Introduction

　The rapid globalizing trend has strongly demanded people to acquire the ability of intercultural communication competence in order to promote a peaceful and successful life in the new millennium. Scholars in different disciplines have begun to study the concept for decades, unfortunately conceptual ambiguity and operational inconsistency continue to plague this line of research. In an effort to improve the problem, this paper focuses on the examination of the behavioral aspect, i.e., intercultural effectiveness/adroitness, of intercultural communication competence. In addition to clarifying differences of the three dimensions of intercultural communication competence, this paper defines the meaning of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness, delineates its dimensions and components, and further provides directions for future research.  It is hoped that through this effort, the concept of intercultural effectiveness can be demystified and further contribution can be made to improve the understanding of intercultural communication competence in the globalizing society. 

　We live in time of rapid change. The change will continue for years ahead and its complexity will increase due to the ongoing development of technology, globalization of economy, widespread population migration, and the emergence of multiculturalism or cultural diversity in modern societies. The development expedites the pace of globalization which impacts every aspect of human life and has made the world smaller. Globalization continues to redefine our identity in workplace, at home, and other arenas of our life by breaking down the stereotypical roles we played at previous weeks or years. Moreover, globalization demands a community where people of different cultural backgrounds must learn to be interdependent in order to survive. As a result, the need for intercultural communication competence in the globalizing society becomes indispensable for a peaceful and successful life in the new millennium (Chen 2000; Chen & Starosta, 2005).

　Intercultural communication competence can be conceptualized as the ability to effectively and appropriately achieve ones goal by executing communication behaviors to negotiate both interactants identity in a culturally diverse environment (Chen & Starosta, 1996). In other words, interculturally competent persons know how to elicit a desired response in interaction and to fulfill their own communication goals by respecting and affirming the worldview and cultural identities of the interactants. It is the ability to effectively and appropriately acknowledge, respect, tolerate, and integrate cultural differences that qualifies us for enlightened global citizenship. Chen and Starosta (1996) indicated that intercultural communication competence comprises three interrelated concepts: intercultural sensitivity, intercultural awareness, and intercultural effectiveness/adroitness.  

　Although the three dimensions of intercultural communication competence are closely related, they represent three independent concepts. Unfortunately, most research tends to mingle them without clearly distinguishing them from one another. Chen and Starosta (1997, 2000, 2003), in addition to criticizing the problem of conceptual ambiguity and confusion in the research of intercultural communication competence, have separately explored intercultural sensitivity and intercultural awareness in a great depth. 

　Intercultural sensitivity is the affective aspect of intercultural communication competence, referring to the development of a readiness to understand and appreciate cultural differences in intercultural communication. The concept focuses on ones emotions that are caused by particular situations, people, or environment (Triandis, 1977). With the readiness of dealing with cultural differences, interculturally sensitive persons are capable of projecting and receiving positive emotional responses in the process of interaction. Chen and Starosta (1997, 2000) and Fritz, Mollenberg, and Chen (2002) indicated that in order to foster a positive emotion for acknowledging, appreciating, and respecting cultural differences, an interculturally sensitive person must possess five personal attributes: (1) Selfesteem – to be able to show optimistic outlook and confidence in intercultural interaction. (2) Selfmonitoring – to be able to consciously regulate ones behaviors in response to situational constraints in intercultural interaction. (3) Openmindedness – to be able to openly and appropriately explain oneself and accept ones counterparts explanation in intercultural interaction. (4) Empathy – to be able to project oneself to another persons point of view and to demonstrate reciprocity of affect displays and active listening in order to show understanding in intercultural interaction. And (5) Suspending judgment – to be able to avoid rash judgment about ones counterparts inputs and foster a feeling of enjoyment of cultural differences in intercultural interaction.

　Intercultural awareness is the cognitive aspect of intercultural communication competence referring to the understanding of cultural conventions that affect how we think and behave. In other words, intercultural awareness is a process of attitudinally internalizing insights about a groups predominant values, attitudes, and beliefs that dictate members behaviors. It is the ability to draw an accurate "cultural map" (Kluckhohn, 1948), to sort out the "cultural theme" (Turner, 1968), or to understand "cultural grammars" (Colby, 1975).

　The process of intercultural awareness is evolving in three stages (Hanvey, 1987). The first stage is to be aware of the superficial cultural traits that show the most visible characteristics of a culture and its people. The second stage is to be aware of significant and subtle cultural traits that contrast with ours. This stage includes two phases with the first approaches intercultural awareness through culture conflict situation and second through intellectual analysis. The last stage is to be aware of how another culture feels from the insiders perspective or empathy ability. Chen and Starosta (19989) pointed out that the main components that comprise "cultural map", "cultural theme", or "cultural grammars" include basic factual information and deep structured cultural values. The authors further identified models from Parsons (1951), Kluckhohn and Strodbeck (1961), Condon and Yousef (1975), Hall (1976), and Hofstede (1983, 1984) that can be used to study intercultural awareness.

　Because no existing studies have been done to clarify the concept of "intercultural effectiveness", this paper aims to continue this line of research by demystifying the concept from four aspects: (1) Conceptualization of intercultural effectiveness, (2) intercultural effectiveness and intercultural training, (3) dimensions and components of intercultural effectiveness, and (4) discussion and directions for future research.

Conceptualization of Intercultural Effectiveness

Since half century ago, scholars in psychology and other disciplines have discussed the concept of effectiveness when trying to define the meaning of competence. For example, Foote and Cottrell (1955) conceptualized interpersonal competence as the acquired ability for effective interaction, and White (1959) considered competence as an inherent ability to interact effectively with its environment. The difference between the two is that Foote and Cottrell treated the "effectiveness" of interaction as a learning ability which is increased through socialization either by manipulation or incident; while White treated it as an organisms capacity which can be reached through behaviors instigated by drives in their own right.

　Later, Weinstein (1969) extended the meaning of competence to include, in addition to the ability to control the responses of ones counterpart, ones ability to accomplish tasks. In other words, interaction effectiveness is comprised of two elements: manipulation and goal orientation. Moreover, this effective ability should be observable and recognized by ones counterpart (Bochner & Kelly, 1974). Bochner and Kelly (1974) also proposed another critical concept to delineate the meaning of interpersonal competence: appropriateness. A competent person not only is able to effectively formulate and achieve communication objectives and to effectively collaborate with others, but also need to appropriately adapt to situational or environmental variations.

　The distinction between "effectiveness" and "appropriateness" is critical in understanding the meaning of communication competence. Individuals might be able to effectively achieve their goals or objectives in interaction by using an inappropriate or unacceptable means, such as using the Machiavellian style. Thus, "effectiveness" only represents one side of the coin of communication competence which refers to getting one wishes to get in the process of interaction, or in Phillips (1983) words, is the "ability to accomplish specific goals" (p.33), and this ability requires behavioral skills to meet communication requirements. 

　"Appropriateness" refers to understanding situations and their requirements. It is the ability to maintain "the face and line of his fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation" (Wiemann, 1977, p. 198). As a result, appropriateness becomes the indispensable ability to regulate ones effective behaviors in order to be accounted as being competent. Wiemann and Backlund (1980) further stipulated that appropriateness generally refers to the ability of an individual to meet the basic contextual requirements of the situation in the process of communication, and these contextual requirements include: "(1) The verbal context, that is, making sense in terms of wording, of statements, and of topic; (2) The relationship context, that is, the structuring, type and style of messages so that they are consonant with the particular relationship at hand; and (3) The environmental context, that is, the consideration of constraints imposed on message making by the symbolic and physical environments" (p. 191).

　Trenholm and Rose (1981) also pointed out that in order to recognize how context constrains communication or how to act and speak appropriately, an individual must understand that "different situations give rise to different sets of rules; compliance and noncompliance separate those who ‘belong from those who do not ‘fit in" (p. 13). More specifically, being appropriate in interaction is embedded in four elements: quantity, quantity, relevancy, and manner (Allen & Wood, 1978). Quantity refers to saying just enough; quality refers to not saying something thats false; relevance refers to relating ones contribution to the topic and situation; and manner refers to being clear about one is saying. 

　Appropriateness is especially important in intercultural communication, because a culture always possess a very rigid and distinct set of cultural rules that stipulates how its members should think and act based on its belief and value systems. A single response in intercultural communication setting might lead to an unnecessarily abrasive, intense, or bizarre outcome that results in negative consequences due to the violation of cultural rule. 

　Thus, to speak or act appropriately in intercultural communication requires interactants to be familiar with their counterparts cultural rules and be able to project positive emotion that show acknowledgment, respect, or acceptance of cultural differences. That is, the foundation of appropriate intercultural communication is built on the basis of intercultural awareness and intercultural sensitivity. Therefore, as indicated previously, although intercultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, and intercultural effectiveness are three closely related concepts, they must be clearly distinguished in order to fully understand the concept intercultural communication competence. Unfortunately, the failure of distinguishing these three concepts continues to plague this line of research. 

　To avoid the confusion and ambiguity, Chen and Starosta (1996) conceptualized intercultural effectiveness as "the ability to get the job done and attain communication goals in intercultural interaction" (p. 367) through behavioral performance. They further suggested to use "intercultural adroitness" to replace "intercultural effectiveness" so that the problem of using "intercultural effectiveness" and "intercultural communication competence" interchangeably can be improved. In other words, to be interculturally competent individuals must hold cognitive ability or intercultural awareness and affective ability or intercultural sensitivity to make accurate judgments, and further infuse these abilities to behavioral level of interaction depending on different cultural contexts in order to achieve communication goals effectively and appropriately. 

Dimensions and Components of Intercultural Effectiveness

The emphasis of behavioral skills of intercultural effectiveness/ adroitness corresponds to communication skills that are comprised of those verbal and nonverbal behaviors enabling people to achieve their goals in intercultural interaction. Such communication behaviors form the content of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness. They include five dimensions: message skills, interaction management, behavioral flexibility, identity management, and relationship cultivation (Chen, 1989, 1990, 1992, 2005; Chen & Starosta, 1996; Cupach & Imahori, 1993; Gudykunst, 1993; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Hammer, 1987; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Lustig & Koester, 1999; Martin & Hammer, 1989; Ruben, 1977; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Spitzberg, 1988, 1997; Wiseman, 2003). 

Message Skills

Message skills demand the ability to exercise ones counterparts verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Verbal skills refer to the ability to code skillfully and to create recognizable messages in the process of communication (Kim, 1994; Kim & Wilson, 1994; Milhouse, 1993; Parks, 1994; Weber, 1994). This is the socalled "linguistic competence" or "communicative competence" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984) which is concerned with language and messages in the interaction process. In addition, verbal skills also relate to the knowledge of rules underlying the use of language (Chomsky, 1965).

　Messages skills are tempered by selfdisclosure which refers to willingness of individuals to openly reveal information about themselves to their counterparts. In the process of communication selfdisclosure may reflect the amount, depth, intent, accuracy, and valence of the message an individual delivers (Wheeless, Erickson, & Behrens, 1986; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). Without selfdisclosure human communication simply cannot happen. However, selfdisclosure must be regulated by the principle of appropriateness in order to reach a successful outcome. This is especially important in intercultural communication setting, because the emphasis of selfdisclosure varies among cultures, including the list of topics, the degree of intimacy, the level of hierarchy that are all sanctioned by the culture (Chen, 1995; Nakanishi, 1987; Nakanishi & Johnson, 1993).  

　Similar to verbal skills, nonverbal skills refer to the ability to code skillfully and to create recognizable nonverbal messages, including those cues in the areas of Kinesics, Proxemics, Paralanguage, and Chronemics (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989; Chen & Starosta, 2005; Hall, 1959, 1966, 1976, 1984). However, nonverbal messages are much less systematized and more ambiguous than verbal communication (Chen & Starosta, 2005), they as well involve those humanly and environmentally generated stimuli that convey potential nonlinguistic message values to the interactant (Samovar & Porter, 1995). To acquire nonverbal skills, as Ricard (1993) suggested, individuals need to follow five steps: assess learning needs, observe similar situations, use appropriate resources, reach tentative conclusions, and reevaluate the conclusions as necessary.

　Rubin (1982) organized message skills into four categories from the western cultural perspective: (1) communication codes – refer to using words, pronunciation, grammar, voice, and nonverbal signs appropriately; (2) oral message evaluation – refers to be able to identify main ideas in messages, distinguish facts from opinions, distinguish informative and persuasive messages, and to recognize when another does not understand your message; (3) basic speech communication skills – include the ability to express ideas clearly and concisely, express and defend ones point of view,  organize understandable messages, ask, answer, and summarize questions effectively, and to give concise and accurate directions; and (4)  human relations – include the ability to describe anothers viewpoint, describe differences in opinion, express feelings to other, and to perform social rituals.

Interaction Management

Interaction management refers to the ability to initiate, terminate, and take turn in conversation "based on a reasonably accurate assessment of the needs and desires of others" (Ruben, 1976, p. 341). Ruben, for example, further stipulated that a low interaction management person often show the following behaviors: (1) Unconcern turn taking in conversation; (2) Either dominate or refuse to interact; (3) Unresponsiveness or unawareness towards counterparts needs for involvement and time sharing; (4) Initiate and terminate discussion without regard for the wishes of other individuals; (5) Continue to talk long after obvious displays of disinterest and boredom by others; and (6) Terminate discussion or withhold information when there is clear interest expressed by others for further exchange.

　In contrast, Ruben continued, a high interaction management person is extremely concerned with providing equal opportunity for all participants to share in contributions to discussion. In the initiation and termination of discussion, he or she always indicates concern for the interests, tolerances, and orientation of others who are party to discussion. 

　Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) indicated that interaction management deals with ones ability to structure and maintain the procedure of a conversation. Thus, individuals with interaction management skills always know how to develop a topic smoothly in interaction and give their counterparts an opportunity to contribute to the conversation. In addition to this, interaction management is also reflected in the ability of "doubleemic listening" through which the interactants are able to develop a spacebetween and "move from their respective views to formulate an etic view of the other" (Starosta & Chen, 2000, p. 290). Through the process of an effective interaction management, not only can one gather information to improve the quality of interaction, but also play an important role in defining how the conversation will proceed. Interaction management has been found to be a major element for being competent in intercultural communication (Chen, 1989; Olebe & Koester, 1989; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Spitzberg, 1994).

　The fostering of interaction management skills is based on ones constant concern on the interests and orientations of others in interaction. This otheroriented ability or avoiding monopoly in conversation to display mutual dependency or reciprocity is embedded in the concept of "interaction involvement." According to Cegala (1981, 1984) and Cegala, Savage, Brunner, and Conrad (1982), interaction involvement is a kind of social behavior that is related to personal abilities of responsiveness, attentiveness and perceptiveness in interaction. The three elements, i.e., responsiveness, attentiveness and perceptiveness of interaction involvement, reflect that they are not only part of interaction or behavioral skills for an effective communication, but also founded on the ability of affective aspect or sensitivity of the person. 

　Finally, based on literature review, Wiemann (1977) summarized five components of interaction management: "(1) Interruptions of the speaker are not permitted, (2) One person talks at a time; (3) Speaker turns must interchange; (4) Frequent and lengthy pauses should be avoided; and (5) An interactant must be perceived as devoting full attention to the encounter" (pp. 198199).

Behavioral Flexibility

Behavioral flexibility refers to an individuals ability to be accurate and "flexible in attending to information," and "in selecting strategies" in order to achieve personal goals in interaction (Parks, 1976, p. 16). In other words, it is the ability to select an appropriate behavior to fit different communication contexts (Bochner & Kelly, 1974). Duran (1983) and Wheeless and Duran (1982) proposed the concept of communication adaptability to indicate this behavioral flexibility that leads a person to feel comfortable with a variety of people in different situations. Several components of communication adaptability include being easy to get along with new people, being easy to fit in with different group of people, enjoying social gatherings where one can meet new people, and feeling relaxed in conversing with a new acquaintance.

　Behavioral flexibility also refers to "environmental mobility" that requires a person to cope with different kinds of people at different levels of circumstance (Cleveland, Mangone, & Adams, 1960). From the perspective of message exchange, Argyle (1969) and Robinson (1972) pointed out that behavioral flexibility denotes the ability in making the alternation and cooccurrence of specific speech choices that mark the status and affiliative relationships of interactants.

　In intercultural communication behavioral flexibility is an important component for being a "multicultural person" mentioned by Adler (1998). According to Adler, multicultural persons are always situational in interacting with others, are always in a state of "becoming" that shows continual personal transitions, and always maintain an open boundary of the self to allow change. In other words, behaviorally flexible or adaptive persons are able to integrate various communication demands in terms of culture, ethnicity, race, gender, and religion. 

　Finally, the development of behavioral flexibility is dependent on the cognitive awareness of cultural variations and affective ability in selfmonitoring. Cultural variations represent the different features of cultural context. For example, Chung and Chen (2002) summarized the differences between highcontext and lowcontext cultures by indicating that highcontext cultures are characterized by the emphasis of group value orientation, indirect communication, feeling, permanent relationship, and spiral thinking pattern; while lowcontext cultures emphasize individualism, direct expression, logic, transitory relationship, and line reasoning logic. Selfmonitoring is an individuals ability to detect the appropriateness of their social behaviors and selfpresentation in response to situational constraints and to adjust their behaviors to fit the situation (Chen & Starosta, 1997; Snyder, 1974). Research has shown that high selfmonitoring persons tend to more adaptable to diverse communication situation and more adept in the use of communication strategies (Smith, Cody, Lovette, & Canary, 1990; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984).

Identity Management

Identity management allows individuals to maintain their counterpart's identity. Because human communication is partially prompted by a persons need to learn who he or she is, to reach a successful communication relies not only on the ability to know oneself or selfawareness, but also the ability to inform their counterparts who they are. 

　Although part of identity may be created by the self, but it is mainly cocreated through communication with others. Through the process of negotiation, cocreation, challenge, and reinforcement between the interactants, identity formation reflects a dynamic and multifaceted process. Thus, the salience and intensity of identity varies in different spatial and temporal situations (Collier, 1994). In addition, identity also shows diverse faces in different contexts and is presented in affective, cognitive, and behavioral levels of human interaction (Lustig & Koester, 2000; Martin & Nakayama, 1997).

　The diverse faces of identity refer to that an individual plays different roles in different contexts. In intercultural communication it is similar to Adlers "muliticultural identities" (1998) or Starostas "dual consciousness" (2000) that shows identity is a social character that is fluid, mobile, colliding, susceptible to change, and open to variation. Moreover, identity requires the involvement of affection. In certain situation one might strongly claim ones identity to assure the psychological balance, such as in the crisis stage of intercultural adjustment. Identity as well relates to ones understanding and belief regarding identity itself. For example, people with different cultural identity might posses a similar belief in other issues. In this situation the similar belief often outstrips ones cultural or other identities. Lastly, in the behavioral level, identity is displayed in the exchange of verbal and nonverbal messages. In other words, identity is formed through the verbal and nonverbal interaction in which participants achieve mutual understanding. Thus, in terms of cultural identity, an individuals identity or group belonging can be identified through the analyses of verbal and nonverbal messages (Chen, 2004). 

　The characteristics of identity show that the use of identity management skills must vary with different situations and different personal goals, and with movement from one salient identity to another (Collier, 1989; Parks, 1985; TingToomey, 1989; 1993). Intercultural communication competence is then demonstrated by ones ability to effectively and appropriately enact ones counterparts cultural identity, which manifests the match between the avowed and ascribed identity, and reinforces different identities salient in the particular situation (Collier, 1994).

Relationship Cultivation

The last dimension of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness is relationship cultivation. The relational aspect of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness emphasizes the independent and reciprocal process of interaction (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). It refers to the ability to establish certain degree of relationship with ones partner in order to satisfy each others needs and reach a positive outcome of interaction. As an affinityseeking behavior, relationship cultivation can be achieved through being friendly or showing concern and interest in the interaction (Martin & Hammer, 1989), and such behaviors as courtesy and cooperativeness (Harris, 1973). Moreover, relationship cultivation is displayed in the degree of intimacy, relationship stability and commitment, and idiosyncratic rules created during the interaction (Imahari & Lanigan, 1989). 

　According to Ruben (1976), the ability of building, maintaining, or cultivating relationship is a functional flexibility in different kinds of role behaviors. In other words, individuals with the ability of relationship cultivation are able to lead the group to such outcomes as "harmonizing and mediating scraps and/or conflicts between group members, attempts to regulate evenness of contributions of group members," offer comments "relative to the groups dynamics," displays "indications of a willingness to compromise own position for the sake of group consensus" (p. 350), and displays interest. Although the application is in a group setting, it is generally applicable to different contexts of communication. In contrast, those individuals who are highly resistant to others ideas or "attempt to manipulate the group by asserting authority through flattery, sarcasm, interrupting, etc.," will bring detrimental effect to relationship development. Finally, Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) found that the ability to establish interpersonal relationships is a dimension of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness which leads to intercultural communication competence. 

Discussion and Directions for Future Research

   Questions regarding the study of intercultural communication competence have been raised by scholars from different disciplines (Chen & Starosta, 1996, 19989; Collier, 1989; Koester, Wiseman, & Sanders, 1993; Lustig & Spitzberg, 1993; Martin, 1993; Ruben, 1989). Among them, two issues including conceptualization and operationalization of intercultural communication competence are especially applicable to the study of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness.

　Conceptually, first, although scholars continue to demystify the meaning of intercultural communication competence, very few of them made an effort to clarify the difference between competence and effectiveness. This conceptual confusion and ambiguity not only misleads people to treat both competence and effectiveness as interchangeable, but also leads to operational inconsistency and fragmentation of the concepts. As previously mentioned, intercultural communication competence is a multidimensional concept which is comprised of cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of human interaction. The cognitive aspect is represented by the concept of intercultural awareness; the affective aspect is by the concept of intercultural sensitivity; and the behavioral aspect is by the concept of intercultural effectiveness. In other words, intercultural effectiveness only represents one of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence. To treat intercultural effectiveness and intercultural communication competence interchangeably is inconceivable. Thus, as proposed by Chen and Starosta (1996), in order to avoid confusion, it is recommendable to use "intercultural adroitness" to replace "intercultural effectiveness" which portrays the behavioral or interactional skills of intercultural communication competence.

　Second, since intercultural communication competence is a multidimensional concept comprising intercultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, and intercultural effectiveness/adroitness, it is important for future research to investigate the relationship among the three dimensions. As Chen and Starosta (1996, 1999) argued, the three concepts are closed related but independent dimensions of intercultural communication competence. How to clearly conceptualize these concepts remains a significant task for scholars to further demystify the concept of intercultural communication competence. Moreover, do these three dimensions possess the same weight for accounting intercultural communication competence? Are they all sufficient and necessary elements for interactants to be interculturally competent in different cultural contexts or other situations? These questions deserve more future investigations in this line of research. 

　Finally, the distinction and relationship between intercultural effectiveness and intercultural appropriateness needs to be further elucidated.  Obviously, individuals can be highly effective in achieving their task or goals in intercultural interaction by using an inappropriate means, such as a Machiavellians style or intentionally violating communication rules discussed previously. Thus, it is necessary to treat appropriateness and effectiveness as two different concepts. In other words, effectiveness and appropriateness are the two sides of a coin of intercultural communication competence which cannot be achieved without either one of them. The previous analysis has indicated that appropriateness is more attached to the cognitive and affective aspects of intercultural communication competence. It is the understanding of cultural themes and the affective sensitivity of intercultural differences through acknowledging, respect, and accepting that help interactants act more appropriately while applying behavioral skills in intercultural communication. Here we can see the tight relationship among intercultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, and intercultural effectiveness/adroitness, but how to project or integrate this appropriateness based on awareness and sensitivity into effectiveness by guiding interactants behaviors is another area future research needs to examine.  

　The issue of operationalization mainly concerns the assessment of the concept which contains two tasks: What are the attributes of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness and how to assess them. First, the attributes of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness concern the content of the concept. This paper proposes five dimensions of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness, including messages skills, interaction management, behavioral flexibility, identity management, and relationship cultivation. The dimensions seem to be universal in human communication, while in intercultural communication setting, due to the involvement of cultural differences, the emphasis on each one or the culturally acceptable components for each dimension may vary. For instance, comparing to Westerners, the Chinese tend to be more restrained in interaction, more uneasy to directly show disapproval, more concerned on saving or making face for their counterparts, more reciprocal in social interaction, and place more emphasis on particularistic relationships (Chen, 2002). 

　How would these cultural values affect the content variations of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness? In other words, it might be suitable to adopt culturegeneral approach to conceptualize the more abstractlevel dimensions of intercultural effectiveness/adroitness, but when trying to operationalize or empirically observe the elements of these dimensions, a culturespecific approach becomes more appropriate (Chen & Starosta, 1996; Lustig & Spitzberg, 1993). 

　Second and lastly, how do behavioral skills be observed or assessed? There is no doubt that intercultural effectiveness/adroitness is displayed through how the individual acts or behaves in the interaction. The problem is who should be the best person to evaluate or judge whether the interactants external actions or behaviors account for being interculturally effective/adroit. Is it the actor the most suitable person to decide whether he or she is interculturally effective/adroit? In other words, should intercultural effectiveness/adroitness be observed or assessed based on the selfreport process? Is it the actors counterpart the best person to make the judgment? The counterpart can be more objectively observe the actors behaviors, but this objectivity might be compromised due to his or her involvement in the interaction, and limitation might be caused by cultural myopia. Using the third party to observe the interacants behaviors seems most likely to attain objectivity, however, the lack of interactional relationship between the third party and the interactants might jeopardize the reliability of the observation results. All these questions should be addressed in future research in this line of study. 

References

Adler, P. S. (1998). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections on multiculturalism. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings (pp. 225245). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Allen, R. R., & Wood, B. S. (1978). Beyond reading and writing to communication competence. Communication Education, 27, 286292.

Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. London,: Tavostock. 

Barna, L. M. (1994). Intercultural communication stumbling blocks. In R. E. Porter & L. A. Samovar (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 337346). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bochner, A. P., & Kelly, C. W. (1974). Interpersonal competence: Rational, philosophy, and implementation of a conceptual framework. Speech Teacher, 23,279301. 

Brislin, R. W. (1979). Orientation programs for crosscultural preparation. In A. J. Marsella, R. G. Tharp, & T. J. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on crosscultural psychology (pp. 287303). New York: Academic Press.

Brislin, R., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Intercultural communication training: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1989). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: Harper & Row.

Cegala, D. J. (1981).  Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative competence. Communication Education, 30, 109121. 

Cegala, D. J. (1984). Affective and cognitive manifestations of interaction involvement during unstructured and competitive interactions.  Communication Monographs, 51, 320338. 

Cegala, D. J., Savage, G. T., Brunner, C. C., & Conrad, A. B. (1982).  An elaboration of the meaning of interaction involvement: Toward the development of a theoretical concept. Communication Monographs, 46, 229248.    

Chen, G. M (1989). Relationships of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 37, 118133.

Chen, G. M. (1990). Intercultural communication Competence: Some perspectives of research. The Howard Journal of Communications, 2,243261. 

Chen, G. M. (1992). A test of intercultural communication competence. Intercultural Communication Studies, 2, 6382.

Chen, G. M. (1995). Differences in selfdisclosure patterns among Americans versus Chinese: A comparative study.  Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 26,8491.

Chen, G. M. (2000). Globalization and intercultural communication competence. In Shapes of future: Global communication in the 21st century  proceedings of the 2000 International Communication Conference (pp. 5164). Taipei: Tamkang University. 

Chen, G. M. (2002). The impact of harmony on Chinese conflict management. In G. M. Chen & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 319). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Chen, G. M. (2004). An introduction to intercultural communication.Taipei: WuNan.

Chen, G. M. (2005). A model of global communication competence. China Media Research, 1, 1311.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. Communication Yearbook, 19, 353384.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1997).  A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity. Human Communication, 1, 116.                                     

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (19989). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness.  Human Communication, 2, 2754.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural communication sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3,115. 

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2003). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness. In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 344353).  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.  

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2005). Foundations of intercultural communication. New York: University Press of America.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chung, J. & Chen, G. M. (2002, July). The Impacts of Media Contexts and Cultural Contexts on Media Choice. Paper presented to the Pacific Asian Communication Association (PACA) biyearly meeting, Seoul, Korea. 

Cleveland, H., Mangone, G. J., & Adams, J. C. (1960). The overseas Americans. NY: McGrawHill. 

Colby, B. N. (1975). Culture grammars.  Science, 187, 913919.

Collier, M. J. (1989). Cultural and intercultural communication competence: Current approaches and directions for future research.  International Journal and Intercultural Relations, 13, 287302.

Collier, M. J. (1994). Cultural identity and intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 3644). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Condon, J. C., & Yousef, F. (1975). An introduction to intercultural communication.  Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill.

Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Identity management theory: Communication competence in intercultural episodes and relationships. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 112131).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

David, K. (1972). Intercultural adjustment and applications of reinforcement theory to problems of culture shock. Trends, 4, 164.

Duran, R.L. (1983). Communicative adaptability: A measure of social communicative competence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 320326.

Foote, N. N., & Cottrell, L. S. (1955). Identity and interpersonal competence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fritz, W., Mollenberg, A., & Chen, G. M. (2002). Measuring intercultural sensitivity in different cultural context. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11, 165176.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1993). Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup communication: An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) perspective. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 3371). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Gudykunst, W. B., Hammer, M. R., & Wiseman, R. L. (1977). An analysis of an integrated approach to crosscultural training.  International Journal of intercultural Relations, 2, 99110.

Hall. E. T. (1959). The silent language.  Garden city, NY:  Doubleday.

Hall. E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY:  Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture.  Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Hall, E. T. (1984). The dance of life: The other dimension of time.  Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hammer, M. R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: A replication and extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 6588.

Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W.B., & Wiseman, R.L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382392.

Hanvey, R. G. (1987). Crossculture awareness. In L. F. Luce & E. C. Smith (Eds.), Toward internationalism (pp. 1323). Cambridge, MA: Newbury.

Harris, J. G. (1973).  A science of the South Pacific: An analysis of the character structure of the Peace Corp volunteer. American Psychologist, 28, 232247. 

Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions.  International Studies of Management and Organization, 13, 4674.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Imahari, T. T., & Lanigan, M. I. (1989). Relational model of intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 269286.

Kim, M. (1994). Crosscultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128151.  

Kim, M., & Wilson, S. R. (1994).  A crosscultural comparison of Kim, Y. Y. (1994b). Interethnic communication: The context and the behavior. In S.A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 17 (pp. 511538).  London: Sage. 

Kluckhohn, C. (1948).  Mirror of man.  New York: McGraw Hill.    

Kluckhohn, C., & Strodbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientations.  Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Koester, J., Wiseman, R. L., & Sanders, J. A (1993). Multiple perspectives of intercultural communication competence. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 315).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures. New York: Longman.

Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2000). The nature of cultural identity. In M. W. Lustig & J. Koester (Eds.), Among us: Essays on identity, belonging, and intercultural competence (pp. 38). New York: Longman.

Lustig, M. W., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). Methodological issues in the study intercultural communication. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 153167).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Martin, J. N. (1993). Intercultural communication competence: A review. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 1629). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Martin, J. N., & Hammer, M. R. (1989). Behavioral categories of intercultural communication competence: Everyday communicators perceptions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 303332.

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1997). Intercultural communication in contexts. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Milhouse, V. H. (1993). The applicability of interpersonal communication competence to the intercultural communication context.  In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 184203). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Nakanishi, M. (1987). Perceptions of selfdisclosure in initial interaction: A Japanese sample. Human Communication Research, 13, 167190.

Nakanishi, M., & Johnson, K. M. (1993). Implications of selfdisclosure on conversational logics, perceived communication competence, and social attraction. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 204221). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Olebe, M., & Koester, J. (1989). Exploring the crosscultural equivalence of the Behavioral Assessment Scale for intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 333347.

Parks, M. R. (1976, December). Communication competence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association.  San Francisco, California. 

Parks, M. R. (1985). Interpersonal communication and the quest for personal competence. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp.171201).  Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Parks, M. R. (1994). Communication competence and interpersonal control. In M. L. Knapp & G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 589618). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Parsons, T. (1951).  The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Phillips, G.M. (1984). A competent view of "competence." Communication Education, 33, 2536. 

Ricard, V. B. (1992). Developing intercultural communication skills. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Robinson, W. P. (1972). Language and social behavior. Baltimore: Penguin. 

Ruben, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group & Organization Studies, 1, 334354.

Ruben, B. D. (1977). Guidelines for crosscultural communication effectiveness.  Group & Organization Studies, 2, 470479.     

Ruben, B D. (1989). The study of crosscultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal and Intercultural Relations, 13, 287302.

Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D.J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of crosscultural adaptation. International Journal of intercultural Relations, 3, 1547. 

Rubin, R. B. (1982).Assessing speaking and listening competence at college level: The Communication Competency Assessment Instrument. Communication Education, 31, 1932.

Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1995).  Communication between cultures.  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Seidel, G. (1981). Crosscultural training procedures: Their theoretical framework and evaluation. In S. Bochner (Ed.). The mediating person: Bridge between cultures.  Cambridge:  Schenhman. 

Shirts, G. (1973).  BAFA BAFA: A crosscultural simulation. Delmar, CA: Simile.

Smith, S. W., Cody, M. J., Lovette, S., & Canary, D. J. (1990).  Selfmonitoring, gender and compliancegaining goals. In M. J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 91134).  Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Snyder, M. (1974).  Selfmonitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 528. 

Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In C. H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes (pp. 67106). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). A model of Intercultural communication competence. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 347359). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1997). A model of Intercultural communication competence. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 379391).  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Starosta, W. J. (2000). Dual consciousness@ USAmerican.white.male. In M. W. Lustig & J. Koester (Eds.), Among us: Essays on identity, belonging, and intercultural competence (pp. 107115). New York: Longman.

Starosta, W. J., & Chen, G. M. (2000). Listening across diversity in global society. In G. M. Chen & W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp. 279293). New York: Peter Lang.

Thiagarajan, S. & Steinwachs, B. (1990). Barnga: A simulation game on cultural clashes.  Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

TingToomey, S. (1989). Identity and interpersonal bond.  In M. K. Asante & Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 351373).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

TingToomey, S. (1993). Communication resourcefulness: An identity negotiation perspective. In R. L. Wiseman & Koester, J. (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 72111).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Trenholm, S., & Rose, T. (1981). The compliant communicator: Teacher perceptions of classroom behavior. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 1326.

Turner, C. V. (1968). The Sinasina "big man" complex: A central cultural theme.  Practical Anthropology, 15, 16  22.

Weber, S.N. (1994). The need to be: The sociocultural  significance of black language.  In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 221226).  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Weinstein, E.A. (1969). The development of interpersonal competence.  In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 753775).  Chicago: Rand McNally. 

Wheeless, E. W., Erickson, K. V, & Behrens, J. S. (1986). Cultural differences in disclosiveness as a function of locus of control. Communication Monographs, 53, 3646.

Wheeless, E. W., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported selfdisclosure. Human Communication Research, 2, 238346.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297333.  

Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of model of communication competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195213.

Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative competence. Review of Educational Research, 50, 185199. 

Wiseman, R. L. (2003). Intercultural communication competence. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Crosscultural and intercultural communication (pp. 191208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wright, A. (1970). Experiential crosscultural training. Mimeo produced by Center for Research and education, Estes Park, Colorado.[HT][WT]