2. Conversation style
There are differences in conversation style among cultures. What is perceived as logical, clear, rational, and proper varies considerably between cultures. For example, in abstractive cultures, such as Euro-America, the focus is on objective facts; people believe in physical evidence and eyewitness testimony. However, in Chinese and African cultures, physical evidence is discounted. In African cultures, the words of eyewitnesses do not count because no one is regarded as an objective, disinterested party; people believe that if one speaks up about seeing something, one must have a particular agenda in mind (Lustig & Koester, 1993). In affective–intuitive cultures, such as Asia or Latin America, the focus is on feelings and emotions, whereas in axiomatic–deductive cultures, such as Germany or Switzerland, people follow broad principles from which they deduct facts that they follow.
Conversations differ depending on how direct people are and how they express meanings. For example, in Japanese culture, speakers are required to circle around the topic. They indicate only indirectly what they are discussing and what they want the listeners to know. They let the listeners construct the meaning. It is considered rude and inappropriate for the speaker to tell the listener directly the specific point being conveyed (Lustig & Koester, 1993). The Vietnamese also talk around the subject (Forrest, 1971). In contrast, in the English-speaking cultures, speakers are required to be explicit, give clear explanations, and follow linear logic; they are responsible for structuring their conversation and creating its meanings. As a consequence, the Japanese or Vietnamese may think of the members of English-speaking societies as rude and aggressive, whereas members of the English-speaking societies may think of the Japanese as imprecise and confusing.
Moreover, Western societies think in linear terms; conversations are organized and always have a beginning and an end. On the other hand, Eastern and Asian cultures think in non-linear terms; conversations have no plan; they are chaotic, limitless, and can be interrupted.
Lecture 4
Interaction style and cultural values
1. Interaction style
2. Cultural values
3. Time orientation
There are cultural differences in interaction styles. For instance, African-American, Jordanian, Iranian, and Latino interaction style is generally expressive, dynamic and demonstrative (Butterfield & Jordan, 1989; Gudykunst et al., 1988). In comparison, Euroamerican style is modest and emotionally restrained (Butterfield & Jordan, 1989).
Consequently, Euroamericans can be perceived as passive and reserved in conversation with people from more expressive cultures (Lustig & Koester, 1993). Asian cultures are even more reserved and believe in modesty, as opposed to Western cultures that can be perceived by Asians as aggressive and unacceptable. For example, Southern Mediterraneans may be perceived to exaggerate their feelings of grief by Japanese and Thai who hide their sorrows in smile and laughter (Harper et al., 1978).
Members of Eastern and Asian cultures often seem to laugh out of context. The Japanese smile often means embarrassment instead of happiness.
Americans usually appear assertive and confrontational in their communication style (Samovar et al., 1988). They are direct and loud. Loudness is perceived as strength in the United States. Asians, on the other hand, perceive loudness as aggressiveness. They avoid aggression and try to be calm and humble. They emphasize preserving harmony in relationships, particularly in those that involve conflict and are threats tointerpersonal harmony (Zane et al., 1991). Consequently, they also experience greater anxiety in interaction with strangers and guilt compared to Caucasians, regardless of whether they are less assertive or not (Zane et al., 1991).
Social harmony in interpersonal relations is an extremely important value in Eastern cultures that emphasize self-restraint, avoidance of negative opinions, criticism, complaints, disagreeing, not questioning and lack of conflict. Members of Eastern cultures try to ‘‘save face’’ and avoid embarrassment (Dodd, 1987). In China, causing someone else embarrassment is regarded as inappropriate behavior (DeMente, 1991b). Philippinos believe that social disruption, embarrassment and disagreement could bring shame (Lynch, 1970). In Asian cultures, such as Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam, people do not admit others’ failure and do not criticize others in public to protect themselves and others from loss of face. For example, when facing criticism, the Thai keep calm (Gardiner, 1968) or withdraw from the conversation (Foa et al., 1969). The Asian concept of shame and ‘‘saving face’’ are in contrast with the Western emphasis on truthfulness or forthrightness.
Members of Western cultures believe that saying the truth–being straightforward and transparent–is the right way of achieving social harmony. Also, when being criticized, the Americans blame others for wrong doing or attempt to improve their performance (Foa et al., 1969) rather than keep calm.
Intercultural communication depends on the interaction style. Interactional styles differ depending on the degree to which people feel responsible for the other people (Argyle, 1972). In individualistic cultures people help those who depend on them; whereas in collectivistic cultures helpfulness is a function of reciprocity and mutual responsibilities; the smallest favor must be reciprocated (Berkowitz & Friedman, 1967; Ellis & Ellis, 1989). The Japanese believe people must fulfill their social obligations; those who do not meet their obligations must apologize. Thus, if reciprocation is not possible, the Japanese tend to apologize frequently (Coulmas, 1981). The Japanese also acknowledge their fault even when someone else is at fault, in order to indicate their will to maintain good relations (Wagatsuma & Rosett, 1986).
On the other hand, Western societies are less concerned with apologies because they focus more on self-esteem and self-confidence. Americans blame others for their fault even when they know they are at fault. While the Japanese offer compensation for the other person to maintain harmony in relations, Americans give explanations and justify their actions (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990).
Asians do not compliment either. They believe compliments can damage social harmony. The Japanese, for example, accept fewer compliments and complain less often than Americans (Barnlund & Araki, 1985).
Members of individualistic cultures tend to be more open and self-disclosing about intimate topics than members of collectivistic cultures (Ting-Toomey, 1991). They speak freely about their feelings and personal experiences. Euroamericans disclose more than African-Americans, who in turn disclose more than Mexican-Americans (Littlefield, 1974). On the other hand, members of collectivistic cultures believe that talking about personal feelings violates cultural rules of politeness and respect. It is the role of friends and family members to sense that the other person is hurt or angry, without a person having to express his or her own feelings. Opening themselves to others is an indication of weakness, so that person cannot be trusted. Qualities such as being open, friendly, outspoken, and truthful, are admired in most Western cultures; however, they are less admired in Eastern societies that view Westerners as lacking grace, manners, and cleverness (Craig, 1979).