147KNUTSON

Thai Cultural Values: Smiles andSawasdee as Implications for

Intercultural Communication Effectiveness

Thomas J. Knutson

Abstract

The Kingdom of Thailand provides a unique set of cultural values with which to facilitateeffective intercultural communication. The highest Thai cultural values are associated withsocial harmony, a condition antecedent to intercultural communication competence. Thaisplace great emphasis on communication behaviors designed to establish, enhance, andpreserve compatibility and congeniality among all people in the Kingdom, includingforeigners. This paper presents an ethnographic report of a series of Thai communicationepisodes, analyzes them metaphorically, and summarizes the results of programmaticsocial scientific research investigating Thai culture and communication patterns. Anapparent connection between Thai cultural values and the theory of rhetorical sensitivitysuggests instructional strategies for implementing intercultural communication effective-ness.

My introduction to Thailand was as a tourist over fifteen years ago. Whilemy initial visit lasted only ten days, it was an extraordinary learning experience,which generated a continuing fascination with the Kingdom's culture and people.The Thai emphasis on social harmony as a paramount value profoundlyinfluenced my behavior and the enormous celebration of joy or sanuk in all thingshas always been remembered. Since my first visit, I have returned to Thailandtwenty times as a visiting professor at several Thai universities. Withoutexception, these adventures have created an abiding appreciation of the uniqueThai ability to establish friendship and civility. It has been a great honor to meetso many Thai people from all walks of life and an even greater honor to havemade so many Thai friends.

My attraction to Thailand was inspired by my observations of the kind,quiet and considerate behaviors displayed by Thai people in the conduct of theirdaily interpersonal relationships. I had never witnessed such civility and tact onsuch a regular basis, and these observations created a desire to understand andlearn more about Thai culture. Trained as a behavioral scientist in the UnitedStates, my initial inquiries proved both frustrating and confusing. Looking forcause and effect, trying to isolate objectively the characteristics of Thai culture,and attempting to quantify my observations proved bewildering. The Thai peopleI met were all eager to assist, but their kindness was coupled with amazementthat someone would try to understand the obvious. I eventually proclaimed myfear of never understanding Thai culture to one of my intelligent and charmingThai graduate students. She smiled and responded, "Oh, you are so differentfrom us. You should enjoy the moment and savor the good. Maybe you think toomuch." I smiled in response, but inside I was furious that such a good studentwould make such an anti-intellectual comrpent. I resolved to carry on with myinvestigations sure in the knowledge that scientific methods would yield at leastsome insight and understanding. Then I rediscovered Oliver's (1971) famous

ThorrjasJ. Knutson (Ph.D., University of Indiana, 1970) is a Professor of CommunicationStudies at California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819-6070.

148Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004

comment about the futility of using Western measurement techniques todescribe and understand Asian communication patterns: "It would resembletrying to measure the salinity of water with a ruler" (p. 3). I realized that anexclusive reliance on my Western training and procedures would be insufficientto enable even the most cursory comprehension of Thai culture.

This paper, therefore, relates a series of selective vignettes describingThai interpersonal communication episodes. These incidents are then interpretedin light of Thai cultural values through the use of metaphoric analysis. Finally, thepaper summarizes social scientific research on Thai communication behaviorsand concludes with suggestions for future research. In other words, the paperreports a combination of ethnographic and scientific examination in recognitionof the distinction between Thai and U.S. American epistemology.

Selected Thai Communication Vignettes

The following select vignettes provide grist for the cognitive mill in theattempt to understand and grasp the unique operations of Thai culture andinterpersonal behavior. They represent only a few of the many lovely experiencesI've been privileged to have with Thai people and, while certainly not intended asan exhaustive explanation, they are nonetheless representative of my life inThailand . These vignettes also form a foundation for the subsequent meta-phoric and social scientific analyses intended to reveal more specifically thennanner in which the unique Thai communication behaviors can benefitinstruction in intercultural communication effectiveness. This combination ofethnographic and social scientific methodology appears to be an appropriatemeans to cope with the profound distinctions between Thai and U.S.Americancultural preferences.

On my first trip to Bangkok University, a lovely campus located on RaniaIV near Klong Toey, I conducted my first doctoral seminar, a night class meetingfrom 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. At the time, I was living on the campus of AssumptionUniversity, another beautiful campus in Ramkhamhaeng, about an hour awayfrom Bangkok University. When the class ended, I left the building only toencounter one of Bangkok's monsoon storms. The rain was intense and I wasunable to locate a taxi for the ride back to Assumption University. I was alsominus an umbrella, a necessary implement for the season. As I searched thestreets futilely for transportation, my clothing was thoroughly drenched.Suddenly, a young Thai undergraduate student (identifiable by his BangkokUniversity uniform) approached me, smiled, and asked where I wanted to go.When I informed him that I needed to return to Assumption University, heexplained that I was on the wrong side of the street. He conducted me across thebusy Rania IV thoroughfare and installed me under ari awning while he searchedfor a taxi. He rushed back and forth through the traffic with no luck. After aboutten minutes, he returned to me soaking wet, with a hot coffee. He told me todrink the coffee and stay warm while he continued to search for a taxi. I wasamazed at his kindness and the sincere display of assistance to a confusedforeigner. At last a taxi stopped in front of my shelter under the awning. Thestudent, now completely wet with his drenched hair falling over his forehead,emerged from the back seat with a triumphant smile. He said, "The driver willtake you to Assumption University, adjarn (a Thai honorific displaying respect toan older person). Thank you for allowing me to assist you." I got irito the taxi andthe driver pulled away, leaving the drenched student behind, smiling and wavinggleefully. I never got the student's name, but vowed to look for him on the

149KNUTSON

Bangkok University campus. I neverfound him. When I've told this story to otherThais, they smile knowingly, and say it's enough to return his favor by helpingothers whenever you have the opportunity.

Another vignette displays the unique Thai willingness to establishharmony and understanding. Several years ago, I left the United States for anextended posting in Thailand after bidding farewell to Paul, my close friendseriously ill with AIDS. We maintained contact through faxes and letters since theThai computer systems were not yet fully developed. Paul's messages ceasedsuddenly and another of our friends wrote to me and informed me of Paul'sdeath. A few days passed following the news of Paul's passing and I was aboutto take a taxi to downtown Bangkok, a formidable trip given Bangkok's legendarytraffic problems. Before leaving campus, I asked the driver to stop at my officeso that I could collect my mail to read on the long trip downtown. I returned to thetaxi, my mail in hand, and the driver proceeded on the journey. As I inspected thelarge bundle of mail, I discovered a letter from Paul, written a few days beforehe died. My fingers trembled as I opened the envelope and read Paul's words,his last to me. His poignant message moved me deeply and the tears came tomy eyes. We were stopped at a red light when suddenly the taxi driver, a nianI had never met, reached over the seat to hand me a paper tissue. He smiledand said, "I know you have the trouble. I was homesick too when I was in SaudiArabia. You will be okay soon." The driver could not possibly have known thecontents of Paul's letter, but he did notice my emotional reaction in the reflectionof the rear view mirror. The driver was obviously inspired to reduce my sadnessand reinforce some degree of pleasantness through his beautiful display ofempathy. His gesture touched me in ways science cannot explain.

Another anecdote gives further insight into the Thai sensitivity forreceivers in their conversations. A group of us traveled South of Bangkok toPattaya, a resort town on the banks of the Gulf of Thailand. Our group consistedof about five farang (the Thai word for Caucasian foreigner) and a similarnumber of Thai people. We established ourselves at a table on the patio of alovely restaurant in the late afternoon to watch the sunset. We drank severalKloster beers, a brand named after a German brew, but made in Thailand. Asthe gorgeous sunset enveloped the patio, we ordered another round of beer. TheThai waiter appeared, a tray on his shoulder containing ten ice cold Klosterbeers. The waiter tripped and fell. The beers cascaded off the tray and smashedonto the rock patio floor with a great crash. The waiter was on his knees in themiddle of the beer and broken bottles wheri he looked up and said with a hugesmile, "Oh, so sorry. No more Kloster. You like Sing (Singha is the most popularbeer sold in Thailand)?" The waiter was more concerried about our thirst andenjoyment than he was about the relatively minor predicament of breaking thelast ten bottles of Kloster beer. His receiver orientation was happilyacknowledged as we continued to drink Singha until the wee hours much to theobvious enjoyment of the waiter. He was there to bid us farewell as we left thepatio and thanked him profusely for his hospitality. Needless to say, there wasa haridsome gratuity left on the table for him, something that would have beentoo direct to hand hirn personally.

yVhen in Thailand, I always visit my partner's family in their home locatednear Srikhorapum, close to the Cambodian border. Phan, my partner, studies inthe United States and has been unable to visit his family for over seven yearsdue to visa complicatioris. Phan's family are rice farmers and live incircumstances most Americans would describe as primitive, although the loveand kindness they display is far beyond what most people have witnessed. The

150Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004

trip to Srikhorapum, requires a lengthy train ride of about eight hours, followedby a long bus ride. Last summer, my close friend Somsak, a Commander in theRoyal Thai Navy, offered to accompany me as a guide and translator. We arrivedunannounced in the village and were greeted with enthusiastic smiles andconversation. Phan's family prepared a feast and we talked about so manytopics, most of which involved Phan and life in the States. We sat on the floorand ate sticky rice, fish, and vegetables all served in the Issan style with hotspices. Gifts and photographs were exchanged and the unique Thai hospitalitywas evident in everything we did. Upon departure, Phan's mother and sister tookmy hands in theirs and told me how happy they were that I accepted them andtheir meager way of life. I reacted with astonishment and told them it was I whowas privileged to be accepted by them, a foreigner so far from home. Phan'sMom produced a large bag of rice, gave it to me, and said that it would sustainme on the long trip back to Bangkok. The bag of rice was large enough to feedthe family for at least a month. We climbed on the old bus and drove down thedusty dirt road. I watched out the back window as the entire village, led by Phan'sfamily, waved until we could no longer see them, our eyes moist with tears, butour faces smiling displaying the bittersweet emotions of joy at the visit andsorrow at the departure.

We took the night train back to Bangkok and arrived at Haulongporm, themain train station, at five o'clock in the morning. Somsak and I were exhaustedfrom the journey and decided to take a taxi to the Skytrain, Bangkok's new andincredibly efficient urban transportation system. We arrived at the Siam Squarestation at 5:30 a.m., the heat in Bangkok already oppressive and the humidityequally dreadful. As we climbed up the long staircase to the platform, it felt asif we were walking through Jello. At the top of the stairs, we discovered a gatebarred our entrance. We were confused, tired, and dismayed at this predicamentwhen a uniformed security guard rushed over to us and exclaimed, "Oh, so sorryfor you. Train not open. Six o'clock train come. Please, come here and sit down.Go to sleep and I wake you when train come." As he led us to a small bench, Iwas quite mentally dwarfed by the guard's kindness and concern for our welfare.In the States, someone undoub t̂edly would have pointed to a sign andquestioned our ability to read.

Metaphoric Analysis

The metaphor, often used in rhetorical and communication studies,emerged as an initial tool to guide investigation into Thai culture and languagebehavior. A metaphor, as Foss (1989) explained,"... consists of a juxtapositionof two terms normally regarded as belonging to different classes of experience"(p. 360). Metaphors, with their designation of comparable attributes, provideda means of investigation comparable with the Thai view of relationships. St. Clair(2001) observed, "Metaphors not only pervade language, they also providecognitive topologies that dissect how one views the world" (p. 145). Thepersuasive impact of metaphors (Sopory & Dillard, 2002) can be seen as amethod of creating culturally specific means of worldview, a view supported bythe nature of the relationship between language and reality. Ellery (2001)observed that metaphors explain " . . . a great deal about how the world isperceived by a culture""(p. 35). Metaphors contain assumptions and evaluationsabout reality in ways that prescribe appropriate behavior among members of aculture sharing the language.

151KNUTSON

Amara Pongsapich (1998) invited several Thai scholars to comment onthe Thai worldview in a way reflecting the ". . . cognition and perception of Thaiand not Western people" (p. 11). This emic approach provided considerableinsight into the manner in which Thais create their social and cultural reality.Although the various writers presented different topics and methods, the mostfrequent conclusion held that the Thai worldview is firmly anchored in theharmony and smoothness of interpersonal relations. Thailand's cultural hierarchyidentifies the respective positions of Thai people and influences the types andforms of appropriate harmonious behavior. This harmony extends to theacademic pursuit of knowledge. Hongladarom (2002) observed that Thaiacademicians, ". . . seek truth only to the extent that it does not disrupt socialcontinuity or hierarchy" (p. 85). The role of knowledge in Thai culture operatesto maintain social hierarchy and reinforce social status, conditions that"... areput on a higher level than truth, and trump truth in the case of conflicts"(Hongladarom, p. 87). The consequences of disrupting social harmony aredescribed as ". . . tantamount to character suicide" (Hongladarom, p. 85). Therole of politeness, essential to Thai culture, requires people to behave in waysothers find appealing arid to avoid bothering or imposing on others. For example,in a recent study of Thai computer-mediated communication, Hongladarom andHongladarom (2003) reported a strong adherence to the politeness principle asevidenced by the Thai participants' comments that, ". . . attempt to avoidconfrontations and make the addressee feel that he or she is part of thecommunity" (p. 14). The emphasis on social harmony and the strongconsideration of the needs and interests of the receiver in social interaction givesThai culture its distinctive quality of politeness and friendliness.

The phrase "Land of Smile" is often used to promote Thai social harmonyand the use of "heart" ory'a/ is the most frequent metaphor in the Thai language.In order to comprehend and appreciate Thai culture and worldview, anunderstanding of the heart orya/metaphor is imperative. Indeed, Moore (1992)wrote an entire book devoted to listing and explaining over 1,000 Thai phrasesalluding to jai or the heart. Unlike the Western dichotomy of heart and mind,however, the Thai language makes no such distinction. As Moore (1992) noticed,"In Thailand, the consequences of the post-Enlightenment tradition did not splitmind and heart into separate orbits of perception" (p. 15). The Thai languageusesya/to refer to both heart and mind. Given the socio-emotional emphasis ofthe Thai on social harmony, the metaphor of the heart takes on great importanceto an understanding of the Thai worldview; the heart and the mind are one.

Nisbett (2003) recently clarified matters when he acknowledged,"... thattwo utterly different approaches to the world have maintained themselves forthousands of years" (p. xx). Thais and U.S. Americans indeed have clearlydistinct ways of perceiving and adapting to the world around them. TheAristotelian influence pervades Western scholarship and a combination ofBuddhism and Confucianism reflects the Thai notion of wisdom and learning. Asa result, one would expect to find difterences in what is considered importantand, indeed, measurable and predictable. As Nisbett (2003) put it so aptly, theEast and the West differ in "Habits of organizing the world, with Westernerspreferring categories and Easterners being more likely to emphasizerelationsiiips" (p. 45). This observation reinforces the notion that Thais are muchmore interested in satisfying interpersonal relationships than they are in takingapart various social phenomena to determine the ingredients, thus destroying theessence of the relationship. Hence, the meaning of ja/as both heart and mind

152Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Voi. 33, No. 3, September 2004

makes a great deal of sense from the Thai perspective. The Thai "both/and"approach stands in stark contrast to the Western "either/or" dialectic.

Social Scientific Analyses

My initial examination of the differences between Thai and U.S. Americancultural values was based on my reading and experience in Thailand. In a workpublished in ABAC Journal, Assumption University's quarterly academic review(Knutson, 1994), I found, perhaps not surprisingly, that the most profounddifferences between Thai and U.S. American culture involved the valuesassociated with interpersonal relationships. Thais preferred an emphasis onsocial harmoriy in their daily activities, while U.S. Americans embraced a directand assertive individualism. When faced with problems, U.S. Americans considerthe facts and convey evidence to support their solution without muchconsideration for environmental concerns or social relationships. Perhaps thistendency cari be attributable to the implications stemming from the U.S.American distinction between heart and mind. Facts are facts and this empiricalinformation pervades discussion among U.S. Americans.

In contrast, Thais stress the preservation of the relationship and theother's self respect in all social intercourse, a condition clearly recognizable inthe frequent use of the heart orya/ metaphor in the Thai language. The Thaiheart expression ya/yen refers to the ability to remain calm in difficult situationsand is the "... core cognition behind the behavioral pattern of the everyday lifesocial interactions of the Thai" (Komin, 1991, p. 148). Another Thai heartexpression,ya/d//, alludes to a state of goodness and performing tasks for othersbefore a request is made. Yet another Thai heart phrase, mii kaejai, describesgiving help to friends and is the opposite of egotistical selfishness. A good friendis called phuen ruamjai, translated simply to English as "good friend heart," whilemaan huajai or "devil heart," labels someone who destroys love and friendship.Social harmony is valued by the Thais and the expression of conflict isdiscouraged. This relationship orientation is best described by the Thai heartphrase krengjai, referring to the desire to be "... self-effacing, respectful, andextremely considerate as well as the wish to avoid embarrassing others orintruding or imposing upon them" (Fieg, 1989, p. 43). Perhaps the most difficultThai value for non-Thais to understand (Roongrengsuke & Chansuthus, 1998),kreng jai signifies the Thai desire to avoid at all costs creating discomfort orannoyance for other people.

The initial research to understand the Thai worldview raised morequestions than answers, but it definitely reinforced the profound differencesbetween Thai and U.S. American culture. Thai and U.S. American cultural valuesare maximally different, but different in a way that can be partially understoodand learned. I concluded optimistically, "An understanding of the variationsbetween the two cultures can reduce ethnocentrism and develop the empathyneeded for people of both countries to engage in substantial and meaningfulintercultural communication" (Knutson, 1994, p. 26).

The next study focused on the role of communication apprehension asit operates in Thailand and the identification of cultural norms influencing thedevelopment of Thai communication behavior (Knutson, Hwang, &Vivatananukul, 1995). This social scientific investigation found, among otherthings, the following developmental characteristics of Thai communicationbehaviors:

153KNUTSON

Thais are less likely than U.S. American youngsters to participate infamily discussion;

Thai parents discourage children's verbal communication more than U.S.American parents;

Thai youngsters are quiet in the presence of older people;Thai young people seldom disagree with older people;Thai teachers seldom encourage students to express their opinions in

class;In Thailand, "quiet" is considered a virtue.

While these findings regarding cultural norrns for communication arereasonably sound, the results with respect to communication apprehension wereviewed with suspicion. The Thai sample displayed significantly more comniun-ication apprehension than the U.S. American sample, but this result obtainedlargely due to ethnocentric measurement artifact and cultural misunderstanding.There was a naive assumption that the relative silence of Thai people and theirparsimonious use of words to express themselves could be ascribed toapprehension. Moreover, the term "apprehension" was probably misunderstoodby the Thai participants in the study due to a lack of contextual cues presented.The instrument used to measure communication apprehension, PRCA-24(McCroskey, 1982), focuses exclusively on sender communication, while theThai, with their emphasis on social harmony, emphasize a more receiverinterpersonal orientation. Furthermore, silence, a condition most often associatedwith communication apprehension in the West, is considered a sign of respectin Thailand (Smutkupt & Barna, 1976). Thus, although the cultural normsassociated with the development of Thai communication behavior are probablyaccurate, the communication apprehension construct failed to apply in Thailand.

As a consequence of the Knutson, et al. (1995) study, conceptualadjustments were made and a different approach was employed to assess Thaicommunication behavior. The Willingness to Communicate (WTC) construct, ameasurement of an individual's predisposition to communicate more or less ina variety of situations, was employed (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). TheWTC seemed more complementary to Thai cultural values since it measuresboth context and receiver elements. As hypothesized, the Thai respondentsdisplayed significantly less willingness to communicate than the U.S. Americansample. Given the Thai emphasis on social harmony and the avoidance ofconflict, this result was not unexpected. The results of this study pointed to apotentially valuable characteristic of intercultural communication competence.The relative reluctance to engage in communication can be attributed to acautious concern for receivers in interpersonal communication episodes.

The Thai penchant for pleasant and harmonious interaction produces lesswillingness to initiate conversations, perhaps interpreted as a useful antecedentcondition to effective intercultural communication encounters. Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam & Jablin (1999) found that Thais characterize successfulcommunicators as knowing"... how to communicate so as to avoid conflict withothers, display respect, control their emotions, tactfulness, modesty andpoliteness, and know the appropriate pronouns to use in addressing others" (p.409). The profound receiver orientation of Thais, more than any other singlefactor, probably influences them to a slow development of the confidencenecessary to initiate messages appropriately. The finding of a relatively low Thaiwillingness to communicate influenced Knutson, et al. (2002) to conclude, "Asincere desire to relate to receivers, coupled with a genuine reluctance to avoid

154 0

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004

interpersonal harm could probably contribute substantially to more effectiveinterpersonal and intercultural communication" (p. 11).

The relative unwillingness of Thais to communicate was demonstratedmost poignantly subsequent to the publication of the WTC study. My dear Thaifriend, Somsak, the Commander in the Royal Thai Navy mentioned earlier as mycompanion on the trip to Srikhorapum, came to Sacramento to visit Phan andme. We took him on the obligatory tours of Northern California, showing him thevarious sights and attractions. In the mountains near Sacramento, it began tosnow, a furious blizzard. We were stopped on Echo Surnmit at an overlook whena van containing several Thai tourists entered the parking lot. Upon hearing theThai language, I remarked to Somsak and Phan that the snow brought luck andthat they could converse with the Thai tourists in their native language. I wasquite surprised at their reaction, a swift and rather abrupt refusal to approachtheir fellow countrymen. Somsak allowed as how it would be appropriate for meto talk with the Thai tourists, but he and Phan would riot initiate a conversatiori.

Both Somsak and Phan recognized my surprise and confusion at theirbehavior. We spent the next hour drivirig down the mountain engaged in interiseconversation about the event. I proclaimed that U.S. Americans typically strikeup conversations wherever they meet in the world. It struck me as peculiar thata similar condition failed to present among Thais meeting in a foreign land.Somsak and Phan explained that, although they all were Thai, this condition wasinsufficient to inspire a conversation. Since Somsak and Phan did not know theoccupants of the van, they were unable to use the proper pronouns in Thai and,consequently, decided against a conversation that may have producedembarrassment or loss of face. Their reluctance to introduce thernselves was notbased on apprehension or shyness, but upon a strong C9mmitment to socialharmony and an equally strong affirmation of Thai krengjai, an unwillingness todisturb others. Their explanation convinced me of the profound culturaldifferences obtaining between Thai and U.S. American values.

The episode on Echo Summit motivated considerable introspection andcuriosity, conditions that led me to associate Somsak and Phan's behavior withrhetorical sensitivity, a construct created by Hart and Burks (1972). Rhetoricallysensitive people combine concern for self with concern for others in a situationalperspective. The theory of rhetorical sensitivity focuses on message trans-niission, a central concern of communication scholars, and places considerableimportance on adapting messages to a receiver orientation. Hart and Burks(1972) argued that rhetorical sensitivity affords an opportunity to ". . . facilitatehuman understanding and to effect social cohesion" (p. 75). The messageflexibility required to display rhetorical sensitivity may contribute to an avoidanceof the misattributioris frequently ending in conflict during intercultural communi-cation episodes (Ting-Toomey, 1998). Hart, Carlson, and Eadie (1980) sug-gested that variations in message flexibility could be seen as " . . . a function ofspecific . . . cultural forces impinging upon people" (p. 19). Our earlier work(Knutson, etal., 1995), indicated strongly the potential value of using the theoryof rhetorical sensitivity to study and identify the cultural norms influencingintercultural communication cornpetence.

These observations inspired a cross-cultural study comparing Thai andU.S. American rhetorical sensitivity (Knutson, Komolsevin, Chatiketu, & Smith,2003). Since the Thai cultural value of social harmony is consistent withmeaningful aspects of rhetorical sensitivity, we felt that Thais would displaysignificantly greater rhetorical sensitivity than U.S. Americans. Contrary to thisnotion, however, U.S. Americans exhibited higher rhetorical sensitivity than the

155KNUTSON

Thais. The difficulties associated with the valid and reliable measurement ofrhetorical sensitivity had been noted before (Daly, Vangelisti, & Daughton, 1987;Dowling & Bliss, 1984; Martin & Rubin, 1993) and our study also suffered fromconfounding measurenient. The items employed to measure rhetorical sensitivitywere incompatible with Thai cultural values and pointed to necessaryadjustments iri order to measure the concept in a Thai setting. Even with themeasurement problems, however, the results were not without heuristic value.The Thai participants may use a form of rhetorical reflection in the initial stagesof a relationship upon which to build the subsequent rhetorical sensitivitynecessary for effective intercultural communication. We concluded, "Thai peoplemay display rhetorical sensitivity if a psychological commitment [between andamong the conversational participants] develops overtime" (p. 75). Even with themeasurement problems and methodological issues presented in this study,however, the theory of rhetorical sensitivity remains a robust tool for use in thecontinuation of efforts to identify those Thai characteristics producing capableand competent intercultural communication. Thai cultural values presentcharacteristics extraordinarily compatible with the flexibility required byrhetorically sensitive people, and rhetorically sensitive people display thecharacteristics necessary for effective intercultural communication.

As a consequence of the Knutson, et al. (2003) study, the measurementof rhetorical sensitivity was refined to assess accurately the operation of thetheory in Thailand. Knutson, Komolsevin, Kaweewong, and Smith (2002) verifiedthe previously reported dimensions of rhetorical sensitivity and presented a newinstrument, THAIRHETSEN, for use in Thailand. The new measurement includesmany of the Thai jai metaphors in the recognition of the connection betweenlanguage and culture. For example, a Thai maxim, jai khao jai rao (their heart,our heart), roughly equivalent to the Golden Rule, is used as one of the items tomeasure rhetorical sensitivity. Thais value collaboration (both/and) as a displayof rhetorical sensitivity (your benefits and my benefits) rather than the either/ordialectic (your benefits or my benefits) characteristic of the West. Researchemploying THAIRHETSEN is currently underway to determine the Thai charac-teristics of rhetorical sensitivity. Rather than measuring the initial Thai rhetoricalpredisposition, this research focuses on the development of the concept acrosstime. Since Knutson et al. (2003) demonstrated the isomorphic relationshipbetvyeen rhetorical sensitivity and communication competence, it is hoped thatthe improved measurement precision of THAIRHETSEN will yield identificationof those precise rhetorically sensitive behaviors that produce interculturalcommunication competence and effectiveness. Once these behaviors areknown, they cari be incorporated into lessons inculcating appropriate, effective,and successful intercultural communication.

Conclusion

Although the social scientific studies to learn more about Thai culture arecurrently incomplete, the previous findings give some cause for optimism in thequest to identify communication behaviors leading to intercultural understandingand effectiveness. The combined ethnographic and social scientific approachesafford procedures likely to surmount the cultural differences. Additionally, thecooperation of Thai and U.S. American researchers can also contribute to amutual understanding of the variables necessary to understand and appreciatethe differences, differences that are not dangerous, and differences that mayeventually result in effective intercultural communication. The hope is high, the

156Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004

work continues, and perhaps one day soon, we can offer more specific adviceon how to accomplish the important task of intercultural consideration andcooperation.

References

Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A .L., & Daughton, S.M. (1987). The nature andcorrelates of conversational sensitivity. Human Communication Researcti, 14,167-202.

Dowling, S., & Bliss, LS. (1984). Cognitive complexity, rhetoricalsensitivity: Contributing factors in clinical skill. Journai of CommunicationDisorders, 77, 9-17.

Foss, S. K. Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (2"" ed.).Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Ellery, C. (2001). Elastic language: Form stretches toward meaning.Intercultural Communication Studies, 10, 33-46.

Hart, R. P., & Burks, D. M. (1972). Rhetorical sensitivity and socialinteraction. Speech Monographs, 39, 75-91.

Hart, R. P., Carlson, R.E., & Eadie, W. F. (1980). Attitudes towardcommunication and the assessment of rhetorical sensitivity. CommunicationMonographs, 47, 1-22.

Hongladarom, S. (2002). Cross-cultural epistemic practices. SocialEpistemology, 16, 83-92.

Hongladarom, K., & Hongladarom, S. (2003). Political ideology in Thaicomputer-mediated communication. Retrieved October 1, 2003, from the WorldWide Web: http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~hsomj/web/politeness.pdf

Knutson, T. J. (1994). Comparison of Thai and U.S. American culturalvalues: "Mai pen rai" versus "just do it." ABAC Journal, 14, 1-38.

Knutson, T. J., Hwang, J. C, & Vivatananukul, M. (1995). A comparisonof cqrnmunication apprehension between Thai and USA student samples:Identification of different cultural norms governing interpersonal communicationbehaviors. Journal of the National Research Council of Thailand, 27, 21-46.

Knutson, T. J., Komolsevin, R., Chatiketu, P., & Smith, V. R. (2002). Acomparison of Thai arid U.S. American willingness to communicate. Journal ofIntercultural Communication Research, 31, 3-12.

Knutson, T. J., Komolsevin, R., Chatiketu, P., & Smith, V.R. (2003). Across-cultural comparison of Thai and US American rhetorical sensitivity:Implications for intercultural communication effectiveness. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 27, 63-78.

Knutson, T. J., Komolsevin, R., Kaweewong, B., & Smith, V. R. (20(32,July). Development of an Instrument to Measure Thai Rhetorical Sensitivity. 'Paper presented at the annual conference of the International CommunicationAssociation, Seoul, Korea.

Komin, S. (1991). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioralpatterns. Bangkok: National Institute of Development Administration.

Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1993). Development of a communicationflexibility measure. Southern Communication Journai, 59, 171-178.

McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetoricai communication (4""ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McCroskey, J. C, & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness tocommunicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality andinterpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

157KNUTSON

Moore, C. G. (1992). Heart talk: Say what you feel in Thai (2"" ed.).Bangkok: Heaven Lake Press.

Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India andChina. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians andWesterners think differently. . . and why. New York: The Free Press.

Pongsapich, A. (Ed.). (1998). Traditional and changing Thai world view.Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.

Roongrengsuke, S., & Chansuthus, D. (1998). Conflict management inThailand. In K. Leung & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict management in the AsiaPacific. Singapore: John Wiley.

Smutkupt, S., & Barna, L. (1976). Impact of non-verbal comrnunicationin an intercultural setting: Thailand. In F. Casmir (Ed.), International andintercultural communication annual. Falls Church, VA: Speech CommunicationAssociation.

Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor:A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 382-419.

Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam, N., & Jablin, J. F. (1999). An exploratorystudy of communication competence in Thai organizations. The Journal ofBusiness Communication, 36, 382-418.

St. Clair, R. N. (2001). Figurative language, frame analysis and conceptformation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 10, 141-154.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). Intercultural conflict competence. In J. K.Marting, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts.Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Received: February 27, 2004Accepted: June 3, 2004