Cultural patterns and communication

The variation in cultural values has a direct and continuing influence on how you perceive the world, behave, and communicate. The hope is that you will be motivated to learn more about variations in cultural patterns so that you will be able to understand, predict, and even adapt to the behavior of people from different cultures.

By now, you have probably realized that cultural patterns occupy a very prominent position in the field of intercultural communication. This chapter has provided only a preliminary overview of how those patterns can help you understand and anticipate varied communicative behaviors that may arise during an intercultural exchange. A succinct overview of the most common patterns and their influence on behavior and communication is provided in Table 6.

Table 6. The Influence of Cultural Patterns

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Individualism (e.g., USA, Australia, Canada)

• Focus is on the individual & selfpromotion

• Independency

• Task dominates relationship

• Social obedience through sense of guilt

Collectivism (e.g., Korea, China, Mexico)

• Focus is on the group/affiliations & selfcriticism

• Interdependency

• Relationship dominates task

• Social obedience through sense of shame

Egalitarian vs. Hierarchical (Power Distance)

Egalitarian (e.g., Australia, Canada, USA)

• Horizontal relationships

• Subordinates consulted

• Equality expected

Hierarchical (e.g., Mexico, India, Korea)

• Vertical relationships

• Subordinates informed

• Inequality accepted

Low vs. High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance (e.g., India, USA)

• Change is normal and good

• Few behavioral protocols

• Greater cultural diversity

HighUncertaintyAvoidance (e.g., Japan, Spain)

• Change is disruptive and disliked

• Many behavioral protocols

• Less cultural diversity

Monochronic vs. Polychronic (Use of Time)

Monochronic (e.g., Germany, USA)

• Time is linear and segmented

• Focus on a single task

• Adherence to schedules

Polychronic (e.g., Arabs, Africans)

• Time is flexible

• Focus on multiple tasks

• Weak ties to schedules

Low vs. High Context Communication

Low Context (Direct) (e.g., Germany, USA)

• Meaning reliant on verbal message

• Nonverbal communication low importance

• Silence is avoided

High Context (Indirect) (e.g., Korea, Japan)

• Meaning can be derived from context

• Nonverbal communication high importance

• Silence is normal

Low vs. High Face Concerns

Low Face Concerns (e.g. Canada, USA)

• Conflict/disagreement is constructive

• Concern for self-face

High Face Concerns (e.g., Korea, China)

• Conflict/disagreement is threatening

• Concern for mutual/other-face

Source: E. McDaniel, “Crossing Cultural Borders: Intercultural Communication from the Interpretation and Translation Perspective,” Journal of Interpreting and Translation Studies, 14:2 (2011), 359.

Resources

13. J. M. Charon and L. G. Vigilant, The Meaning of Sociology, 8th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009), 87.

14. E. Y. Kim, The Yin and Yang of American Culture: A Paradox (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 2001), xv.

15. “Robert Kohls,” Washington Post (September 2, 2006),

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101637.html (accessed

May 20, 2011).

16. Table adapted from L. Robert Kohls, The Values Americans Live By (1986), http://www.claremontmck

enna.edu/pages/faculty/alee/extra/American_values.html (accessed May 20, 2011).

17. G. Althen, American Ways, 2nd ed. (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 2003), 57.

18. A. R. Lanier, Living in the USA, 6^th ed., rev. by J.C. Davis (Boston, MA: Intercultural Press, 2005), 82–83.

19. M. J.Gannon andR. Pilai, Understanding Global Cultures, 4th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011), 263.

20. Declaration of Independence, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

(accessed May 20, 2011).

21. Constitution of the United States, Section 9, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans

cript.html (accessed May 20, 2011).

22. M. J. Hanson, “Families with Anglo-European Roots,” in Developing Cross-Cultural Competence: A Guide for Working with Children and Their Families, 2nd ed., E. W. Lynch and M. J. Hanson, eds. (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1998), 104–105.

23. M. K. Datesman, J. Crandall, and E.N. Kearny, American Ways: An Introduction to American Culture, 3rd ed. (White Plains,NY: Pearson, 2005), 29.

24. E. C. Stewart and M. J. Bennett, American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1991), 133.

25. Datesman, Crandall, and Kearny, 2005, 29.

26. C.S. Fischer, Made in America (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010), 12.

27. Gannon and Pillai, 2010, 255.

28. Adler and Gunderson, 2008, 33.

29. Lanier, 2005, 17–18.

30. Stewart and Bennett, 1991, 119.

31. Althen, 2003, 27.

32. “You choose,” The Economist (December 18, 2010), 123.

33. T. Bender, A Nation Among Nations: America’s Place in World History (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006),187.

82. E. T. Hall, Beyond Culture (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 91.

83. Ibid., 85.

84. Hall and Hall, 1990, 6.

85. Hall, 1976, 91.

86. Hall and Hall, 1990, 6.

87. D. A. Foster, Bargaining Across Borders (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992), 280.

88. Gudykunst, 2001, 32.

89. H-C. Chang, “Communication in the Analects of Confucius,” in The Global Intercultural Communication Reader, M.K. Asante, Y. Miike, and J. Yin, Eds. (New York: Routledge, 2008), 97.

90. Hall and Hall, 1990, 7.

91. Althen, 2003, 42.

92. R. J. House, “Illustrative Examples of GLOBE Findings,” in Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, eds.

(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), 3–8. Problems with data from the Czech Republic resulted in that country being dropped from the study, reducing the number of societies to 61.

93. For the other two dimensions, there was a positive correlation for Gender Egalitarianism, but the In-Group Collectivism correlation was insignificant. M. Javidan, R. House, P.W. Dorfman, P.J. Hanges and M.

Sulleyde Luque, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Cultures and their consequences: A Comparative Review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s Approaches,” Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (2006), 900–901.

94. D’Andrade, 2008, 121–126.

95. R. J. House and M. Javidan, “Overview of GLOBE,” in Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The

GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), 11–13; R. House, M. Javidan, P. Hanges, and P. Dorfman. “Understanding Cultures and Implicit Leadership Theories across the Globe: An Introduction to Project Globe.” Journal of World Business, 37 (2002), 3–10.

96. For over ten years, this conflict between individual desires (personal values) and the expected organizational practices (institutionalized values) has been a constant theme in informal conversations between Japanese workers and the third author.

97. V. Gupta and P.H. Hanges, “Regional and Climate Clustering of Societal Cultures,” in Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), 178–189.

98. G. Bakasci, T. Sándor, K. András, I. Viktor, “Eastern European Cluster: Tradition and Transition,” Journal of World Business, 37 (2002), 75.

99. N. M. Ashkansky, E. Trevor-Roberts, L. Earnshaw, “The Anglo Cluster: Legacy of the British Empire,” Journal of World Business, 37 (2002), 28, 35; V. Gupta, G. Surie, M. Javidan, and J. Chhokar, “Southern Asia Cluster: Where the Old Meets the New?, Journal of World Business, 37 (2002), 14.

100. V. Gupta, P.J. Hanges, and P. Dorfman, “Cultural Clusters: Methodology and Findings,” Journal of World Business, 37 (2002), 14.

101. E. Szabo, F.C. Brodbeck, D.N.D. Hartog, G. Reber, J. Weibler, and R. Wunder, “The Germanic Europe

Cluster: Where Employees have a Voice,” Journal of World Business, 37 (2002), 64; Gupta and Hanges, 2004, 199.

102. G. Bakasci, T. Sándor, K. András, I. Viktor, “Eastern European Cluster: Tradition and Transition,” Journal of World Business, 37(2002), 75.

103. J. C. Jesuino, “Latin Europe Cluster: From South to North,” Journal of World Business, 37 (2002), 84–85.

104. Gupta and Hanges, 2004, 188, 200.

105. H. Kabasakal, M. Bodur, “Arabic Cluster: A Bridge Between East and West,” Journal of World Business, 37 (2002), 40–54.

106. Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman, 2002, 14.

107. Gupta and Hanges, 2004, 200.

108. Gupta, Surie, Javidan, and Chhokar, 2002, 20–23.

109. K. Domenici and S.W. Littlejohn, Facework: Bridging Theory and Practice (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, 2006), 10.

110. Ting-Toomey, “The Matrix of Face: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory,” in Theorizing About Intercultural Communication, W. B. Gudykunst, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005), 73.

111. Domenici and Littlejohn, 2006, 11.

112. R.M. March, Reading the Japanese Mind (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1996), 28.

113. G. Gao and S. Ting-Toomey, Communicating Effectively with the Chinese (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998), 54. 114. P.B. Smith, M.H. Bond, and Ç. Kagitçibas¸i, 2006, 159.

115. M.-S. Kim, Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002), 65.

116. S. Ting-Toomey and A. Kurogi, “Facework Competence in Intercultural Conflict: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22

(1998), 202.

117. Ibid.