Communication Ambivalence Toward Elders: Data from North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the U.S.A

Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 19: 275–297, 2004.©C 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 275

Communication ambivalence toward elders: Data fromNorth Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the U.S.A.

ROBERT M. MCCANN,1 AARON C. CARGILE,2

HOWARD GILES1 & CUONG T. BUI3

1Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020,USA; 2Department of Communication Studies, California State University, Long Beach, CA90840, USA; 3Institute of Sociology, Viet Name National Center for Social Sciences &Humanities, Ha Noi, Viet Name

Abstract. This study investigated young adults’ beliefs about their intra- and intergenerationalcommunications in South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the U.S.A. Respondents perceived theirinteractions with older people as simultaneously more problematic (e.g., older people seen asmore nonaccommodative) and more pleasing (e.g., older adults seen as more accommodative)than their interactions with other young adults. Young adults also strongly felt more of anobligation to be respectful, and to a lesser degree avoidant, in their communication with olderadults than to those in their peer age group. Large-scale linguistic, historical, political, and cul-tural differences notwithstanding, a similar intergenerational communication profile emergedamong the North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, and American respondents in their reports oftheir communication with people of different ages. Intergroup, cultural, identity, and modernityissues were invoked to account for these findings.

Keywords: Accommodation, Asia, Cross-cultural differences, Elderly, Intergenerational,Vietnam

Introduction

Throughout the world, issues of an ageing society are claiming widespreadconcern, with intergenerational matters garnering scholarly attention acrossseveral academic disciplines (e.g., Madey, 2000; Phillips, 2000). Communica-tion is no exception, as demonstrated by the growing number of publicationson the topic (e.g., Hummert & Nussbaum, 2001; Williams & Nussbaum,2001). One theory with particular relevance to communication and aging is-sues is Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT; see Giles & Noels,1997). CAT includes an intergroup perspective (see for example, Tajfel, 1978),whereby it is argued that individuals alter their communication behavior inways that reflect their desire to belong to, or differentiate themselves from,various groups (Giles, Coupland & Coupland, 1991). Individuals may accom-modate their communication behavior to that of another person if they wish

276 ROBERT M. MCCANN ET AL.

to show solidarity with that person’s group (e.g., if that person is an ingroupmember). Hence, they may communicate in a positive manner that is attentiveto the other person’s needs and concerns. Conversely, they may communicatein ways that differentiate themselves from another person if they wish to ac-centuate their group distinctiveness from their interlocutor’s group (e.g., ifthat person is an outgroup member). In this case, they may communicate in anegative manner that expresses disinterest or dislike towards their interlocutor.

Consistent with the basic tenets of CAT, a growing body of research sug-gests that people of different generations may communicate in ways that are bi-ased in favor of their own age group and not the other age group (see Harwood,Giles and Ryan [1995] and Williams and Garrett [in press] for an intergroupperspective on intergenerational communication). For instance, young Italianand American adults (i.e., aged 17–30 years) reported that older adults wererigid and inflexible in their intergenerational conversations, and described apreference toward communicating with their peers (Giles, Ballard & McCann,2002). In other studies, young adults reported that older people communicatedwith them in patronizing ways (see also Giles & Williams, 1994) (also know as“baby talk” and “elderspeak”; see Caporeal, 1981; Cohen & Faulkner, 1986)which, in turn, made them feel alienated and discouraged from initiating in-tergenerational contact (Coupland, Coupland, Giles, Henwood & Wiemann,1988). Young adults also described their older conversational partners asover-parenting, disapproving, and “not listening” (Giles & Williams, 1994),overly loquacious (Obler & Albert, 1981), and incoherently verbose (Gold,Arbuckle & Andres, 1994). Age, then, has been found to be an extremelypowerful intergroup marker in communication between people of differentgenerations.

Much of the foregoing intergenerational research has been conducted inwestern Anglophone cultures, primarily with young adult Anglo-Europeanparticipants from Canada, Britain, Australia, and the U.S.A. Naturally enough,it is important to examine other cultures to see if the conclusions drawn inAnglophone societies hold true cross-culturally. Moreover, such comparisonsmay point to cultures where intergenerational interactions are more positiveand hence provide ideas for solutions to them. East Asian nations provide aninteresting comparison group (Kiefer, 1992; Martin, 1988), in part, because ofthe relatively stronger emphasis on group norms. More specifically, accordingto many cross-cultural scholars, whereas American society can be describedas emphasizing the self which is separate from the groups to which one be-longs, many East Asian nations are described as group-oriented (Gudykunst& Matsumoto, 1996; Hofstede, 1980; Kim, 1994).

Perhaps more importantly, associated with this (in)group orientation is thenotion of filial piety, a moral norm in a number of cultures, primarily across

VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN COMMUNICATION BELIEFS 277

the East Asian Pacific Rim (e.g., Korea, China, Japan, Singapore, Thailand,Taiwan and Hong Kong; see Ho, 1994; Knodel, Saengtienchai & Sittitrai,1995; Mehta, 1997; Sung, 1995), though too among Chinese immigrantselsewhere (Ng, Loong, Liu & Weatherall, 2000). According to the traditionalfilial piety perspective on intergenerational communication, older adults areviewed positively and respected (e.g., a source of wisdom and magical power),and offer various types of resources to people in the younger generations,while young people, in return, are attentive to their elders and provide careand support when needed (Kim & Yamaguchi, 1995; Sung, 2001). From this,one might predict that older people in Asian cultures would be viewed morepositively, and that the communication climate between young and older adultswould be one of accommodation.

Recent research, however, suggests that this may not be the case, and that in-tergenerational interactions may be at least different, if not more problematic,in some Asian countries than in Western ones (e.g., Giles, Harwood, Pierson,Clement & Fox, 1998). There is mounting evidence that, with changes infamily structure, modernization, and Westernization, filial piety has eroded insome urban quarters (e.g., Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand and Korea; see Chow,1999; Fei, 1985; Ingersoll-Dayton & Saengtienchai, 1999; Sung, 2000, respec-tively), a trend that is causing concern among researchers (see Chipperfield& Havens, 1992; Koyano, 1996; Palmore, 1999). Interestingly, studies reportthat respect for wealthy elderly people is still common, but abuse, neglect,and disrespect for those who are not are equally prevalent (Moon & Williams,1993; Tomita, 1994).

Several studies investigating perceptions of intergenerational communica-tion around the Pacific Rim have also not produced results consistent with theidea that communicating with older people is a reportedly more positive ex-perience in the East than in the West. One such study conducted by Williamset al. (1997) examined intergenerational communication across nine differ-ent nations, namely Korea, Japan, the People’s Republic of China (PRC),Hong Kong, The Philippines, U.S.A., Australia, New Zealand and Canada.The results showed that young participants from the aforementioned Southand East Asian nations had a less positive view of their interactions with gen-eralized older people compared to their counterparts in Western nations. Inaddition, followed closely by the PRC, Hong Kong can be characterized asreflecting the most negative views of older people. Giles, McCann, Ota andNoels (2002), in their overview of this genre of research, suggested that onepossible explanation for these cross-cultural differences may (as above) be asignificant erosion of filial piety in the East, due to extensive westernization,the attending loss of cultural values, and changes in the family structure (cf.Chow, 1983; Kumagai, 1981).


In related follow-up studies, the views of young Anglo-Americans andAnglo-Australians were contrasted respectively with Taiwanese and HongKong respondents (Giles, Liang, Noels & McCann, 2001; Noels, Giles,Gallois & Ng, 2001). This time, however, respondents were asked to eval-uate their conversations with their same-aged peers as well (with the ordervarying across respondents). Again, the same intercultural pattern emerged.That is, the Eastern samples reported less favorable intergenerational expe-riences of communication, despite the fact that they felt more obligation tobe respectful to older than young people. Although there was some empiricalvariation across studies, young people found their elderly counterparts, in gen-eral, as less accommodating, more nonaccommodating, and tending to closeoff or avoid intergenerational interaction—tendencies that were accentuatedby Eastern respondents (see also, Yeh, Williams & Maruyama, 1998).

In another cross-cultural study (Giles et al., 2003), the above patternsheld true even when family elders were included into the evaluative frame.Although the conversations with family elderly were more favorably con-strued than those with non-family targets (but less so, again, by Eastern thanWestern respondents), family elderly were, nonetheless, regarded as morenonaccommodating compared to interactions with their peers (see also Ng,Liu, Weatherall & Loong, 1997). Interestingly, Westerners (i.e., Australians,New Zealanders, and Americans) reported more positive communication ex-periences with family elders than Korean, Filipino, and Japanese students.

Finally, in these and other studies, researchers also investigated, often intandem, older people’s (70–80 year olds’) views of their intra- and intergener-ational communication experiences (Cai, Giles & Noels, 1998; Noels, Giles,Cai & Turay, 1999; Noels et al., 2001; Ota, 2001). A number of compellingfindings emerged. First, older people, too, have some negative intergenera-tional experiences to report, irrespective of their cultural origins. For them,the communication gap is reciprocally felt to the extent that both age groupsperceived that their own age peers were more accommodating to them thanthe other age group. Second, and somewhat surprisingly, a number of olderrespondents reported communication problems with people of their same agegroup. More specifically, they found other older people as more nonaccom-modating than young people. Third, this tendency was exacerbated amongstthe Hong Kong, PRC, and Japanese informants. Put another way, for theseolder people, intragenerational communication was seemingly as dissatisfac-tory as was intergenerational contact. Interestingly, however, the Australianolder person sample reported few inter- or intragenerational problems andwere the least avoidant of either of the groups.

One East Asian cultural context not examined thus far in this intergen-erational sphere is the Southeast Asian country of Vietnam. Vietnam, andSoutheast Asia as a whole, is grossly underrepresented in communication


research, in fact, computerized literature searches (in both English andVietnamese) attest that there is almost no intergenerational, and littleinterpersonal, communication data existing that deals with people fromVietnam and this part of the world. It should be noted, however, thatthere is a newly-emerging body of interpersonal communication literaturefrom nearby Thailand (see McCann [2003], Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam andJablin [1999], and Knutson, Komolsevin, Chatiketu and Smith [2002] for stud-ies on Thai intergenerational communication in organizations, Thai communi-cation competence in an organizational context, and Thai rhetorical sensitivity,respectively).

The empirical question obviously arises as to whether young people ineither of the Vietnamese (South and North) contexts would also fit into themodel described above for other East Asians. Might increasing westernization,changes in the family structure, and economic progress, all of which aretaking place in Vietnam, create a scenario whereby communication with eldersis devalued, as has been found in other Asian contexts? A quote by PhamBa Hung, a 24-year old Vietnamese youth interviewed by a foreign journalistrecently, suggests that this may be the case: “Power is slowly changing handsbecause my generation understands things that my parents’ generation didn’thave the chance to. Before, there was no choice for information and no onehad a chance to be different or change. Now we have magazines, televisionand the Internet and we can choose what information we want. We’re allowedto be different from each other and we’re more open.” (pbs.org, n.d.).

That said, traditional patterns of filial piety found (e.g., strong patterns ofco-residence and elder support by family members [Friedman, Goodkind,Cuong & Anh, 2001]) in many East Asian cultures are still common inVietnam, as are certain linguistic patterns such as inquiring about one’s age.Age is a strong group marker in Vietnam, just as it is in many other East Asiancultures. One Vietnamese scholar notes, “if the interlocutor answers that heis 20–30 years old, one will please him by saying that he has all his futurebefore him, but when his age is about 40 or 50, one will sincerely manifestrespect, even veneration, for him” (Phan, 1998, p. 30). Tradition is also stillstrong in Vietnamese families, as Pham Ba Hung (quoted above) notes: ”Atevery meal, my parents set out a bowl of rice for my uncle who is an MIAof the American war. They also make offerings to him and other deceasedrelatives at our family altar. When my parents die, I’ll take over and do thesame for them as well.” (pbs.org, n.d.).

Despite the potential for similar intergenerational perceptions by youngVietnamese and other young East Asian adults, we still recognize the consid-erable variability among Asian contexts. Young Vietnamese people may wellhave views that are quite distinct from those of young people from many ofthe East Asian nations that have been studied in depth, not to mention from


young Americans. For example, in contrast to the largely Theravada BuddhistThailand or the more Confucianism-oriented China (PRC), Vietnam is acountry influenced by four major religions/philosophies (e.g., Confucianism,Taoism, Theravada Buddhism, Christianity). Its own philo-religioso fusionknown as Tam Giao Dong Nguyen, as well as a rich and pervasive tradi-tion of indigenous beliefs (Tho Cung To Tien), further add to the complexphilo-religioso picture in Vietnam.

The country has also, debatably to a large degree, been shaped by thenumerous wars and occupations that have ravaged Vietnam (e.g., Franco-VietMinh War, “American War” [as it is known in Vietnam]), which clearly makesit distinct from many of its Asian neighbors. Notably, French colonialismoccurred between the 19th and mid 20th centuries, the American presencein the South began in the late 1950s, and the Chinese and Soviet Socialisticmodels permeated the North between the late 1940s and 1975, and the entirecountry after 1975.

Vietnam is also a country that is undergoing considerable transition, interms of economic development, rural to urban migration, and most notably,sweeping government policies (i.e., central command planning) toward olderpeople, which now stress family over state (Friedman et al., 2001). Thesebroad governmental market reforms, known as Doi Moi, have purportedlyhad a profound effect on intergenerational relations in Vietnam, in particularthe government’s Doi Moi welfare policy which has, to some degree, diffusedresponsibility for the welfare of the elderly away from the government to thewider society (Friedman et al., 2001; Truong, Cuong, Goodkind & Knodel,1997). This is not to say, however, that the government has removed itselffrom welfare policies. It still occupies a very central role in this area, but nowmore actively involves other sectors (e.g., family, community, civil society,business community) into its welfare programs than it did before Doi Moi.

There are also highly discernable linguistic and cultural differences withinVietnam, which is another reason why we feel that the Vietnamese context isa particularly fascinating one to investigate communication issues, and is alsoworthy of collecting data from samples drawn from two of the main regions(i.e., North and South). Historically, there is a very clear distinction betweenNorth and South Vietnam, as the North was the former seat of the TrinhDynasty, while the South was the home of the Nguyen Dynasty. This divisionwas ended by the unification of the Nguyen Dynasty in the early 19th century.

North Vietnam (e.g., Hanoi) is the oldest seat of the Vietnamese(Ly Dynasty; 10th to 13th centuries) civilization, and is greatly influenced byits proximity to East Asia and Confucian teachings. There is also a strong tra-dition of patrilineal family structure in North Vietnam (Keyes, 1995; Knodel,Friedman, Anh & Cuong, 2000), as well as a much stronger state/central com-mand influence in this part of the country (e.g., since the mid 1950s). As a result


of this central command influence, many traditional factors (e.g., gender roles)have changed in the North, while strong liberal movements related to genderand equality in general have replaced them. In this regard, the North may,in fact, be more on the road to “modernization” than its Southern neighbor.On the other hand, South Vietnam (in particular, Ho Chi Min City) is moreknown for its diluted patrilocal patterns, higher standard of living, greaterdegree of privatized businesses, and urbanization. South Vietnam’s connec-tions with America, as well the exodus of immigrants to the United Statesafter the war, is also well-documented (Buriel & De Ment, 1997; Gerber,Nguyen & Bounkeua, 1999; Rumbaut, 1995). Given the cultural diversitywithin Vietnam described above, it is exciting to investigate, yet difficult topredict, how South and North Vietnamese young people may feel about theirintra- and intergenerational communication.

From the above literature on intergroup and intergenerational communica-tion, as well as the research literature particular to Vietnam, we propose thefollowing hypotheses:

H1: Regardless of cultural groups, young people will view communicationwith older adults (i.e., the age outgroup) more negatively than communi-cation with younger adults (i.e., the age ingroup).

H2: Consistent with previous research, young adults in the “Eastern” culturesof North and South Vietnam will view interactions with older adults morenegatively than young adults in the “Western” culture of the USA.

Since this is the first study of its kind to be undertaken in Vietnam (versusthe USA where studies have already examined samples from throughout thecountry), the following research question is also posed:

RQ1: Will the communication perceptions of young North Vietnamese moreclosely resemble the perceptions of young South Vietnamese or youngAmericans?

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of undergraduate university students from Long Beach,California (U.S.A.), Hanoi (North Vietnam), and Ho Chi Minh City (SouthVietnam). In exchange for completing the survey, all students received extracredit in their university courses. Most participants filled out the survey duringtheir free time outside of class. Data were excluded from analysis when therespondents were over 30 years as the end boundary of the “young adult” age


bracket was reported to be 30 years (Giles et al., 2001). Participants consistedof 50 males and 117 females (plus 2 unreported) from the U.S.A., 56 malesand 107 females from North Vietnam, and 77 males and 147 females fromSouth Vietnam. The average age of the sample was 22.28 years (sd = 2.10)for the U.S.A., 20.36 years (sd = 1.17) for North Vietnam, and 20.92 years(sd = 1.13) for South Vietnam.1 The number of respondents from each of thethree regions was somewhat unequal, but was still permissible (e.g., 1:1.5, cf.Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). The male to female ratio was, however, heavilyskewed toward females (183 male respondents vs. 371 female), a point thatmay necessitate a somewhat cautious interpretation of the results.

Dependent variables

To test our hypotheses about intra- and inter-generational communicationperceptions, individuals in three regions (North Vietnam, South Vietnam, andthe U.S.A.) self-assessed communication beliefs on an abridged version ofWilliams et al.’s (1997) “Perceptions of Intergenerational Communication”(PIC) scale (Harwood & Williams, 1998; see also Cai et al., 1998; McCann,2003; Noels et al., 1999, 2001). The scale was used to measure respondents’ratings of their communicative experiences in younger (young adults aged17-30) and older (elderly aged 65+) contexts. It was translated and thenback-translated into standard Vietnamese (used in both the North and South),utilized 5-point Likert–scale responses, and took approximately 15 minutesto complete.

As designed, the scale is comprised of two major dimensions: first, percep-tions of others’ (“they”) communication, and second, perceptions of one’s own(“I”) communication. Other people’s communicative behaviors were assessedvia six items that reflected accommodation and eight items that reflected non-accommodation, while participants’ own communication was assessed via sixitems that reflected respect/obligation and five items that reflected avoidantcommunication (see Table 1 for the items retained after factor analysis be-low). In addition, the questionnaire also included items measuring amountof intergroup (i.e., old/young) contact as well as standard demographic items(i.e., age, gender, ethnicity), and was counterbalanced in terms of the order ofthe PIC target age group (e.g., younger/older and older/younger).

Results

Reliabilities of the four factors (viz., accommodation, nonaccommodation, re-spect/obligation, and avoidance) were computed and are presented in Table 2,


Table 1. Items from the perceptions of intergenerational communica-tion subscales

“During conversations with people who are not family—or who I do

notregard as “close friends, almost like family”—I found,

in general . . .”

Accommodation

. . . they were supportive

. . . they were helpful

. . . they gave useful advice

. . . they complimented me

. . . they had kind words for me

. . . they were considerate

Nonaccommodation

. . . they ordered me to do things

. . . they were uninterested in my comments

. . . they acted superior to me

. . . they talked as if they knew more than me

. . . they spoke as if they were better than me

. . . they did not listen to what I had to say

Respect/Obligation

. . . I spoke in a respectful manner

. . . I spoke in a polite way

. . . I was careful to not embarrass them

. . . I did not criticize them

Avoidant communication

. . . I remained silent if my opinion conflicted with theirs

. . . I held back my opinions

. . . I restrained myself from arguing with them

along with the scale means and standard deviations. Several items were foundto decrease the reliability of their respective factors considerably and, thus,were not used (non-accommodation: “they were closed-minded” and “theywere closed to my ideas”; respect/obligation: “I waited until asked to speak”and “I felt obliged to be polite”; avoidant communication: “I had to ‘bite mytongue”’ and “I avoided certain topics”).

The four factors were judged, in general, to be reliable, although more sofor the American than for the Vietnamese respondents. In addition, it shouldbe noted that the respect/obligation factor might need revising to achievehigher alphas in the future (see Table 2). In addition, the two items assessingyounger and older target contact were found to be virtually uncorrelated with


Table 2. Means, standard deviations and reliabilities by nation

Non-Accommodation Accommodation Respect/Obligation Avoidance

U.S.A.

Young target 2.54 (.680) 3.51 (.512) 3.53 (.700) 2.59 (.847)

Reliability .837 .734 .723 .756

Older target 2.84 (.701) 3.65 (.591) 4.07 (.616) 3.35 (.830)

Reliability .783 .811 .769 .766

South Vietnam

Young target 2.53 (.613) 3.34 (.579) 3.63 (.637) 2.72 (.951)

Reliability .632 .653 .549 .735

Older target 2.93 (.637) 3.62 (.553) 4.24 (.516) 3.36 (.910)

Reliability .600 .667 .424 .702

North Vietnam

Young target 2.49 (.659) 3.32 (.544) 3.55 (.717) 2.71 (.928)

Reliability .706 .623 .685 .725

Older target 2.80 (.686) 3.51 (.536) 4.12 (.556) 3.27 (.858)

Reliability .707 .611 .556 .668

the four scales comprising the PIC and were, thus, not used as covariates, asplanned.

A 3 (Region: U.S.A. vs. South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam) × 2 (gender:male vs. female) × 2 (Target age groups: younger vs. older) MANOVA wasconducted across the four PIC factors, with repeated measures for the lastvariable.2 All multivariate effects were assessed via Phillai’s Trace due to itsrobustness, even in cases where cell sizes differed substantially (Tabachnick& Fidell, 1989). Region (Pillai’s Trace = .07, F[8, 928] = 4.14, p < .001,partial eta2 = .03), gender3 (Pillai’s Trace = .02, F[4, 463] = 2.85, p < .05,partial eta2 = .02), and target age group (Pillai’s Trace = .43, F[4, 463] =85.63, p < .001, partial eta2 = .43) main effects were significant.

In addition to three main effects, one interaction effect was also found to besignificant: target age group by gender (Pillai’s Trace = .03, F[4, 463] = 2.91,p < .05, partial eta2 = .03). Given these significant multivariate effects, thecorresponding univariate results were examined. The significant results arereported below for each of the four dimensions of communicative perceptionsseparately. Perceptions of others’ communication

Accommodation

A region main effect emerged for accommodation (F[2, 466] = 3.44, p <

.05, partial eta2 = .02). Games-Howell Post-hoc multiple-group comparisons


revealed that respondents from the USA (M = 3.58) scored higher (i.e., re-ported that others were more accommodating) than those from both North(M = 3.42) and South (M = 3.47) Vietnam (p < .05). In addition, a main ef-fect for gender was significant (F[1, 466] = 9.75, p < .01, partial eta2 = .02)in which the women (M = 3.54) scored higher than the men (M = 3.39),along with a main effect for target group (F[1, 466] = 35.38, p < .001, par-tial eta2 = .07) in which the judged accommodative behaviors were higherfor the older (M = 3.59) than the younger targets (M = 3.39).

Nonaccommodation

A target group main effect was identified for nonaccommodation (F[1, 466] =62.19, p < .001, partial eta2 = .12). As with accommodation, estimates ofnonaccommodation were greater for the older targets (M = 2.86) than theyounger targets (M = 2.52).

Perceptions of one’s own communication

Respect-obligationA region main effect emerged for respect-obligation (F[2, 466] = 8.73, p <

.001, partial eta2 = .04). Games-Howell Post-hoc multiple-group compar-isons revealed that respondents from South Vietnam (M = 3.96) scored higher(i.e., reported more respectful/obliging behaviors on their part) than those fromboth North Vietnam (M = 3.84) and the USA (M = 3.80)(p < .05). In ad-dition, a main effect for target group (F[1, 466] = 202.03, p < .001, partialeta2 = .30), in which estimates for older target respect-obligation (M = 4.16)were greater than those for younger targets (M = 3.61), was also found to besignificant.

The main effect for target group was moderated by one significant inter-action effect—a target group by gender effect (F[1, 466] = 3.90, p < .05,partial eta2 = .01). It was found that female respondents reported the sameamount of respectful/obliging communication with younger targets mem-bers (M = 3.61) but more respectful/obliging communication with older tar-gets (M = 4.20) than male respondents (younger target: M = 3.59; oldertarget: M = 4.04).

Avoidant communicationA target group main effect was identified for avoidant communication (F[1,453] = 87.42, p < .001, partial eta2 = .097). As with all other dimensionsof communicative perceptions, estimates of avoidant communication weregreater for the older targets (M = 3.33) than the younger ones (M = 2.70).


The main effect for target group was moderated by one significant in-teraction effect—a target group by gender effect (F[1, 466] = 9.68, p <

.01, partial eta2 = .02). It was found that female respondents reported lessavoidant communication with younger targets members (M = 2.64) and moreavoidant communication with older targets (M = 3.37) than male respondents(younger target: M = 2.79; older target: M = 3.23).

Discussion

The young adult respondents in this study reported marked differences intheir communication with age in- and age outgroup members. These resultsfurther confirm prior research that age is a powerful intergroup marker and,for the first time, extend these findings to Vietnamese contexts. In general, theyoung adults surveyed here perceived their interactions with older people assimultaneously more problematic and more pleasing than their interactionswith other young adults. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported.Specifically, older adults were seen as more nonaccommodative (e.g., morenegative, more self-centered, less positive in their manner of communication)than young adults. These findings on nonaccommodation with older adults areconsistent with many past studies where young adults report more favorablecommunication with those of a like age (Cai et al., 1998; Giles et al., 2001;Noels et al., 1999; for review, see Giles et al., 2003). These findings were thusexpected, and were consistent with our first, age-based hypothesis.

On the other hand, a non-hypothesized finding arose with respect to theaccommodation factor where young people also perceived older individu-als to be more positive (e.g., accommodative) in their communication thanthe same age peers. That said, this finding has now emerged in prior stud-ies (e.g., McCann et al., 2003) and, in the present study, the perceptions ofage-outgroup accommodation (M = 3.59) were even stronger than outgroupnonaccommodation (M = 2.86).

There are a few plausible explanations for why young adults may findolder people to be more accommodative than those in their own age group.First, it is possible that the age outgroup stereotype is so potent that it isoverwhelming the specific communicative dimensions. Indeed, stereotypesof older people, though generally negative (e.g., older people are seen asnagging, irritable, decrepit, feebleminded, verbose, and cognitively deficient;see Braithwaite, 1986; Branco & Williamson, 1982; McCann & Giles, 2002;Nuessel, 1982) can also be positive. This study’s young respondents may bepicking up on positive elderly sub-stereotypes such as the “Golden Ager” orthe “Perfect Grandparent” (see Hummert, 1990) and rating their subsequent


communication in a good light. The stereotype activation model specificallyaddresses how initial activation of stereotypes (positive or negative) about anelderly person in an intergenerational interaction may (or may not) lead toproblematic or positive communication (Hummert, 1994). Relatedly, accom-modation and nonaccommodation have been found to be orthogonal dimen-sions (see McCann, 2003), so for both of these to arise in respondent’s reportsof perceptions is not at all problematic interpretively. It is entirely possiblefor an individual to accommodate (e.g., speak in a warm, gentle manner) andnonaccommodate (e.g., utilize baby talk) simultaneously (Cai et al., 1998;Gallois, Giles, Jones, Cargile & Ota, 1995; McCann, 2003).

As for perceptions of their own communication, young adults strongly feltmore of an obligation to be respectful, and to a lesser degree avoidant, in theircommunication with older adults than to those in their peer age group. Similarfindings have been found in several intergenerational communication studies,and were expected (Giles et al., 2001; McCann, 2003; McCann et al., 2003;Noels et al., 1999). Such findings paint a portrait in which young people seeintergenerational communication as a situation in which, despite mixed feel-ings (e.g., accommodation plus nonaccommodation) about how older peoplecommunicate with them, they still remain (at least overtly) respectful andattentive to the interlocutor’s needs. It is not a little surprising that they mightalso feel somewhat awkward—and avoid such interactions.

As was the case with the accommodation and nonaccommodation factors,age arose as a much more powerful factor than culture in understanding re-spectful and/or avoidant communication patterns among people of differingages. In fact, there were no age-by-culture interactions, thus rejecting our sec-ond hypothesis. This absence of interactions allows us to reject, at least forthis study’s respondents, the premise that in intergenerational communication“age matters more in Asian cultures than it does in Western cultures” for thiscontext and across age groups. This novel finding is in stark contrast to virtu-ally every cross-cultural intergenerational communication study conducted innon-organizational settings (e.g., Cai et al., 1998; Giles et al., 2001), though asimilar finding has been found in the workplace domain (McCann, 2003). De-spite the vast historical, linguistic, cultural, and political differences betweenthe U.S.A. and the two regions of Vietnam, very similar intergenerationalcommunication patterns arose. It is possible, as has been suggested above,that strong and maybe even universal age stereotypes may be at play here.In the age domain, there is an extensive body of literature which is devotedto age stereotypes, which are considered to be the cognitive precursors tointergenerational discourses such as ageist humor (Richman, 1977) and pa-tronizing speech directed at elderly people (Hummert & Ryan, 1996; Ryan,Hummert & Boich, 1995), as well as contributing to increased social distance


and avoidance between people of different generations (Ryan & Cole, 1990).There is reason to believe that these age stereotypes also influenced youngpeople’s communication with older adults.

Alternatively, our student samples from these cultures might representa small part of a more globalizing drive toward homogeneity and culturalconvergence among youth, and especially among students who are subjectedto many of the same academic cultural pressures (see Bond & Forgas, 1984).Indeed, studies have shown that a “student identity” can be even more salientthan an ethnic one under certain social circumstances (Jones, Gallois, Callan &Barker, 1999), and a similar pattern (i.e., student identity vs. cultural identity)may be at play here during this distinct life stage labeled by Arnett (2000) as“emergent adulthood” (i.e., 18–25 years).

The above communicative patterns were still influenced by the cultural ori-gins of the participants, albeit modestly, and to not nearly the extent as by theage of the target. For accommodation, the young American respondents an-swered in a largely positive manner when queried about others’ accommoda-tive behaviors, reporting more accommodation (e.g., they were supportive,attentive, etc.) from others in general, than respondents from both North andSouth Vietnam. These findings are consistent with a recent study contrastingyoung Thai and young American workers (McCann, 2003) as well as severalothers (Giles et al., 2001; Ota, Giles & Somera, 2003), and again partiallysupport the idea that communication (to others, in general) is somewhat of amore positive experience in Western cultures than in the East.

In interpreting these findings, it is plausible that factors such as grouppressures and face concerns may play a role in our “Eastern” respondents toreport less positive responses. Although there are no communication datafrom Vietnamese samples, in one study, Vietnamese student respondentswere found to be higher in vertical collectivism (i.e., collectivist patternsof submission to ingroup norms, self-sacrifice for the ingroup, and markedingroup status differences among members; see Triandis, 1995) than theirAnglo-American counterparts (Rosen, 1997). Young Vietnamese adults, asopposed to Americans, may therefore feel a heightened pressure to meetgroup/collective expectations which may, in turn, increase feelings of self-criticism if one does not meet, or feels pressured to meet, these expectations.A self-critical orientation is often described as a defining characteristic of thepeoples of some Asian cultures (De Vos, 1985; Lewis, 1995, White, 1987).For example, the Japanese have been found to habitually define themselves asincomplete (Doi, 1973) which, in turn, may generalize to criticisms of others(Kitayama, Karasawa, Heine, Lehman & Markus, 1999), one’s institutions (DeVos, 1985), and even one’s country (e.g., Lipset, 1996) (for review, see Heine,Lehman, Markus & Kitayama, 1999). A general devaluation in perceptions


of the communication of others around them might also occur. Alternatively,the American results could be colored by the fact that the data originate from(southern) California, a state that might be unique (in its positivity and opti-mism) from other American states. The Californian respondents could thusbe exaggerating their optimism about their communication perceptions.

As for their own communication behaviors, and addressing ResearchQuestion 1, young American and North Vietnamese adults felt comparativelyless need to be respectful in their communication to other people, in general,than did the South Vietnamese. These findings may derive, in part, from con-fusion that young people in the North may feel over traditional ideals (e.g.,veneration of older people) clashing with the realities that they presently face(e.g., central command planning). In other words, young people in the Northmay be experiencing a state of anomie (Durkheim, 1893), which refers to abreakdown of social norms and a condition where norms no longer controlthe activities of members of society. Individuals thus struggle to find theirplace in society, as traditional rules to guide their behaviors are no longer inplace. From this, one might conclude that this study’s young North Vietnameserespondents felt less need to be respectful in their communication to older peo-ple because of this confusion, or state of anomie. On the other hand, youngpeople in the Southern city of Ho Chi Min city, who importantly enjoy a two-to-three fold higher standard of living than their Hanoi counterparts, may bedealing with economic changes in a more relaxed manner, and without theconfusion and conflict that characterizes the Hanoi respondents. In the faceof so many changes, it may be that the South Vietnamese sample, possiblywithout the longstanding tradition of governmental support and economicprotection as their Northern counterparts, are clinging to traditional normseven more than their Northern counterparts. This, in turn, may be reflected inthe degree of respectful communication afforded to older people. America,for its part, has a well-established economic tradition where transfer of socialpower, finance, and influence from older to younger people, and “respectfulcommunication” within and between generations is possibly not as strong anissue as it is in South Vietnam.

For the first time in this line of research, some of the above communicativepatterns were (unlike previous studies in this genre) also influenced by thegender of the participants, albeit quite modestly. Specifically, women acrosscultures saw other people, in general, as more accommodative than did men.Women also reported using more respect/obligation and avoidant communi-cation in their discussions with older individuals than did male respondents.Research informs us that women are characterized by traits such as com-passion, warmth, considerate, and display a greater sensitivity to the needsof others, regardless of age (Bem, 1974; Korabik & Ayman, 1987). In the


communication field, similar findings also arise, as women, and not men,have been found to converge toward their partner’s gaze in mixed-sex, dyadicsettings (Mulac, Studley, Wiemann & Bradac, 1987), display softer, moreconvergent communicative patterns with opposite sex friends (Montepare &Vega, 1988), accommodate more than males when repeating isolated words(Namy, Nygaard & Sauerteig, 2002), and diverge less than males when beinginterviewed by someone with a different accent (Willemyns, Gallois, Callan& Pittam, 1997). Females have also been found to report more positive ex-periences than males in their communication with older individuals (Ng, Liu,Weatherall & Loong, 1997). From this, it is not surprising to find that femalesgenerally more positively rate their perceptions of others’ accommodationas well as display more careful, respectful communication patterns to olderpeople during their communication.

As for why this study’s female respondents reported both more respectfuland avoidant communication with older people than did men, it is possiblethat avoidant communication may indeed signal respect in some situations.Also, as is noted by Ingersoll-Dayton and Saengtienchai (1999), the conceptof respect is continuously being redefined in many cultures; whereas respectonce implied obedience, now it implies asking elders for advice, informingelders of decisions, and other such related communicative behaviors. Care,then, needs to be taken when handling the concept of respect as traditionalnotions of respect are indeed changing.

In sum, the findings herein add further substance to the notion that be-liefs about people differentially communicate according to the age of theirconversational partner and, also, for the first time, we have extended thesefindings to Vietnamese (North and South) contexts. Still, and as alluded to inthe foregoing, this study is not without its contextual and methodological lim-itations. First, our focus on just two target age-groups (young, old) was quitebroad, though admittedly convenient to our intergroup perspective. In orderto address this issue, several other studies by the authors (as well as others)have begun to include social categories such as older workers (McCann, 2003;McCann & Giles, 2002), older family/non-family intergenerational members(Giles et al., 2003), and adolescents (Williams & Garrett, 2002; Williams,Garrett & Tennant, in press) into the evaluative frame. By doing so, respon-dents are not being forced to rely only on retrospective, global accounts ofolder people.

Second, this study investigated student samples in urban Vietnam (i.e.,Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City) and a specific region in the U.S.A., namely south-ern California; questions thus arise as to generalizability to other settings inrural Vietnam and America (e.g., the rural South), which might possibly bemore collectivistic. Indeed, data needs to be garnered from rural centers (see


Giles, Kutchukhides, Yagmur & Noels, in press) in these countries, and froma broader range of socioeconomic backgrounds, while also better attending totarget/respondent gender issues (Lee, Parish, & Willis, 1994) and, of course,to older American and Vietnamese informants too. Third, the instrument usedin the current investigation, though easily and meaningfully translated intoVietnamese is, admittedly, somewhat Western-biased. The low reliability onthe respect/obligation dimension for the Vietnamese samples, for example, is aconcern, and suggests that either the translation was not entirely successful forthis construct or that it has different meanings for the Vietnamese. Nonethe-less, we are encouraged by Zhang and Hummert’s (2001) study showing thatmany of the same items of communicative significance pertinent amongst theyounger Western participants in the current study were also spontaneouslygenerated by older adults in the PRC. Next, and besides exploring the ongo-ing behavioral concomitants of intergenerational encounters (a labor-intensiveenterprise when language analyses are involved), future studies need to furtherunpack distinctions between respect/obligation and avoidant communication.In what situations does avoidant communication signal respect and, in whatsituations, is it negatively oriented?

Finally, we need to better understand not only the dilemmas and predica-ments of aging across the lifespan, but also the social conditions for when,how, and where healthy communication between and within generations oc-curs (Williams & Coupland, 1998), and the ways in which it may breedsuccessful interactions, successful aging (Ng et al., 1997), and equally impor-tantly, assist us in elaborating communication models of this complex process(Nussbaum, 1985).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of a Brython Davisfellowship to the first author, a grant from the University of California PacificRim Agency to the first and third authors, as well as the helpful comments oftwo anonymous reviewers.

Notes

1. There was a cultural main effect for the age of the sample [F(2, 553) = 72.37, p < .001],with all groups being significantly different from each other (Tukey HSD, p < .01). Still,all groups were well within the young adult age range of 17–30.

2. The cell sizes (N ) for the data as analyzed: Region (Hanoi = 151; California = 152; HoChi Minh = 169) and Gender (Male = 155; Female = 317).


3. For the gender effect, variances and covariances’ matrices for the four dependent variableswere examined for both males and females. This was done in order to pursue their possibleinflation due to the cell size (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Those for female respondentswere, in general, larger than those for male respondents. Hence, it can be concluded thata difference in cell-size for gender does not cause any serious problems in the analysis.Moreover, similar results, albeit with some minor differences, were obtained when analyseswere conducted with smaller samples. Here, the male to female ratio was made equal ineach of the nations.

References

Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emergent adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens throughthe twenties, American Psychologist 55: 469–480.

Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny, Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 42: 155–162.

Bond, M.H. & Forgas, J.P. (1984). Linking person perception to behavior intention acrosscultures: The role of cultural collectivism, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 15: 337–352.

Braithwaite, V.A. (1986). Old age stereotypes: Reconciling contradictions, Journal of Geron-tology 41: 353–360.

Branco, K.L. & Williamson, J.B. (1982). Stereotypes and the life cycle. In A.G. Miller (ed.),In the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping (pp. 364–410). New York:Prager.

Buriel, R. & De Ment, T. (1997). Immigration and sociocultural change in Mexican, Chinese,and Vietnamese American families. In A. Booth & A.C. Crouter (eds.), Immigration andthe family: Research and policy on U.S. immigrants (pp. 165–200). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cai, D., Giles, H. & Noels, K.A. (1998). Elderly perceptions of communication with older andyounger adults in China: Implications for mental health, Journal of Applied CommunicationResearch 26: 32–51.

Caporeal, L.R. (1981). The paralanguage of caregiving: Baby talk to the institutionalized elderlyand their caregivers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 746–754.

Chipperfield, J.G. & Havens, B. (1992). A longitudinal analysis of perceived respect amongelders. Changing perceptions for some ethnic groups, Canadian Journal on Aging 11:15–30.

Chow, N.W. (1983). The Chinese family and support of the elderly in Hong Kong, The Geron-tologist 23: 584–588.

Chow, N. (1999). Diminishing filial piety and the changing role and status of elders in HongKong, Hallym International Journal of Aging 1: 67–77.

Cohen, G. & Faulkner, D. (1986). Does “elderspeak” work? The effect of intonation and stresson comprehension and recall of spoken discourse in old age, Language and Communication6: 91–98.

Coupland, J., Coupland, N., Giles, H., Henwood, K. & Wiemann, J. (1988). Elderly self-disclosure: Interactional and intergroup issues, Language and Communication 8: 109–133.

De Vos, G.A. (1985). Dimensions of the self in Japanese culture. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos & F.L.K. Hsu (eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 141–182).New York: Tavistock Publications.


Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. Tokyo: Kodansha.Durkheim, E. (1893). The division of labor in society. New York: Macmillan.Fei, X. (1985). The caring of old in families undergoing structural changes. In C. Chia (ed.),

Proceedings of the conference on modernization and Chinese culture (pp. 121–132). HongKong: Faculty of Social Sciences and Institute of Social Studies, The Chinese Universityof Hong Kong.

Friedman, J., Goodkind, D., Cuong, B.T. & Anh, T.S. (2001). Work and retirement amongelderly in Vietnam, Research on Aging 23: 209–232.

Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A. & Ota, H. (1995). Accommodating interculturalencounters: Elaborations and extensions. In R. Wiseman (ed.), Intercultural communicationtheory (pp. 115–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gerber, L., Nguyen, Q. & Bounkeua, P.K. (1999). Working with Southeast Asian people whohave migrated to the United States. In K. Nader & N. Dubrow (eds.), Honoring differ-ences: Cultural issues in the treatment of trauma and loss (pp. 98-118). Philadelphia:Brunner/Mazel, Inc.

Giles, H., Ballard, D. & McCann, R.M. (2002). Perceptions of intergenerational communicationacross cultures: An Italian case, Perceptual and Motor Skills 95: 583–591.

Giles, H., Coupland, N. & Coupland, J., eds. (1991). Context of accommodation: Developmentof applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Giles, H., Harwood, J., Pierson, H.B., Clement, R. & Fox, S. (1998). Stereotypes of the el-derly and evaluations of patronizing speech: A cross-cultural foray. In R. K. Agnihotri,A. L. Khanna & I. Sachdev (eds.), Social psychological perspectives on second lan-guage learning (pp. 151–186). (Research in applied linguistics series IV). New Delhi:Sage.

Giles, H., Kutchukhides, M., Yagmur, K. & Noels, K.A. (in press). Age vitality: Perceptionsof young Canadian, Turkish, and Georgian urban and rural adults, Journal of Multilingualand Multicultural Development.

Giles, H., Liang, B., Noels, K.A. & McCann, R.M. (2001). Communicating across and withingenerations: Taiwanese, Chinese-Americans, and Euro-American’s perceptions of commu-nication, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 11: 161–176.

Giles, H., McCann, R.M., Ota, H. & Noels, K.A. (2002). Challenging intergenerational stereo-types: Across eastern and western cultures. In M. S. Kaplan, N. Z. Henkin, & A. T.Kusano (eds.), Linking lifetimes: A global view of intergenerational exchange (pp. 13–28).Honolulu: University Press of America, Inc.

Giles, H. & Noels, K.A. (1997). Communication accommodation in intercultural encounters.In J. Martin, T. Nakayama & L. Flores (eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 139–149).Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Giles, H., Noels, K.A., Williams, A., Ota, H., Lim, T.-S., Ng, S.H., Ryan, E.B. & Somera,L. (2003). Intergenerational communication across cultures: Young people’s perceptionsof conversations with family elders, non-family elders, and same-age peers, Journal ofCross-Cultural Gerontology 18: 1–30.

Giles, H. & Williams, A. (1994). Patronizing the young: Forms and evaluations, InternationalJournal of Aging and Human Development 39: 33–53.

Gold, D.P., Arbuckle, T.Y. & Andres, D. (1994). Verbosity in older adults. In M. L. Hummert,J. M. Wiemann & J. F. Nussbaum (eds.), Interpersonal communication and aging (pp.107–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B. & Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Cross-cultural variability of communicationin personal relationships. In W.B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey & T. Nishida (eds.),


Communication in personal relationships across cultures (pp. 19–56). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Harwood, J., Giles, H. & Ryan, E.B. (1995). Aging, communication, and intergroup theory:Social identity and intergenerational communication. In J. F. Nussbaum & J. Coupland (eds),Handbook of communication and aging research (pp. 133–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harwood, J. & Williams, A. (1998). Young people’s communication and affective expectationsof interactions with different elderly substereotypes, International Journal of Aging andHuman Development 47: 11–33.

Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R., Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need forpositive self-regard? Psychological Review 106: 766–794.

Ho, D.Y.-F. (1994). Filial Piety, authoritarian moralism, and cognitive conservatism in ChineseSocieties, Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs 120: 347–365.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Hummert, M.L. (1990). Multiple stereotypes of the elderly and young adults: A comparison

of structure and evaluations, Psychology and Aging 5: 182–193.Hummert, M.L. (1994). Stereotypes of the elderly and patronizing speech. In M.L. Hummert,

J.M. Wiemann & J.F. Nussbaum (eds.), Interpersonal communication in older adulthood(pp. 162–184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hummert, M.L. & Nussbaum, J.F., eds. (2001). Communication, aging, and health: Multidis-ciplinary perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hummert, M.L. & Ryan, E.B. (1996). Toward understanding variations in patronizing talk ad-dressed to older adults: Psycholinguistic features of care and control, International Journalof Psycholinguistics 12: 149–170.

Ingersoll-Dayton, B. & Saengtienchai, C. (1999). Respect for older persons in Asia: Stabilityand change, International Journal of Aging and Human Development 48: 113–130.

Jones, E.S., Gallois, C., Callan, V.J. & Barker, M. (1999). Strategies of accommodation:Development of a coding system for conversational interaction, Journal of Language andSocial Psychology 18: 123–152.

Keyes, C. (1995). The Golden peninsula. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.Kiefer, C.W. (1992). Aging in Eastern cultures: A historical overview. In T. R. Cole, D. D. Van

Tassel & R. Kastenbaum (eds.), Handbook of the humanities and aging (pp. 96–123). NewYork: Springer.

Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration.In U.

Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibashi, C., Choi, S.-C. & Yoon, G. (eds.), Individualism andcollectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 19–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, U. & Yamaguchi, S. (1995). Cross-cultural research methodology and approach: Impli-cations for the advancement of Japanese social psychology, Research in Social Psychology10: 168–179.

Kitayama, S., Karasawa, M., Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R. & Markus, H.R. (1999). Conversationsampling from Japan, the U.S., and Canada. Unpublished data. Kyoto University.

Knodel, J., Friedman, J., Anh, T.S. & Cuong, B.T. (2000). Intergenerational exchanges inVietnam: Family size, sex composition, and the location of children, Population Studies54: 89–104.

Knodel, J., Saengtienchai, C. & Sittitrai, W. (1995). Living arrangements of the elderly inThailand: Views of the populace, Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 10: 79–111.

Knutson, T.J., Komolsevin, R., Chatiketu, P. & Smith, V.R. (2002). A cross-cultural comparisonof Thai and US American rhetorical sensitivity: Implications for intercultural communica-tion effectiveness, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27: 63–78.


Korabik, J. & Ayman, R. (1987). Androgyny and leadership style: Toward a conceptual syn-thesis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association,New York.

Koyano, W. (1996). Filial piety and intergenerational solidarity in Japan, Australian Journalon Ageing 15: 51–56.

Kumagai, F. (1981). Filial violence: A peculiar parent–child relationship in the Japanese familytoday, Journal of Comparative Family Studies 12: 337–349.

Lee, Y.J., Parish, W.L. & Willis, R.J. (1994). Sons, daughters and intergenerational support inTaiwan, American Journal of Sociology 99: 1010–1041.

Lewis, C.C. (1995). Educating hearts and minds. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Lipset, S.M. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York: W. M.Norton.

Madey, S.F. (2000). Toward a social psychology of aging, Basic and Applied Social Psychology22: 133–135.

Martin, L.G. (1988). The aging of Asia, Journal of Gerontology 43: 99–113.McCann, R.M. (2003). Intergenerational communication in the workplace: Perspectives from

Thailand and the United States of America. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara.

McCann, R.M. & Giles, H. (2002). Ageism and the workplace: A communication perspective.In T.D. Nelson (ed.), Ageism (pp. 163–199). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McCann, R.M., Ota, H., Giles, H. & Caraker, R. (2003). Accommodation and nonaccommo-dation across the lifespan: Perspectives from Thailand, Japan, and the United States ofAmerica, Communication Reports, 16: 1–23.

Mehta, K. (1997). Respect redefined: Focus group insights from Singapore. InternationalJournal of Aging and Human Development 44: 205-219.

Montepare, J.M. & Vega, C. (1988). Women’s vocal reactions to intimate and casual malefriends, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 14: 103–112.

Moon, A. & Williams, O. (1993). Perceptions of elder abuse and help-seeking patterns amongAfrican-American, Caucasian, and Korean-American elderly women, The Gerontologist33: 386–395.

Mulac, A., Studley, L.B., Wiemann, J.M. & Bradac, J.J. (1987). Male/female gaze in same-sexand mixed-sex dyads: Gender linked differences and mutual influence, Human Communi-cation Research 13: 323–343.

Namy, L.L., Nygaard, L.C. & Sauerteig, D. (2002). Gender differences in vocal accommoda-tion: The role of perception, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 21: 422–432.

Ng, S.H., Liu, J.H., Weatherall, A. & Loong, C.S.F. (1997). Younger adults’ communicationexperiences and contact with elders and peers, Human Communication Research 24: 82–108.

Ng, S.H., Loong, C.S.F., Liu, J.H. & Weatherall, A. (2000). Will the young support the old? Anindividual- and family-level study of filial obligations in two New Zealand cultures, AsianJournal of Social Psychology 3: 163–182.

Noels, K.A., Giles, H., Cai, D. & Turay, L. (1999). Intergenerational communication and healthin the United States and the People’s Republic of China, South Pacific Journal of Psychology10: 120–134.

Noels, K.A., Giles, H., Gallois, C. & Ng, S.H. (2001). Intergenerational communication andhealth across the Pacific Rim. In M.L. Hummert & J.F. Nussbaum (eds.), Communication,aging, and health: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 249–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nuessel, F. (1982). The language of ageism. The Gerontologist 22: 273–276.


Nussbaum, J.F. (1985). Successful aging: A communicative model, Communication Quarterly33: 262–269.

Obler, L.K. & Albert, M.L. (1981). Language and aging: A neurobehavioral analysis. In D.S.Beasley & G.A. Davis (eds.), Aging: Communication processes and disorders (pp. 107–121). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Ota, H. (2001). Intergenerational communication in Japan and the United States: Debunkingthe myth of respect for older adults in contemporary Japan. Unpublished PhD dissertation,University of California, Santa Barbara.

Ota, H., Giles, H. & Somera, L.B. (2003). Culture and communication across age groups: Peo-ple’s perceptions of intra- and intergenerational communication in Japan, the Philippines,and the United States. Manuscript submitted.

Palmore, E. (1999). Ageism: Negative and positive. New York: Springer.Pbs.org. (n.d.). Vietnam’s new generation. Retrieved December 12, 2003, from

http://www.pbs.org/hanoi/newgene.htm#hungthau.Phan, D.D. (1998). Respect for aged people in ancient Vietnam, Vietnamese Studies 128: 30–39.Phillips, D. (2000). Aging in Asia-Pacific Regions: Issues, policies, and future trends. London:

Routledge.Richman, J. (1977). The foolishness and wisdom of age: Attitudes toward the elderly as reflected

in jokes, The Gerontologist 17: 210–219.Rosen, C.F. (1997). Cultural dimensions of individualism–collectivism and power distance:

Their influence on Vietnamese and Anglo-American undergraduates’ conflict resolutionpreferences in developmental education, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B:The Sciences and Engineering, Nov. 58 (5-B).

Rumbaut, R.G. (1995). Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian Americans. In P.G. Min (ed.),Asian Americans: Contemporary trends and issues (pp. 232–270). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Ryan, E.B. & Cole, R. (1990). Evaluative perceptions of interpersonal communication withelders. In H. Giles, N. Coupland & J.M. Wiemann (eds.), Communication, health, and theelderly (pp. 172–190). Fulbright International Colloquia No. 8. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press.

Ryan, E.B., Hummert, M.L. & Boich, L. (1995). Communication predicaments of aging:Patronizing behaviour toward older adults, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13:144–166.

Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam, N. & Jablin, F.M. (1999). An exploratory study of communi-cation competence in Thai organizations, The Journal of Business Communication 36:382–412.

Sung, K.T. (1995). Measures and dimensions of filial piety in Korea, The Gerontologist 35:240–247.

Sung, K.T. (2000). Respect for elders: Myths and realities in East Asia, Journal of Aging andIdentity 5: 197–205

Sung, K.T. (2001). Elder respect: Exploration of ideas and forms in East Asia, Journal of AgingStudies 15: 13–26.

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd edn.) Harper Collins:New York.

Tajfel, H., ed. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.Tomita, S. (1994). The consideration of cultural factors in the research of elder mistreatment

with an in-depth look at the Japanese, Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 9: 39–52.Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.


Truong S.A., Cuong, B.T., Goodkind, D. & Knodel, J. (1997). Living arrangements, patrilin-eality and sources of support among elderly Vietnamese, Asia-Pacific Population Journal12: 69–88.

White, M. (1987). The Japanese educational challenge: A commitment to children. New York:Free Press.

Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., Callan, V.J. & Pittam, J. (1997). Accent accommodation in thejob interview: Impact of interviewer accent and gender, Journal of Language and SocialPsychology 8: 1–22.

Williams, A. & Coupland, J. (1998). The socio-political framing of aging and communicationresearch, Journal of Applied Communication Research 26: 139–154.

Williams, A. & Garrett, P. (2002). Communication evaluations across the lifespan: From adoles-cent storm and stress to elder aches and pains, Journal of Language and Social Psychology21: 101–126.

Williams, A. & Garrett, P. (in press). Intergroup perspectives on communication, age and inter-generational communication. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (eds.), Intergroup communication:Multiple perspectives. New York & Berlin: Peter Lang.

Williams, A., Garrett, P. & Tennant, R. (in press). Young adults’ perceptions of communicationwith peers and adolescents. In Ng, S. H., Candlin, C.N. & Chui, C.Y. (eds.), Languagematters: Communication, identity, and culture. Hong Kong: City University of Hong KongPress.

Williams, A., Ota, H., Giles, H., Pierson, H.D., Gallois, C., Ng., S.H., Lim, T.-S., Ryan, E.B.,Somera, L., Maher, J., Cai, D. & Harwood, J. (1997). Young people’s beliefs about inter-generational communication: An initial cross-cultural analysis, Communication Research24: 370–393.

Williams, A. & Nussbaum, J.F. (2001). Intergenerational communication across the lifespan.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Yeh, Y.H., Williams, A. & Maruyama, M. (1998). Approving and disapproving grandmoth-ers and strangers: Young Taiwanese and American comparisons, Journal of Asian PacificCommunication 8: 125–150.

Zhang, Y.B. & Hummert, M.L. (2001). Harmonies and tensions in Chinese intergenerationalcommunication: Younger and older adults’ accounts, Journal of Asia Pacific Communica-tion 11: 203–230.

Address for correspondence: Robert M. McCann, Department of Communication,University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020, USA. Phone: (805) 893-2055; FAX: (805) 893-7102; e-mail: [email protected]

Communication Ambivalence Toward Elders: Data from North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the U.S.A

Documents

Transcript of Communication Ambivalence Toward Elders: Data from North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the U.S.A