure 2 and Figure 3 display the structural models for the American sample and the Chinese sample respectively. Adequate model fit is the prerequisite to examine individual path associations. Results showed that the TRA model fit the data well from both samples (Chinese: CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.05, 90% confidence interval 0.03; 0.07; χ² = 81.0; df = 51; American: CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.06, 90% confidence interval, 0.04; 0.07; χ² = 98.47; df = 51). The TRA model explained 14% of the variance of giving advice behavioral intentions in the American sample and 25% of the variance of giving advice behavioral intentions in the Chinese sample.

Figure 2.

The structural equation model of giving advice for Americans.

Figure 3.

The structural equation model of giving advice for Chinese.

Comparison of Associations Among Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Behavioral Intentions

Informed by the TRA and existing research, H1 predicted positive associations between attitudes and intentions of giving advice (H1a) and between subjective norms and intentions of giving advice (H1b). Multiple samples structural equation modeling (MSEM) procedures were performed to assess H1. Within the American model, the pathway from attitudes to behavioral intentions of giving advice was significant (β = 0.26, p < .05). This was not true for the Chinese model; attitudes of giving advice did not significantly predict intentions of giving advice (β= 0.10, p = .32). Thus, H1a was partially supported. Within the American model, the pathway from subjective norms to intentions of giving advice was not significant (β= 0.15, p = .19). However, in the Chinese model, subjective norms of giving advice significantly predicted intentions of giving advice (β= 0.44, p < .001). Thus H1b was partially supported.

Cultural Influences on Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Intentions

H2, H3, and H4 predicted cultural variations in attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions of giving advice. To answer H2, H3, and H4, I first conducted a MANOVA test. The dependent variables were attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions; the independent variable was culture.

The MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of culture on attitudes of giving advice, F (1, 276.48) = 80.34, p < .001, partial η² = 0.14. The MANOVA also detected a significant effect of culture on perceived subjective norms of giving advice, F (1, 414.19) = 13.47, p < .001, partial η² = 0.03. However, the MANOVA did not find a main effect of culture on intentions of giving advice, F (1, .73) = 1.07, p = .30, partial η² = 0.00, indicating that Americans and Chinese were similar with respect to giving advice intentions. Thus, H4 which predicted Chinese would have a stronger intention of giving advice on how to solve the problem than did Americans was not supported.

To decompose the cultural main effect on attitudes and perceived subjective norms of giving advice, a series of independent samples t-tests were performed with culture as the independent variable and attitudes and subjective norms as the dependent variables. Results revealed that Americans and Chinese were significantly different in their favorability of attitudes about giving advice on how to solve the problem, t = −8.92, df = 491, p < .001, d = 0.81; Specifically, Chinese had a substantially more favorable attitude for giving advice than did Americans. Thus, H2 which predicted Chinese would hold a more favorable attitude about giving advice than would Americans was supported. Results also revealed that Americans and Chinese were significantly different in their perceived subjective norms toward giving advice on how to solve the problem, t = −3.51, df = 509, p < .001, d = 0.31; Chinese held stronger perceived subjective norms of giving advice than did Americans. Thus, H3 which predicted Chinese would have stronger perceived subjective norms for giving advice than would Americans was supported.

Conceptually, attitudes in this research are products of outcome beliefs and evaluation of outcomes, and therefore reflect interactive forces between these two factors. Hence, it is reasonable to explore whether the two groups differ mostly in outcome beliefs and/or evaluation of outcomes regarding giving advice. A series of independent samples t-tests were performed with culture as the independent variable and each of the belief outcome and outcome evaluation items as the dependent variable. Results indicated that Americans and Chinese were mostly different with regard to outcome beliefs about giving advice. Specifically, Chinese viewed virtually all of the possible favorable outcomes as more likely to occur and all of the possible unfavorable outcomes as less likely to occur than did Americans. Chinese also viewed several of the favorable outcomes of giving advice as more positive (important) but did not view any of the unfavorable outcomes of giving advice as less positive (see Table 4 for t-test statistics of all 14 behavioral beliefs).

Table 4.

Independent samples t-tests for behavioral beliefs regarding giving advice between Americans and Chinese.

	Americans		Chinese
Behavioral beliefs about giving advice	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	d	p
1. Providing the distressed person with different perspective.	5.24	1.03	5.85	1.19	−6.18	511	.55	.000
2. Offending the distressed person.	3.40	1.22	2.54	1.52	7.13	511	.63	.000
3. Helping the distressed person face problems.	4.85	1.01	5.32	1.33	−4.51	510	.41	.000
4. Making the distressed person feel defensive and angry with me.	3.15	1.25	2.44	1.45	5.95	511	.53	.000
5. Providing the distressed person with more options.	5.27	1.06	5.48	1.25	−2.09	508	.18	.037
6. Helping the distressed person get out of the situation sooner.	4.63	1.10	5.53	1.22	−8.75	510	.78	.000
7. Improving the distressed person’s abilities to cope with difficulties.	4.57	1.23	4.98	1.36	−3.62	511	.32	.000
8. Helping the distressed person regain confidence.	4.77	1.14	5.37	1.20	−5.81	511	.52	.000
9. Making the distressed person feel more in control.	4.57	1.16	5.27	1.27	−6.42	510	.58	.000
10. Helping the distressed person relieve stress.	4.97	1.09	5.63	1.15	−6.64	511	.59	.000
11. Making myself seem nosy and pushy.	3.15	1.34	2.68	1.46	3.75	510	.34	.000
12. Helping the distressed person realize he/she needs to change.	3.87	1.19	5.04	1.21	−11.00	511	.98	.000
13. Enhancing our closeness.	4.84	1.18	5.73	1.06	−8.80	511	.79	.000
14. Showing that I do care about that person.	5.48	1.12	5.96	1.12	−4.76	511	.43	.000

Similarly, perceived subjective norms are products of normative beliefs and motivation to comply with those normative beliefs of giving advice. Thus, it is reasonable to examine whether Americans and Chinese differ mostly in normative beliefs and/or motivation to comply with the normative beliefs of giving advice. Further independent samples t-tests indicated that Americans and Chinese were significantly different regarding perceived normative beliefs about what their close friends think they should do, t = −4.08, df = 510, p < .001, d = 0.37, and what their mutual friends think they should do, t = −4.38, df = 511, p < .001, d = 0.39. Americans and Chinese were also significantly different with regard to motivation to comply with their close friends regarding giving advice on how to solve the problem, t = −2.21, df = 510, p < .05, d = 0.19, and motivation to comply with their mutual friends regarding giving advice on how to solve the problem, t = −5.16, df = 511, p < .001, d = 0.46. Chinese were significantly stronger than Americans for both their normative beliefs and their motivation to comply with what they believe their peers think they should do.

Cultural Moderation of Associations Among the TRA Components

Cultural moderation of associations between attitudes and intentions of giving advice and perceived subjective norms and intentions of giving advice also were assessed by multiple samples structural equation modeling. RQ1 inquired whether culture moderated the influence of attitudes on intentions of giving advice. Equality constraints were placed on the path from attitudes to behavioral intentions. However, the χ² difference test failed to produce a significant change (Δc²[1] = 1.93, p = .17). Hence, RQ1 was answered in the negative. Power analysis for difference between two correlations indicated that statistical power was 0.99 for detecting a medium-size effect (i.e., d = 0.5 or r = 0.24) assuming α = 0.05 with the sample size for Americans (N = 289) and for Chinese (N = 227). H5 predicted that culture would moderate associations between perceived subjective norms and intentions of giving advice. Specifically, association between perceived subjective norms and intentions would be stronger for Chinese than that would be for Americans. Equality constraints were placed on the path from perceived subjective norms to intentions of giving advice. The χ² difference test produced a significant change (Δc²[1] = 3.89, p < .05) with Chinese participants showing stronger association from perceived subjective norms to behavioral intentions. Thus, H5 was supported.

Discussion

The primary purposes of this study were to test the TRA model of giving advice in the American and Chinese cultures, examine how Americans and Chinese are similar and different in their assessments of attitudes, perceived subjective norms, and intentions of giving advice, and how they vary regarding the associations between attitudes and intentions and perceived subjective norms and intentions.

I found a similarly good fit of the TRA model in both cultures. I also found that the TRA model explained a good amount of variance in behavioral intentions of giving advice in both cultures. These findings are important because they suggest cross-cultural validity of the TRA model. Americans and Chinese were also similar with respect to evaluations of behavioral intentions. The substance of giving advice messages may be a major reason leading to this similarity. For example, for the failed test situation, suggesting that the distressed other talk with instructor, study with classmates, and ask a friend for help are plausible solutions for college students in both cultures.

Against the broad baseline of cultural similarities, there also were some noteworthy cultural differences. Chinese held more favorable attitudes toward giving advice than did Americans. Subsequent analyses showed that Americans and Chinese were mostly different regarding outcome belief strengths of giving advice. Specifically, Chinese viewed virtually all of the possible favorable outcomes of giving advice as more likely to occur, such as providing different perspectives about the problem, helping the person get out the situation sooner, and helping the distressed person regain confidence and relieve stress. At the same time, Chinese viewed all of the unfavorable outcomes as less likely to occur than Americans, such as making the distressed person feel defensive and angry or making the support provider seem nosy and pushy. Chinese also viewed several of the favorable outcomes of giving advice as more important but none of the unfavorable outcomes of giving advice as less important.

Chinese also held stronger perceived subjective norms to give advice than did Americans. Specifically, Chinese were significantly higher than Americans with regard to perceived normative beliefs about whether their peers (i.e., close friends and mutual friends) think they should give advice to a distressed friend on how to solve the problem and their motivation to comply with their peers’ expectations.

These findings were consistent with previous research indicating Chinese oriented to problem-focused support of which advice is a part (e.g., Burleson et al., 2006). Therefore, these findings may help explain the Chinese orientation to problem-focused support goals and behaviors. They also provided empirical evidence to the argument that giving advice is perceived as less problematic in Chinese culture than that in American culture. This is in accordance with the Chinese emphasis on obligatory relationships with their relational partners. When seeing a problem in a relational partner, Chinese feel obligated to help; while they are not so comfortable to express emotional concerns, they tend to focus on helping to fix the problem.

Regarding strength of associations, I found attitudes of giving advice significantly predicted behavioral intentions of giving advice for American participants but this was not true for Chinese participants. However, the strength of this association in the two samples was not significantly different with zero order correlations being 0.22 for both samples. On the other hand, findings indicated that perceived subjective norms of giving advice significantly predicted intentions of giving advice for Chinese participants but not for American participants. Different from the attitude and intention association, the strength of this association in the two samples was considerably different with zero order correlation being 0.35 for Chinese participants and 0.24 for American participants. These findings therefore support the claim that in collectivistic cultures social norms are relatively more important than attitudes in predicting behavior whereas attitudes influence behaviors more in individualistic cultures (Triandis, 1995). Overall, it was found that the TRA model of giving advice explained 11% more variance in intentions of giving advice for Chinese participants than for American participants. The stronger orientation toward giving advice of Chinese participants was reflected in their substantially more favorable attitudes toward giving advice, stronger perceived subjective norms for giving advice, and noticeably larger association between perceived subjective norms and intentions of giving advice.

Theoretical Implications

Individualism-collectivism is the dominant dimension of cultural variability used to explain differences and similarities in communication across cultures (Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). The dimension’s explanatory power is often limited by its generality (e.g., Burleson & Mortenson, 2003). By assuming a belief-based framework, this study intended to make up this limitation and therefore contributes to the theoretical development of cross-cultural communication.

As the results indicate, the belief-based attitudes and perceived subjective norms may offer more proximate possible reasons for people to give advice in comparison to individualism-collectivism. This is possible because individualism-collectivism transcends situations while behavioral belief-based attitudes and normative belief-based perceived subjective norms focus on specific situations such as giving advice as a form of support. Because of this situation-specific feature, belief-based attitudes and perceived subjective norms may have stronger capacity to elucidate and elaborate the construct of culture, provide more focused, concise, and empirically testable dimensions of cultural variations. This suggests that belief-based attitudes and perceived subjective norms may mediate the influence of individualism-collectivism on how individuals intend to give advice, and be able to better explain variance. Thus, future research could explore (a) whether attitudes and perceived subjective norms mediate the effect of individualism-collectivism on ratings of behavioral intentions of giving advice, and (b) whether belief-based attitudes and perceived subjective norms explain more variance than does individualism-collectivism in behavioral intentions of giving advice. This also suggests a potential structural model linking culture, individualism-collectivism, belief, behavioral intention, and behavior. Future research could test and modify this model with data collected from multiple cultures. To a broader extent, regardless of specific contexts, cross-cultural communication research could use this structural model.

This research also contributes to theorizing development in interpersonal communication. The culture centered approach taken in this study reflects one of the important evolving trends in interpersonal communication—globalization (Smith &Wilson, 2010). Earlier interpersonal communication theory and research have been primarily developed in English-speaking Western cultures. With more international scholars joining in the field in the 1990s, we have started to see the cultural challenges and assumptions. As Pavitt (1999) points out, scholars need to be reflexive regarding how the questions they raise or the explanation they offer are shaped by cultural values. More specifically, this study extends current research in supportive communication, a major subarea of interpersonal communication. By focusing on underlying beliefs of giving advice as a specific form of supportive communication within and across two cultures, this research responded to the call for understanding the functioning of social support through analysis of culture (Dilworth-Anderson & Marshall, 1996; Jacobson, 1987). Findings from this study add to existing account of variations in support provision behaviors. In addition to social-demographic factors (e.g., Goldsmith & Dun, 1997; see review by Kunkel & Burleson, 1998), motivational factors (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000; Hill, 1996), support provider’s competence (e.g., see review by Burleson, 1985), and immediate situational and emotional factors (e.g., MacGeorge, 2001), people’s attitudes and perceived subjective norms influence their behavioral intentions hence should possibly influence actual advice-giving support behaviors.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This research contains some limitations and therefore indicates the need for careful future consideration of several issues. First, this study did not directly measure attitudes and subjective norms of giving advice; instead, composite scores from belief-based measures were used to obtain attitudes and subjective norms scores. This may negatively affect the power of predicting behavioral intentions of giving advice. Future studies should consider adding direct measures of the two predictors in addition to the belief-based measures. Second, the behavioral and normative belief items were composed in relatively long and complicated sentences which may have caused participants to use heuristics when completing the responses and have possibly led to inaccurate answers. Heuristics are cognitive shortcuts or rules of thumb which individuals use to lessen the cognitive burden of decision-making tasks. They are most likely to be used when the task imposes a high load on information processing abilities (e.g., long and complicated surveys) and appears unimportant and uninvolving, such as when tasks are highly redundant (Waltman & Burleson, 1997). The belief composite items in this study were somewhat redundant with the repetition of the following phrase at the beginning of each item: “when a person I care about is upset.” Future research should use shorter, low-complexity, and nonredundant belief items to increase response accuracy. Third, normative belief measures were referenced with close relationships including friends, classmates, and parents, so it is possible that there was a reference group effect that could have affected the results of this study. The reference group effect reflects the influence of comparison of others on participants’ responses to individual self-report items. As normative belief involves significant others as defined by the TRA, it is almost impossible to eliminate this component when measuring normative beliefs. Nonetheless, I want to indicate the possibility of the reference group effect on the findings of this research. Fourth, although there were some advantages of measuring intentions of giving advice using composed messages, it may be possible that participants would like to give advice but were reluctant to respond to ready-made suggestions. This may be particularly true for American participants as cultural psychology research indicates that they are more likely to prefer individual unique ways of responding. Future research may consider adding relatively general ways to measure intentions of giving advice. Finally, this study used young college students as participants. Older generation participants would likely differ in some important ways from younger participants. For instance, past research has shown that older people are more collectivistic and less individualistic than younger generations (Mishra, 1994; Parkes, Bochner, & Schneider, 2001). Therefore, it is an empirical question as to whether these differences in value orientations, or other maturity-related factors would in turn affect the ratings of behavioral beliefs and normative beliefs of advice. Future research can build on this study by examining the same research questions and hypotheses with older and/or less educated samples of participants from both cultures.

Practical Implications

Finally, at a more practical level, in an increasingly globalized world, interpersonal contacts between people from different cultures have become more and more frequent, the more we understand the underlying mechanisms influencing people’s advice-giving behaviors, the better we can understand advice support behaviors from our relational others. The finding with the most profound implications for intercultural relationships is the different ratings of giving advice attitudes and perceived subjective norms and the weights of attitudes and perceived subjective norms in determining behavioral intentions of giving advice between the two cultures. Chinese respondents showed more favorable attitudes and held stronger perceived subjective norms to give advice compared to their American counterparts. An American support seeker may want to perceive active advice-giving behaviors from a Chinese friend as more of showing concern, care, and obligation than butting in or being nosy. On the other hand, a Chinese support seeker may need to understand sometimes the reluctance of providing advice from an American friend as more of concerning individual autonomy. Misunderstandings could therefore be reduced and personal relationships would be enhanced.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Hairong Feng (PhD, Purdue University, 2007) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. Her research focuses on using a belief-based approach to study cultural variations in support provision and support seeking.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen

(2002/2006). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved from http://www.unix.oit.umass.edu/-/aizen/pdf/TPB.measurement.pdf

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Lee

K. H.

Van Loo

M. F.

(2001). Decision to donate bone marrow: The role of attitudes and subjective norms across cultures. Psychology and Health, 16, 29-56.

Barbee

A. P.

Cunningham

M. R.

(1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. In Burleson

B. R.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 381-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bayraktaroglu

(2001). Advice-giving in Turkish: “Superiority” or “solidarity”? In Bayraktaroglu

Sifianou

(Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 177-208). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Brown

Levinson

(1987). Politeness: Some universal in language use. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Burleson

B. R.

(1985). The production of comforting messages: Social-cognitive foundations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 253-273.

Burleson

B. R.

(2003). The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships, 10, 1-23.

10.

Burleson

B. R.

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2002). Supportive communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 374-424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Burleson

B. R.

Mortenson

S. R.

(2003) Explaining cultural differences in evaluations of emotional support behaviors: Exploring the mediating influences of value systems and interaction goals. Communication Research, 30, 113-146.

12.

Burleson

B. R.

Liu

Mortenson

S. R.

(2006). Chinese evaluations of emotional support skills, goals, and behaviors: An assessment of gender-related similarities and differences. Communication Research, 33, 38-63.

13.

Chentsova-Dutton

Y. E.

Vaughn

(2012). Let me tell you what to do: Cultural differences in advice-giving. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 687-703.

14.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support-seeking and caregiving in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053-1073.

15.

Cutrona

C. E.

Suhr

J. A.

(1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19, 154-174.

16.

Cutrona

C. E.

Suhr

J. A.

(1994). Social support communication in the context of marriage: An analysis of couples’ supportive interactions. In Burleson

B. R.

Albrecht

T. L.

Sarason

I. G.

(Eds.), Communication of social support (pp. 113-135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Dilworth-Anderson

Marshall

(1996). Social support in its cultural contexts. In Pierce

G. R.

Sarason

B. R.

Sarason

I. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 67-79). New York, NY: Plenum.

18.

Dunkel-Schetter

Blasband

Feinsterin

Herbert

(1992). Elements of supportive interactions: When are attempts to help effective? In Spacapan

Oskamp

(Eds.), Helping and being helped: Naturalistic studies (pp. 83-114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

19.

Feng

Wilson

S. R.

(2012). Cultural variations in the reasons people provide avoidance support. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5, 64-87.

20.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

21.

Fiske

A. P.

(2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures—A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78-88.

22.

Fitch

(1994). A cross-cultural study of directive sequences and some implications for compliance-gaining research. Communication Monographs, 61, 185-209.

23.

Goldsmith

D. J.

(2004). Communicating social support. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Goldsmith

D. J.

Dun

S. A.

(1997). Sex differences and similarities in the communication of social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 317-337.

25.

Goldsmith

D. J.

Fitch

(1997). The normative context of advice as social support. Human Communication Research, 23, 454-476.

26.

Goldsmith

D. J.

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2000). The impact of politeness and relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human Communication Research, 26, 234-263.

27.

Gudykunst

W. B.

Lee

C. M.

(2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. In Gudykunst

W. B.

Mody

(Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 25-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Hayduk

L. A.

(1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

29.

Hill

C. A.

(1996). Interpersonal and dispositional influences on problem-related interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 1-22.

30.

Jacobson

D. E.

(1987). The cultural context of social support and support networks. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 1, 42-67.

31.

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

Taylor

S. E.

(2006). Pursuit of comfort and pursuit of harmony: Culture, relationships, and social support seeking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1595-1607.

32.

Kluckhohn

(1951). The study of culture. In Lerner

Lasswell

H. D.

(Eds.), The policy sciences (pp. 86-101). Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.

33.

Kunkel

A. W.

Burleson

B. R.

(1998). Social support and the emotional lives of men and women: An assessment of the different cultures perspective. In Canary

D. J.

Dindia

(Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 101-125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

34.

Lee

Green

R. T.

(1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioral intentions model. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 289-305.

35.

Leech

G. N.

(1983). Principles of pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.

36.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.

37.

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2001). Support providers’ interaction goals: The influence of attributions and emotions. Communication Monographs, 68, 72-97.

38.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Butler

G. L.

Budarz

S. K.

(2004). Understanding advice in supportive interactions: Beyond the facework and message evaluation paradigm. Human Communication Research, 30, 42-70.

39.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

40.

Mishra

R. C.

(1994). Individualist and collectivist orientation across generations. In Kim

Triandis

H. C.

Kagitçibasi

Choi

S. C.

Yoon

(Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 225-238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Nisbett

R. E.

(2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. New York, NY: The Free Press.

42.

Park

H. S.

(2000). Relationship among attitudes and subjective norms: Testing the theory of reasoned action across cultures. Communication Studies, 51, 162-175.

43.

Parkes

L. P.

Bochner

Schneider

S. K.

(2001). Person-organization fit across cultures: An empirical investigation of individualism and collectivism. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 81-108.

44.

Pavitt

(1999). The third way: Scientific realism and communication theory. Communication Theory, 9, 162-188.

45.

Potter

S. H.

(1988). The cultural construction of emotion in rural Chinese social life. Ethos, 16, 181-208.

46.

Rigdon

E. E.

Schumaker

R. E.

Rothke

(1998). A comparative review of interaction and nonlinear modeling. In Schumaker

R. E.

Marcoulides

G. A.

(Eds.), Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equation modeling (pp. 1-16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

47.

Rokeach

(1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

48.

Sarason

B. R.

Pierce

G. R.

Sarason

I. G.

(1990). Social support: The sense of acceptance and the role of relationships. In Sarason

B. R.

Sarason

I. G.

Pierce

G. R.

(Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 97-128). New York, NY: Wiley.

49.

Smith

S. W.

Wilson

S. R.

(2010). Evolving trends in interpersonal communication research. In Smith

S. W.

Wilson

S. R.

(Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 1-23). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

50.

Taylor

S. E.

Welch

W. T.

Kim

H. S.

Sherman

D. K.

(2007). Cultural differences in the impact of social support on psychological and biological stress responses. Psychological Science, 18, 831-837.

51.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism & collectivism. Oxford, UK: Westview press.

52.

Waltman

M. S.

Burleson

B. R.

(1997). Explaining bias in teacher ratings of behavior alteration techniques: An experimental test of the heuristic processing account. Communication Education, 46, 75-94

53.

Wilson

S. R.

Aleman

C. G.

Leatham

G. B.

(1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research, 25, 64-96.

54.

Burleson

B. R.

(2001). Effects of sex, culture, and support type on perception of spousal social support: An assessment of the “support gap” hypothesis in early marriage. Human Communication Research, 27, 535-566.