Introduction
Communication is an essential component of human life and is a complex psychological phenomenon with its own structure, functions, and features. In the course of communication, the message is transmitted, people perceive and understand each other, coordination and evaluation of interaction. The problem that the given communication campaign is attempting to solve is the issue of cross-cultural communication in interpersonal setup. This paper can be used by anyone from top managers to students because the population is becoming more diverse. The roadmap of the paper will include target audience identification, the analysis of attitudes and behavior, and the setting.
Target Audience
The primary target audience is minority ethnic group students because the latter needs to actively interact in a cross-cultural manner. It was identified that cross-cultural communication competence was determining factor of success among the team in business and sports (Bell & Riol, 2017). Communication begins with contact, which can be characterized as a process and as an act of interaction. In intercultural communication tasks, communication is often endowed with dialogue functions. Moreover, dialogue is usually understood as the exchange of views, the achievement of mutual understanding, and the adoption of joint decisions. To communicate with representatives of other cultures, a person needs a choice of means of communication and ethnocultural competence, which should include knowledge of the type of culture, the style of business interaction, the context of communication, and the direct or indirect nature of communication. In the first place is the role of knowledge of the language and the ability to use it in intercultural communication.
Attitudes and Behavior
The selected attitude is a non-argumentative and sociocentric approach regarding one’s culture and background. For example, Asians tend to express less argumentative and more sociocentric attitudes (Pekerti & Thomas, 2015). The behavior is horizontal collectivism, which allows the members of various cultures to be accepting and understanding (Arpaci, 2019). The cross-cultural dialogical paradigm helps to pay attention to theoretical and empirical studies to elucidate the features of the inclusion of a person in the space of meanings and meanings developed in the process of communication. This paradigm eliminates the disadvantages of social constructionism, according to which people construct their own picture of the world in the processes of perception and interpretation of messages (Edwards, Bybee, Frost, Harvey, & Navarro, 2017). However, this construction remains the prerogative of a single individual and therefore calls into question the very achievement of mutual understanding, and it is no coincidence that dialogism, leading to the expansion and complication of the semantic sphere of consciousness of participants in communication, is not developed in this approach.
In conditions requiring the establishment of partnerships and business relationships of an intercultural level, ethnocentric tendencies are associated with increased tension, lead to mutual distrust, attributing non-existent reasons for actions, which negatively affects the processes of intergroup and intercultural interaction. In this case, inclusion in the general communication space is either absent or insufficient and the semantic spaces of the participants, even if they are updated, remain non-integrated.
Under certain circumstances of intercultural interaction, ethnocentrism is expressed in hatred, distrust of representatives of other cultures, in accusing them of the failures of their own people. Its starting point is the position or reference point that determines the content of perception, thinking, worldview, attitudes, and relationships. This is largely determined by the orientation of the personality, its personal interests, needs, and capabilities of cognitive processes and consciousness. A vivid illustration is the violation of the listening process, which is often watched by viewers from participants in political discussions and talk shows. Due to the violation of the basic rules of discussion and debate, the participants stop listening to each other and everyone says, and often shouts, something different without taking into account the arguments of those who have other facts and have a different opinion.
Setting
The setting will include interpersonal communication in form of interviews and mass channels, such as social media. For instance, interviews can highly useful in discussing important ideas in a stress-free manner (Mann, Yanson, & Lambert, 2018). In addition, it stated that social marketing campaigns can be effective in raising overall attention to the issue (George, Roberts, Beasley, Fox, & Rashied-Henry, 2016). In comparison, the communicative-psychological approach significantly enriches the understanding of the essence and content of dialogic communication. It includes the idea of feedback, the essence of which is that a person responds in a certain way to the messages of another. Moreover, feedback, which is diverse in form and in content, is not the only function of the dialogue. The dialogical paradigm allows one to pay attention to elucidating the features of including a person in the space of meanings and meanings of transmitted information. Intercultural dialogue can be identified by such key indicators as feedback and semantic comparison of information content.
Intercultural dialogue can be considered as a full-fledged unit of not only interpersonal but also any other communication. Within the framework of a systematic approach, its application involves understanding communication as a process of transmitting a message and building relationships between its participants. The adequacy and completeness of mutual understanding require constant feedback, clarifications, additions, and adjustments because of the possibility of not quite correctly understanding not only the meaning of the message but also the process of communicative interaction and communication of people with each other. The emerging contact and corresponding feelings thus become the basis for continuing discussion of the problem regarding how the space of meanings is formed in them.
References
Arpaci, I. (2019). Culture and nomophobia: The role of vertical versus horizontal collectivism in predicting nomophobia. Information Development, 35(1), 96-106.
Bell, R., & Riol, C. F. (2017). The impact of cross-cultural communication on collective efficacy in NCAA basketball teams. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 17(2), 175-195.
Edwards, R., Bybee, B. T., Frost, J. K., Harvey, A. J., & Navarro, M. (2017). That’s not what I meant: How misunderstanding is related to channel and perspective-taking. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(2), 188-210.
George, K. S., Roberts, C. B., Beasley, S., Fox, M., & Rashied-Henry, K. (2016). Our health Is in our hands: A social marketing campaign to combat obesity and diabetes. American Journal of Health Promotion, 30(4), 283-286.
Mann, M. J., Yanson, R., & Lambert, A. D. (2018). Using service learning to improve interviewer and interviewee effectiveness. Management Teaching Review, 3(1), 20-36.
Pekerti, A. A., & Thomas, D. C. (2015). The role of self-concept in cross-cultural communication. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 15(2), 167-193.