my report in Com 311: Seminar in Cross-Cultural Research at the College of Mass Communication, University of the Philippines Diliman - PhD Media Studies program

1. Expertise Recognition
and Influence
in Intercultural Collaboration
Chona Rita R. Cruz (Cindy) 86-16518
PhD Media Studies
COM 311
Dr. Clarissa David

2. • “Expertise Recognition and Influence in Intercultural
Groups: Differences Between Face-to-Face and ComputerMediated 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 faceto-face (FtF) versus text-based computer-mediated
communication (CMC).

3. Culture and Communication Styles
Individualistic
• 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
Collectivistic
• Attentiveness to social
roles, values, norms, and
situational expectations
make them exercise restraint
in expressing personal
opinions and feelings
• less assertive, less selfconfident, less argumentative
communication style toward
preservation of harmony
• Wait to be “invited’

4. Moderation Effect of the Medium
Face-to-Face (FtF)
Text-based Computer Mediated
Communication (CMC)
• Fulfillment of “the expected
social order”
• Equalization phenomenon
• Social expectations and
social sanctions
• Empowering effect
• Cognitive resources allotted
to nonverbal processes
• Cognitive resources
reallocated to message
creation for more active
communication role

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.