Expertise Recognition and Influence

in Intercultural Collaboration

Chona Rita R. Cruz (Cindy) 86-16518PhD Media Studies

COM 311Dr. Clarissa David

• “Expertise Recognition and Influence in Intercultural Groups: Differences Between Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication” by Natalya N. Bazarova and Y. Connie Yuan / Cornell University

• To examine the joint effects of culture and technology on expertise recognition and expert influence in intercultural groups.

• To investigate how cultural differences in communication styles may affect expertise recognition and influence in face-to-face (FtF) versus text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC).

Culture and Communication StylesIndividualistic

• Stronger orientation towards self, personal autonomy, personal goals, and individual uniqueness and control render them more assertive

• consider communication apprehension as a weakness

• expect the other members to ‘jump into’ the conversations

Collectivistic• Attentiveness to social roles,

values, norms, and situational expectations make them exercise restraint in expressing personal opinions and feelings

• less assertive, less self-confident, less argumentative communication style toward preservation of harmony

• Wait to be “invited’

Moderation Effect of the Medium

Face-to-Face (FtF)

• Fulfillment of “the expected social order”

• Social expectations and social sanctions

• Cognitive resources allotted to nonverbal processes

Text-based Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)

• Equalization phenomenon

• Empowering effect

• Cognitive resources reallocated to message creation for more active communication role

Method• Participants: 134 graduate students (67 Americans and 67

Chinese within age range of 19 to 42) in groups of 3 to 4 (same gender)

• Group Task: Moon survival task (group decision simulation)

• Communication Media: FtF (video recorded group sessions) vs. CMC (online chat program)

• Individual Task: Online questionnaire after the group task

• Construction of Hypotheses: Interplay of medium + cultural communication style + area of investigation = prediction

• Areas: Participation rate, perceived confidence, expertise recognition, and perceived influence.

Hypotheses• Participation Rate (H1) - confirmed

– The medium moderates the effect of an expert’s culture on participation rate – East Asian experts participate less actively than Western experts in FtF discussions, but not in CMC text-based discussions.

• Perceived Confidence (H2) - confirmed– The medium moderates the effect of an expert’s culture on

perceived confidence – East Asian experts are perceived as less confident than Western experts in FtF discussions, but not in CMC text-based discussions.

• Expertise Recognition (H3) - confirmed– The medium moderates the effect of an expert’s culture on

expertise recognition – East Asian experts are recognized less actively than Western experts in FtF discussions, but not in CMC text-based discussions.

Hypotheses• Perceived Influence (H4) - confirmed

– The medium moderates the effect of experts’ culture on their perceived influence – East Asian experts are perceived as less influential than Western experts in FtF discussions, but not in CMC text-based discussions.

• Mediated Moderation (H5 and H6) – (a) Participation rate and (b) perceived confidence mediate the

proposed moderation effect of communication medium on cultural differences in expertise recognition. > both rejected

– (a) Participation rate and (b) perceived confidence mediate the proposed moderation effect of communication medium on cultural differences in perceived influence. > Only perceived confidence affected perceived influence.

Conceptual Contributions• Communication technology reduced differences in

expertise recognition/influence.

• Communication styles reduced differences only as far as shared cultural judgments and equal value of what comprise competence and expertise.

• The reduction of nonverbal and contextual cues may be more desirable for effective intercultural collaboration (present results – CMC as empowering and equalizing).

• Usefulness/need of technology filter or support social cues as deemed desirable in an intercultural collaboration.

Practical Implications

• Potentially danger in use of communication styles as a basis for judging expertise in intercultural collaboration

• Exercising mindfulness in differences of communication styles and conscious incorporation of all members’ areas expertise despite differences

• Using multiple media could be beneficial for intercultural collaboration

Future Research

• Exploration of other characteristics of communication (openness, assertiveness, attentiveness, use of reason)

• Exploration of characteristics of communication styles used universally across culture to judge expertise vis-a-vis cultural differences in expertise perception

• Examination using mixed gender

Reference

Bazarova, N. & Yuan, C (2013). “Expertise Recognition and Influence in Intercultural Groups: Differences Between Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 437–453.