High-context and low-context cultures

Last updated

In anthropology, high-context and low-context cultures are ends of a continuum of how explicit the messages exchanged in a culture are and how important the context is in communication. The distinction between cultures with high and low contexts is intended to draw attention to variations in both spoken and non-spoken forms of communication. [1] The continuum pictures how people communicate with others through their range of communication abilities: utilizing gestures, relations, body language, verbal messages, or non-verbal messages. [2]

Contents

"High-" and "low-" context cultures typically refer to language groups, nationalities, or regional communities. However, the concept may also apply to corporations, professions, and other cultural groups, as well as to settings such as online and offline communication. [3]

High-context cultures often exhibit less-direct verbal and nonverbal communication, utilizing small communication gestures and reading more meaning into these less-direct messages. [4] Low-context cultures do the opposite; direct verbal communication is needed to properly understand a message being communicated and relies heavily on explicit verbal skills. [5]

The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural-communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation. [6]

History of differing context cultures

These concepts were first introduced by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his 1959 book "The Silent Language ." Cultures and communication in which the context of the message has great importance to structuring actions are referred to as high context. High-context defines cultures that are usually relational and collectivist, and which most highlight interpersonal relationships. Hall identifies high-context cultures as those in which harmony and the well-being of the group are preferred over individual achievement. [2] In low context, communication members' communication must be more explicit, direct, and elaborate because individuals are not expected to have knowledge of each other's histories or backgrounds, and communication is not necessarily shaped by long-standing relationships between speakers. Because low-context communication concerns more direct messages, the meaning of these messages is more dependent on the words being spoken rather than on the interpretation of more subtle or unspoken cues. [7] Low-context communication relies more on said words to convey meaning than it does on more nuanced or unsaid indications. This is because spoken words are more straightforward in nature. A 2008 meta-analysis concluded that the model was "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped". [6]

Characteristics of high-context and low-context cultures

Denotation and connotation

High-context cultures are related to connotation. People within high-context cultures tend to be more aware and observant of facial expressions, body language, changes in tone, and other aspects of communication that are not directly spoken. [8] [9] Denotation tends to be attributed to low-context culture. [10] In low-context cultures, people communicate more directly by explicitly stating what they want to communicate.

Interpersonal relationships

Individualism and collectivism are related to low-context and high-context cultures, respectively. Within high-context cultures, people rely on their networks of friends and family, viewing their relationships as part of one large community. [11] In low-context cultures, relationships are not viewed as important figures to identity. [12] People within low-context cultures see their relationships much looser and the lines between networks of people are more flexibly drawn. [13]

Interaction

When people from different cultures and communication styles work together, misunderstandings and conflicts can arise. High-context communicators might seem distant or unfriendly to those from low-context societies, while low-context communicators might appear pushy or impolite.[ citation needed ]

Understanding whether a culture is high or low can dramatically improve communication effectiveness. In high-context cultures, where much of the communication is implicit, knowing the context allows individuals to pick up on non-verbal cues and indirect messages, thus facilitating smoother interactions. Conversely, in low-context cultures, recognizing the need for explicit communication helps in providing clear and direct information, which can avoid misunderstandings. This understanding is relevant to global business environments, which benefit from clear communication. [14]

Examples of higher- and lower-context cultures

Cultural contexts are not absolutely "high" or "low". Instead, a comparison between cultures may find communication differences to a greater or lesser degree. Typically a high-context culture will be relational, collectivist, intuitive, and contemplative. They place a high value on interpersonal relationships and group members are a very close-knit community. [15] Typically a low-context culture will be less close-knit, and so individuals communicating will have fewer relational cues when interpreting messages. Therefore, it is necessary for more explicit information to be included in the message so it is not misinterpreted. [16] Not all individuals in a culture can be defined by cultural stereotypes, and there will be variations within a national culture in different settings. For example, Hall describes how Japanese culture has both low- and high-context situations. [17] However, understanding the broad tendencies of predominant cultures can help inform and educate individuals on how to better facilitate communication between individuals of different cultural backgrounds.

Although the concept of high- and low-context cultures is usually applied in the field of analyzing national cultures, it can also be used to describe scientific or corporate cultures or specific settings such as airports or law courts. A simplified example mentioned by Hall is that scientists working in "hard science" fields (like chemistry and physics) tend to have lower-context cultures: because their knowledge and models have fewer variables, they will typically include less context for each event they describe. [18] In contrast, scientists working with living systems need to include more context because there can be significant variables which impact the research outcomes.

Croucher's study examines the assertion that culture influences communication style (high/low-context) preference. Data was gathered in India, Ireland, Thailand, and the United States where the results confirm that "high-context nations (India and Thailand) prefer the avoiding and obliging conflict styles more than low-context nations (Ireland and the United States), whereas low-context nations prefer the uncompromising and dominating communication style more than high-context nations." [19]

Individuals and groups operating in low context cultures are quite explicit and elaborate without having prior knowledge of each member's history or background, and tend to take what is said literally and prefer to have thorough knowledge before a task or a meeting. [20] [ better source needed ]

In addition, Hall identified Japanese, Arabs, and Southern European peoples as high-context, but Germans, Scandinavians and other Northern Europeans, and Americans low-context. [21]

Cultures and languages are defined as higher or lower contexts on a spectrum. For example, it could be argued that the Canadian French language is a higher context than Canadian English, but a lower context than Spanish or French French. An individual from Texas (a higher-context culture) may communicate with a few words or use of a prolonged silence characteristic of Texan English, whereas a New Yorker would be very explicit (as typical of New York City English), although both speak the same language (American English) and are part of a nation (the United States of America) which is lower-context relative to other nations.[ citation needed ] Hall notes a similar difference between Navajo-speakers and English speakers in a United States school. [22]

Hall proposed a "spectrum" of national cultures from "High-Context cultures" to "Low-Context Cultures. [23]

Cultural context can also shift and evolve. For instance, a study has argued that both Japan and Finland (high-context cultures) are becoming lower-context with the increased influence of Western Europe and United States culture. [24]

Case studies

US, China, and Korea

Kim Donghoon conducted a study to test the major aspects of high-context versus low-context culture concepts. The study collected three samples from different cultures - the US, China, and Korea - with 96 business managers surveyed in the American and Chinese samples and 50 managers in the Korean sample. According to Hall's theory, the Chinese and Korean samples represented higher-context cultures while the American sample represents a lower-context culture. The study tested 16 items, covering various aspects of the high-versus-low context concept, including social orientation, responsibility, confrontation, communication, commitment, and dealing with new situations.

The results show significant differences between the American, Chinese, and Korean samples on 15 out of 16 items, with 11 items significant at the .01 level, one at the .05 level, and three at the .10 level. The composite score also indicates a significant difference among the three samples at the .01 level. The American sample scored the lowest compared to the two "Oriental samples," which aligns with Hall's concept. Overall, this study provides further evidence to support the high versus low-context culture concepts with Chinese, Korean, and American participants. The study suggests that in high-context cultures, such as China and Korea, people tend to be more socially oriented, less confrontational, and more complacent with existing ways of living compared to people from low-context cultures like the US. [25]

Sino-American Language through automobile advertisement

A study from 2019 found that due to the different cultural backgrounds of China and the United States, the use of language in automotive advertising varies a lot. [26]

For example, Chinese automobile advertisements, which are found to belong to the high-context category, characterized by vagueness and implicitness. Much of the information is brought in the context of the publicity, that includes also shared history, relationships, and cultural norms/values (for example, Chinese poetry).

On the other hand, American automobile advertisements are categorized as low context, characterized by straightforwardness and frankness. This aligns with low-context cultures where communication is more explicit, direct, and elaborate.

Russia and Romania

A case study was done on 30 Romanian and 30 Russian employees, to compare high- and low-context cultures, and the results strongly suggested that Russia and Romania are both high-context cultures. [27] The table shows the major differences and similarities between individual queries.

Mexico and the U.S.

This study is a result of a cross-cultural examination between students from the United States, a low-context culture, and Mexico, a high-context culture, to study the reasons people communicate in each culture. [28] There were 225 Mexican participants from three different undergraduate universities in Mexico City and 447 participants from Kent State University in the U.S. [28] The case study looked into culture shock experienced by Mexicans studying in the U.S. The hypotheses tested indicated the high-context culture in Mexico would provide different motives for communication when compared with the low-context culture of the U.S.

The results found that U.S. participants used communication for pleasure more often than Mexican participants. [28] Pleasure, affection, and inclusion were the highest motives for communication in both cultures and control was the lowest for both cultures. [28]

Brazil and Germany

A research, published in 2022, investigates how varying cultural communication styles impact the outcomes of social group divisions. By blending concepts from theories on group dynamics and cultural communication, Kathrin Burmann and Thorsten Semrau examined 54 teams in the banking sector in Germany (low-context culture) and Brazil (high-context culture). The study results show that in Germany, known for direct communication, social divisions often lead to task conflicts, harming team performance. However, in Brazil, where communication tends to be more indirect, they didn't observe the same negative consequences. [29]

Overlap and contrast between context cultures

The categories of context cultures are not totally separate. Both often take many aspects of the other's cultural communication abilities and strengths into account. [30] The terms high- and low-context cultures are not classified with strict individual characteristics or boundaries. Instead, many cultures tend to have a mixture or at least some concepts that are shared between them, overlapping the two context cultures. [30]

Ramos suggests that "in low context culture, communication members' communication must be more explicit. As such, what is said is what is meant, and further analysis of the message is usually unnecessary." [31] This implies that communication is quite direct and detailed because members of the culture are not expected to have knowledge of each other's histories, past experiences, or backgrounds. Because low-context communication concerns more direct messages, the meaning of these messages is more dependent on the words being spoken rather than on the interpretation of more subtle or unspoken cues.

The Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice states that "high context defines cultures that are relational and collectivist, and which most highlight interpersonal relationships. Cultures and communication in which context is of great importance to structuring actions are referred to as high context." [32] In such cultures, people are highly perceptive of actions. Furthermore, cultural aspects such as tradition, ceremony, and history are also highly valued. Because of this, many features of cultural behavior in high-context cultures, such as individual roles and expectations, do not need much detailed or thought-out explanation.

According to Watson, "the influence of cultural variables interplays with other key factors – for example, social identities, those of age, gender, social class, and ethnicity; this may include a stronger or weaker influence." [33] A similarity that the two communication styles share is its influence on social characteristics such as age, gender, social class, and ethnicity. For example, for someone who is older and more experienced within a society, the need for social cues may be higher or lower depending on the communication style. The same applies to the other characteristics in varied countries.

On the other hand, certain intercultural communication skills are unique for each culture and it is significant to note that these overlaps in communication techniques are represented by subgroups within social interactions or family settings. [34] Many singular cultures that are large have subcultures inside of them, making communication and defining them more complicated than the low-context and high-context culture scale. [34] The diversity within a main culture shows how the high and low scale differs depending on social settings such as school, work, home, and in other countries; variation is what allows the scale to fluctuate even if a large culture is categorized as primarily one or the other. [34]

Online

Punctuation marks and emojis are important tools in digital communication. High-context users actively embrace these tools to enhance their communication styles and contribute to the efficiency and meaning of digital interactions. In high-context cultures, where communication relies on implicit understanding and cultural cues, the use of tools reflects specific cultural norms. [35] These tools, which can be interpreted differently across cultures, emphasize the need for clarity in cross-cultural digital interactions.

Such markers can express emotion. Adding an exclamation mark to a sentence ("Thank you!") can emphasize a sense of gratitude. Similarly, using a smiley emoji or emoticon, such as "Thank you :)", can add a friendly and cheerful tone to the message.

Punctuation can clarify meaning. For example, "Come" and "Come!" can have different nuances. The use of an exclamation mark often indicates emphasis or positivity from the speaker.

Miscommunication within cultural contexts

Between each type of culture context, there will be forms of miscommunication because of the difference in gestures, social cues, and intercultural adjustments; however, it is important to recognize these differences and learn how to avoid miscommunication to benefit certain situations. [36] Since all sets of cultures differ, especially from a global standpoint where language also creates a barrier for communication, social interactions specific to a culture normally require a range of appropriate communication abilities that an opposing culture may not understand or know about. [37] This significance follows into many situations such as the workplace, which can be prone to diversified cultures and opportunities for collaboration and working together. [36] Awareness of miscommunication between high- and low-context cultures within the workplace or intercultural communication settings advocates for collected unification within a group through the flexibility and ability to understand one another. [34] [36]

How higher context relates to other cultural metrics

Diversity

Families, subcultures, and in-groups typically favor higher-context communication. [17] Groups that are able to rely on a common background may not need to use words as explicitly to understand each other. Settings and cultures where people come together from a wider diversity of backgrounds such as international airports, large cities, or multi-national firms, tend to use lower-context communication forms. [34]

Language

Hall links language to culture through the work of Sapir-Whorf on linguistic relativity. [22] A trade language will typically need to explicitly explain more of the context than a dialect which can assume a high level of shared context. Because a low-context setting cannot rely on a shared understanding of potentially ambiguous messages, low-context cultures tend to give more information or to be precise in their language. [38] In contrast, a high-context language like Japanese or Chinese or Korean can use a high number of homophones but still be understood by a listener who knows the context. [24]

Elaborated and restricted codes

The concept of elaborated and restricted codes was introduced by sociologist Basil Bernstein in his book Class, Codes and Control . The use of an elaborated code indicates that the speaker and listener do not share significant amounts of common knowledge, and hence they may need to "spell out" their ideas more fully: elaborated codes tend to be more context-independent. In contrast, the use of restricted codes indicates that speakers and listeners do share a great deal of common background and perspectives, and hence much more can be taken for granted and thus expressed implicitly or through nuance: restricted codes tend to be more context-dependent. [39]

Restricted codes are commonly used in high-context culture groups, where group members share the same cultural background and can easily understand the implicit meanings "between the lines" without further elaboration. [37] Conversely, in cultural groups with low context, where people share less common knowledge or 'value individuality above group identification', elaborated codes are necessary to avoid misunderstanding. [40]

Collectivism and individualism

The concepts of collectivism and individualism have been applied to high- and low-context cultures by Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede in his Cultural Dimensions Theory. [3] Collectivist societies prioritize the group over the individual, and vice versa for individualist ones. In high-context cultures, language may be used to assist and maintain relationship-building and to focus on process. India and Japan are typically high-context, highly collectivistic cultures, where business is done by building relationships and maintaining respectful communication. [41]

Individualistic cultures promote the development of individual values and independent social groups. Individualism may lead to communicating to all people in a group in the same way, rather than offering hierarchical respect to certain members. [42] Because individualistic cultures may value cultural diversity, a more explicit way of communicating is often required to avoid misunderstanding. Language may be used to achieve goals or exchange information. The USA and Australia are typically low-context, highly individualistic cultures, where transparency and competition in business are prized. [41]

Stability and durability of tradition

High-context cultures tend to be more stable, as their communication is more economical, fast, efficient, and satisfying; but these are gained at the price of devoting time to preprogramming cultural background, and their high stability might come with a price of a high barrier for development. [43] By contrast, low-context cultures tend to change more rapidly and drastically, allowing extension[ definition needed ] to happen at faster rates. This also means that low-context communication may fail due to the overload of information, which makes culture lose its screening[ definition needed ] function. [22]

Therefore, higher-context cultures tend to correlate with cultures that also have a strong sense of tradition and history, and change little over time. [25] For example, Native Americans in the United States have higher-context cultures with a strong sense of tradition and history, compared to general American culture. Focusing on tradition creates opportunities for higher-context messages between individuals of each new generation, and the high-context culture feeds back to the stability hence allowing the tradition to be maintained. This is in contrast to lower-context cultures in which the shared experiences upon which communication is built can change drastically from one generation to the next, creating communication gaps between parents and children, as in the United States. [22]

Facial expression and gesture

Culture also affects how individuals interpret other people's facial expressions. An experiment performed by the University of Glasgow shows that different cultures have different understanding of the facial expression signals of the six basic emotions, which are the so-called "universal language of emotion"—happiness, surprise, fear, disgust, anger and sadness. [44] [45] In high-context cultures, facial expressions and gestures take on greater importance in conveying and understanding a message, and the receiver may require more cultural context to understand "basic" displays of emotions.

Marketing and advertising perspective

Cultural differences in advertising and marketing may also be explained through high- and low-context cultures. [46] One study on McDonald's online advertising compared Japan, China, Korea, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the United States, and found that in high-context countries, the advertising used more colors, movements, and sounds to give context, while in low-context cultures the advertising focused more on verbal information and linear processes. [3] While a low-context approach might be more successful in cultures with direct communication styles, a high-context marketing strategy might be more beneficial in cultures where communication is indirect and largely dependent on context. [47]

Website communication

Website design among cross-cultural barriers includes factoring in decisions about culture-sensitive color meanings, layout preferences, animation, and sounds. [48] In a case study conducted by the IT University of Copenhagen, it was found that websites catering to high-context cultures tended to have more detailed and advanced designs, including various images and animations. [48] Low-context websites had less animation and more stagnant images, with more details on information. [48] The images found on the websites used in the study promoted individualistic and collectivist characteristics within the low-context and high-context websites, respectively. The low-context websites had multiple images of individuals, while the high-context websites contained images and animations of groups and communities. [48]

Limitations of the model

In a 2008 meta-analysis of 224 articles published between 1990 and 2006, Peter W. Cardon wrote:

[T]he theory was never described by Hall with any empirical rigor, and no known research involving any instrument or measure of contexting validates it. ... Ironically, contexting is most frequently discussed in terms of directness, yet empirical studies nearly all fail to support this relationship. In other words, the relationship between directness and contexting based on traditional classifications of [high-context] and [low-context] cultures is particularly tenuous. Most of the context categories simply have not been researched enough to make firm conclusions. But the fact that contexting has not been empirically validated should not necessarily be construed as a failure of the theory. ... Nonetheless, the contexting model simply cannot be described as an empirically validated model. [6] : 422–3 

See also

Related Research Articles

Cross-cultural communication is a field of study investigating how people from differing cultural backgrounds communicate, in similar and different ways among themselves, and how they endeavor to communicate across cultures. Intercultural communication is a related field of study.

Acculturation is a process of social, psychological, and cultural change that stems from the balancing of two cultures while adapting to the prevailing culture of the society. Acculturation is a process in which an individual adopts, acquires and adjusts to a new cultural environment as a result of being placed into a new culture, or when another culture is brought to someone. Individuals of a differing culture try to incorporate themselves into the new more prevalent culture by participating in aspects of the more prevalent culture, such as their traditions, but still hold onto their original cultural values and traditions. The effects of acculturation can be seen at multiple levels in both the devotee of the prevailing culture and those who are assimilating into the culture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonverbal communication</span> Interpersonal communication through wordless (mostly visual) cues

Nonverbal communication is the transmission of messages or signals through a nonverbal platform such as eye contact (oculesics), body language (kinesics), social distance (proxemics), touch (haptics), voice, physical environments/appearance, and use of objects. When communicating, we utilize nonverbal channels as means to convey different messages or signals, whereas others can interpret these message. The study of nonverbal communication started in 1872 with the publication of The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals by Charles Darwin. Darwin began to study nonverbal communication as he noticed the interactions between animals such as lions, tigers, dogs etc. and realized they also communicated by gestures and expressions. For the first time, nonverbal communication was studied and its relevance noted. Today, scholars argue that nonverbal communication can convey more meaning than verbal communication.

Intercultural communication is a discipline that studies communication across different cultures and social groups, or how culture affects communication. It describes the wide range of communication processes and problems that naturally appear within an organization or social context made up of individuals from different religious, social, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. In this sense, it seeks to understand how people from different countries and cultures act, communicate, and perceive the world around them. Intercultural communication focuses on the recognition and respect of those with cultural differences. The goal is mutual adaptation between two or more distinct cultures which leads to biculturalism/multiculturalism rather than complete assimilation. It promotes the development of cultural sensitivity and allows for empathic understanding across different cultures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward T. Hall</span> American anthropologist

Edward Twitchell Hall, Jr. was an American anthropologist and cross-cultural researcher. He is remembered for developing the concept of proxemics and exploring cultural and social cohesion, and describing how people behave and react in different types of culturally defined personal space. Hall was an influential colleague of Marshall McLuhan and Buckminster Fuller.

Power distance is the unequal distribution of power between parties, and the level of acceptance of that inequality; whether it is in the family, workplace, or other organizations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intercultural learning</span>

Intercultural learning is an area of research, study and application of knowledge about different cultures, their differences and similarities. On the one hand, it includes a theoretical and academic approach. On the other hand, it comprises practical applications such as learning to negotiate with people from different cultures, living with people from different cultures, living in a different culture and the prospect of peace between different cultures.

Cultural competence, also known as intercultural competence, is a range of cognitive, affective, behavioural, and linguistic skills that lead to effective and appropriate communication with people of other cultures. Intercultural or cross-cultural education are terms used for the training to achieve cultural competence.

Howard Giles' communication accommodation theory (CAT), "seeks to explain and predict when, how, and why individuals engage in interactional adjustments with others,” such as a person changing their accent to match the individual they are speaking with. Additionally, CAT studies “recipients’ inferences, attributions, and evaluations of, and responses to, them." This means when speakers change their communication style, listeners are interpreting such alterations. For example, when the speaker adjusts their accent to match the listener's, the recipient may interpret this positively, perceiving it as the speaker trying to fit in, or negatively—questioning whether they are mocking them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chronemics</span> Study of the role of time in communication

Chronemics is an anthropological, philosophical, and linguistic subdiscipline that describes how time is perceived, coded, and communicated across a given culture. It is one of several subcategories to emerge from the study of nonverbal communication. According to the Encyclopedia of Special Education, "Chronemics includes time orientation, understanding and organisation, the use of and reaction to time pressures, the innate and learned awareness of time, by physically wearing or not wearing a watch, arriving, starting, and ending late or on time." A person's perception and values placed on time plays a considerable role in their communication process. The use of time can affect lifestyles, personal relationships, and work life. Across cultures, people usually have different time perceptions, and this can result in conflicts between individuals. Time perceptions include punctuality, interactions, and willingness to wait.

Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory is known as the high levels of anxiety one may experience as they come in contact with those of another culture. This concept was first introduced by William B. Gudykunst to further define how humans effectively communicate based on their anxiety and uncertainty in social situations. Gudykunst believed that in order for successful intercultural communication a reduction in anxiety/uncertainty must occur. This is assuming that the individuals within the intercultural encounter are strangers. AUM is a theory based on the uncertainty reduction theory (URT) which was introduced by Berger and Calabrese in 1974. URT provides much of the initial framework for AUM, and much like other theories in the communication field AUM is a constantly developing theory, based on the observations of human behaviour in social situations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Face negotiation theory</span> Theory in social science

Face negotiation theory is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements. The theory posited "face", or self-image when communicating with others, as a universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In conflicts, one's face is threatened; and thus the person tends to save or restore his or her face. This set of communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is called "facework". Since people frame the situated meaning of "face" and enact "facework" differently from one culture to the next, the theory poses a cross-cultural framework to examine facework negotiation. It is important to note that the definition of face varies depending on the people and their culture and the same can be said for the proficiency of facework. According to Ting-Toomey's theory, most cultural differences can be divided by Eastern and Western cultures, and her theory accounts for these differences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cultural sensitivity</span> Knowledge, awareness, and acceptance of other cultures

Cultural sensitivity, also referred to as cross-cultural sensitivity or cultural awareness, is the knowledge, awareness, and acceptance of other cultures and others' cultural identities. It is related to cultural competence, and is sometimes regarded as the precursor to the achievement of cultural competence, but is a more commonly used term. On the individual level, cultural sensitivity is a state of mind regarding interactions with those different from oneself. Cultural sensitivity enables travelers, workers, and others to successfully navigate interactions with a culture other than their own.

Co-cultural communication theory was built upon the frameworks of muted group theory and standpoint theory. The cornerstone of co-cultural communication theory is muted group theory as proposed in the mid 1970s by Shirley and Edwin Ardener. The Ardeners were cultural anthropologists who made the observation that most other cultural anthropologists practicing ethnography in the field were talking only to the leaders of the cultures, who were by and large adult males. The researchers would then use this data to represent the culture as a whole, leaving out the perspectives of women, children and other groups made voiceless by the cultural hierarchy. The Ardeners maintained that groups which function at the top of the society hierarchy determine to a great extent the dominant communication system of the entire society. Ardener's 1975 muted group theory also posited that dominant group members formulate a "communication system that support their perception of the world and conceptualized it as the appropriate language for the rest of society".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interpersonal communication</span> Exchange of information among people

Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. It is also an area of research that seeks to understand how humans use verbal and nonverbal cues to accomplish several personal and relational goals. Communication includes utilizing communication skills within one's surroundings, including physical and psychological spaces. It is essential to see the visual/nonverbal and verbal cues regarding the physical spaces. In the psychological spaces, self-awareness and awareness of the emotions, cultures, and things that are not seen are also significant when communicating.

Text and conversation is a theory in the field of organizational communication illustrating how communication makes up an organization. In the theory's simplest explanation, an organization is created and defined by communication. Communication "is" the organization and the organization exists because communication takes place. The theory is built on the notion, an organization is not seen as a physical unit holding communication. Text and conversation theory puts communication processes at the heart of organizational communication and postulates, an organization doesn't contain communication as a "causal influence", but is formed by the communication within. This theory is not intended for direct application, but rather to explain how communication exists. The theory provides a framework for better understanding organizational communication.

Individualistic cultures are characterized by individualism, which is the prioritization or emphasis of the individual over the entire group. In individualistic cultures, people are motivated by their own preference and viewpoints. Individualistic cultures focus on abstract thinking, privacy, self-dependence, uniqueness, and personal goals. The term individualistic culture was first used in the 1980s by Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede to describe countries and cultures that are not collectivist; Hofstede created the term individualistic culture when he created a measurement for the five dimensions of cultural values.

Cultural communication is the practice and study of how different cultures communicate within their community by verbal and nonverbal means. Cultural communication can also be referred to as intercultural communication and cross-cultural communication. Cultures are grouped together by a set of similar beliefs, values, traditions, and expectations which call all contribute to differences in communication between individuals of different cultures. Cultural communication is a practice and a field of study for many psychologists, anthropologists, and scholars. The study of cultural communication is used to study the interactions of individuals between different cultures. Studies done on cultural communication are utilized in ways to improve communication between international exchanges, businesses, employees, and corporations. Two major scholars who have influenced cultural communication studies are Edward T. Hall and Geert Hofstede. Edward T. Hall, who was an American anthropologist, is considered to be the founder of cultural communication and the theory of proxemics. The theory of proxemics focuses on how individuals use space while communicating depending on cultural backgrounds or social settings. The space in between individuals can be identified in four different ranges. For example, 0 inches signifies intimate space while 12 feet signifies public space. Geert Hofstede was a social psychologist who founded the theory of cultural dimension. In his theory, there are five dimensions that aim to measure differences between different cultures. The five dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and Chronemics.

Message design logic is a communication theory that makes the claim that individuals possess implicit theories of communication within themselves, called message design logics. Referred to as a “theory of theories,” Message Design Logic offers three different fundamental premises in reasoning about communication. As author Barbara O’Keefe describes, Message Design Logic is “the kind of communication-constituting belief system the message producer relies on in reasoning from the goals sought to the message design used.” These three premises — Expressive Logic, Conventional Logic, and Rhetorical Logic — are belief systems that communicators might utilize when designing messages. The message design logics, therefore, represent “internally consistent and developmentally ordered stages in the acquisition of working knowledge about the systematic properties of verbal messages.” As O’Keefe describes further, each premise is “associated with a constellation of related beliefs: a communication-constituting concept, a conception of the functional possibilities of communication, unit formation procedures, and principles of coherence.” The underlying idea behind O’Keefe's work is that “communication is not necessarily a uniform process.”

Decision-making is a mental activity which is an integral part of planning and action taking in a variety of contexts and at a vast range of levels, including, but not limited to, budget planning, education planning, policy making, and climbing the career ladder. People all over the world engage in these activities. The underlying cross-cultural differences in decision-making can be a great contributing factor to efficiency in cross-cultural communications, negotiations, and conflict resolution.

References

  1. ↑ Group, United Language. "Communicating in High Context vs. Low Context Cultures". www.unitedlanguagegroup.com. Retrieved March 7, 2024.{{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  2. 1 2 Ramos, D. C. (2014). "High context". In S. Thompson (ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity and social justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Retrieved from http://db19.linccweb.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/rowmandasj/high_context/0
  3. 1 2 3 Wurtz, Elizabeth (November 2005). "Intercultural Communication on Web sites: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Web sites from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 11 (1): 274–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00313.x .
  4. ↑ Ramos, Carolina (2014). "High Context". Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice (1st ed.).
  5. ↑ Ramos, Carolina (2014). "Low Context". Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice (1st ed.).
  6. 1 2 3 Cardon, Peter W. (October 2008). "A Critique of Hall's Contexting Model". Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 22 (4): 399–428. doi:10.1177/1050651908320361. S2CID   145808976.
  7. ↑ "Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice". Reference Reviews. 29 (6): 20–22. September 7, 2015. doi:10.1108/rr-06-2015-0165.
  8. ↑ Twitchell., Hall, Edward (1989). Beyond culture. Doubleday. ISBN   0-385-12474-0. OCLC   243438080.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ↑ GUDYKUNST, WILLIAM B.; TING-TOOMEY, STELLA (January 1988). "Culture and Affective Communication". American Behavioral Scientist. 31 (3): 384–400. doi:10.1177/000276488031003009. ISSN   0002-7642. S2CID   144062056.
  10. ↑ Usunier, J.-C.; Roulin, N. (April 1, 2010). "The Influence of High- and Low-Context Communication Styles On the Design, Content, and Language of Business-To-Business Web Sites" . Journal of Business Communication. 47 (2): 189–227. doi:10.1177/0021943610364526. ISSN   0021-9436. S2CID   144917251.
  11. ↑ Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. June 1, 2005.
  12. ↑ Alizadeh Afrouzi, Omid (January 4, 2021). "Humanitarian behavior across high-/low-context cultures: a comparative analysis between Switzerland and Colombia". Journal of International Humanitarian Action. 6 (1): 2. doi: 10.1186/s41018-020-00088-y . ISSN   2364-3404.
  13. ↑ Hornikx, Jos; le Pair, Rob (August 8, 2017). "The Influence of High-/Low-Context Culture on Perceived Ad Complexity and Liking". Journal of Global Marketing. 30 (4): 228–237. doi: 10.1080/08911762.2017.1296985 . hdl: 2066/179829 . ISSN   0891-1762. S2CID   3280607.
  14. ↑ Anonymous (July 6, 2016). "Communication Tools for Understanding Cultural Differences". Beyond Intractability. Retrieved April 29, 2024.
  15. ↑ Guffey, Mary Ellen (2009). Essentials of Business Communication. South-Western/ Cengage Learning.
  16. ↑ "High and Low Context". www.culture-at-work.com. Retrieved October 18, 2018.
  17. 1 2 Hall, Edward T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. pp. 68–69. ISBN   9780385124744.
  18. ↑ Hall, Edward T. (1989). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. pp. 87–88. ISBN   0385124740. OCLC   20595709.
  19. ↑ Croucher, Stephen M.; Bruno, Ann; McGrath, Paul; Adams, Caroline; McGahan, Cassandra; Suits, Angela; Huckins, Ashleigh (January 2012). "Conflict Styles and High–Low Context Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension". Communication Research Reports. 29 (1): 64–73. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.640093. S2CID   143056441.
  20. ↑ Navigator, Country (September 19, 2022). "What are the differences between high context and low context cultures?". Country Navigator. Retrieved March 7, 2024.
  21. ↑ Hall, Edward T.; Hall, Mildred R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences. Intercultural Press. pp. 6–7. ISBN   978-0-933662-84-1 . Retrieved April 7, 2024.
  22. 1 2 3 4 Hall, Edward T. (1989). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. pp. 15–16. ISBN   9780385124744.
  23. ↑ Hall, Edward T.; Hall, Mildred Reed (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, Me.: Intercultural Press. ISBN   093366284X. OCLC   20259415.
  24. 1 2 Nishimura, Shoji; Nevgi, Anne; Tella, Seppo. "Communication Style and Cultural Features in High/Low Context Communication Cultures: A Case Study of Finland, Japan, and India" . Retrieved February 17, 2021.
  25. 1 2 Kim, Donghoon (September 6, 1998). "High- Versus Low-Context Culture: A Comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American Cultures". Psychology & Marketing. 15 (6): 507–521. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199809)15:6<507::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-A.
  26. ↑ Wang, N. (2019). A Comparative Study of Sino-American Language from the Perspective of High- and Low-Context Cultural Theory—A Case Study of Automobile Advertisements. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Economic Management and Cultural Industry (ICEMCI 2019). https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.191217.072
  27. ↑ Piroşcă, Grigore. "Communicational Features in High/Low Context Organizational Culture: A Case Study of Romania and Russia". Valahian Journal of Economic Studies. 7 (4): 7–12.
  28. 1 2 3 4 Rubin, Rebecca B.; Collado, Carlos Fernández; Hernandez-Sampieri, Roberto (March 1992). "A cross-cultural examination of interpersonal communication motives in Mexico and The United States". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 16 (2): 145–157. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(92)90015-M.
  29. ↑ Burmann, Kathrin; Semrau, Thorsten (December 22, 2022). "The consequences of social category faultlines in high- and low-context cultures: A comparative study of Brazil and Germany". Frontiers in Psychology. 13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1082870 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   9813412 . PMID   36619117.
  30. 1 2 Yarn, Douglas, ed. (2002). "low-context and high-context communication" . Dictionary of Conflict Resolution. Retrieved December 9, 2018.
  31. ↑ Ramos, D. Carolina. "Low Context." Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Sherwood Thompson, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1st edition, 2014. Credo Reference,
  32. ↑ Ramos, D. Carolina. "High Context." Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Sherwood Thompson, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1st edition, 2014. Credo Reference,
  33. ↑ "Communication: intercultural communication." Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies, James Watson, and Anne Hill, Bloomsbury, 9th edition, 2015. Credo Reference, https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/dictmedia/communication_intercultural_communication/0
  34. 1 2 3 4 5 Watson, James; Hill, Anne (2015). "Communication: intercultural communication" . Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies (9th ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN   978-1-8496-6528-5.
  35. ↑ Kersten, Gregory; Vetschera, Rudolf; Koeszegi, Sabine (2004). "National Cultural Differences in the Use and Perception of Internet-based NSS: Does High or Low Context Matter?". International Negotiation. 9 (1): 79–109. doi:10.1163/1571806041262070. ISSN   1382-340X.
  36. 1 2 3 Curry, Curtis. "Managing conflict in global teams: 4 keys to leveraging cultural differences in diverse teams" . Business Collection. Retrieved September 22, 2018.
  37. 1 2 Barron, Jacob (April 2013). "International communication 101: staying on the right side of culture" . Business Credit (Business Collection): 36+. Retrieved September 22, 2018.
  38. ↑ Bansal, Vinita (January 14, 2021). "High Context Culture vs Low Context Culture: Communication Design For Avoiding Uncertainty". TechTello. Retrieved March 7, 2024.
  39. ↑ Bernstein, Basil (2003). Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge. p. 58. ISBN   0-415-30287-0.
  40. ↑ Foss, Stephen W. Littlejohn, Karen A. (2011). Theories of human communication (10th ed.). Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press. pp. 375–376. ISBN   9781577667063.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  41. 1 2 Lewis, Richard D. (2006). When cultures collide: leading across cultures: a major new edition of the global guide (3rd ed.). Boston: Nicholas Brealey International. pp.  436–437. ISBN   1423774582. OCLC   69872214.
  42. ↑ "Individualism, Collectivism, High And Low Context". SlideShare. University of Montana, Undergraduate Advising Center. January 12, 2010. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  43. ↑ Pirosca, Grigore (October 4, 2016). "Communicational Features in High/Low Context Organizational Culture: A Case Study of Romania and Russia". Valahian Journal of Economic Studies. 7: 7–12.
  44. ↑ Chen, Chaona; Jack, Rachael E (October 2017). "Discovering cultural differences (and similarities) in facial expressions of emotion" (PDF). Current Opinion in Psychology. 17: 61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.010 . PMID   28950974.
  45. ↑ Jack, Rachael E.; Schyns, Philippe G. (July 2015). "The Human Face as a Dynamic Tool for Social Communication". Current Biology. 25 (14): R621–R634. Bibcode:2015CBio...25.R621J. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.052 . PMID   26196493.
  46. ↑ Solomon, Michael; Russell-Bennett, Rebekah; Previte, Josephine (October 24, 2012). Consumer Behaviour. Pearson Higher Education AU. ISBN   9781442564992.
  47. ↑ "Comparing Low vs. High Context Marketing Strategies - What's the Difference and How Can I Use Them?". www.brandcredential.com. Retrieved March 7, 2024.
  48. 1 2 3 4 Wurtz, Elizabeth (November 2005). "Intercultural Communication on Web sites: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Web sites from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 11 (1): 274–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00313.x . ISSN   1083-6101.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.