2.2: Understanding Cultural Differences

 

In this section, we will look at cultural differences through the lenses of German social psychologist Geert Hofstede, American anthropologist Edward T. Hall, and Scottish Business Professor Charles Tidwell. By gaining a foundational understanding of various cultural frameworks, we can better anticipate and navigate interactions within our diverse, multicultural society.

Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture 

Psychologist  Geert Hofstede published his cultural dimensions model at the end of the 1970s. Since then, it's become an internationally recognized standard for understanding cultural differences.  Hofstede studied people who worked for IBM in more than 50 countries and identified six dimensions that could distinguish one culture from another. These six dimensions are individualism vs. collectivism, discussed in the previous section; high power distance vs. low power distance; high certainty avoidance vs. low certainly avoidance; long-term vs. short-term orientation; achievement vs. nurturing (originally termed masculinity vs. femininity); and indulgence vs. restraint.

Individualism and Collectivism

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Simply put, an individualistic culture (an "I" culture) emphasizes personal autonomy and self-reliance. Members are generally able to make choices based on personal preference with less regard for others, beyond close family or significant relationships. They can pursue their own wants and needs, often free from intense pressure to meet broader social expectations. The United States is a highly individualistic culture. While we recognize the importance of collective entities like government and social organizations, at our core, there's a strong belief that individuals should find and follow their own path in life.

In a highly collectivistic culture (a "we" culture), the opposite is true. Individuals are expected to fulfill their role within the overall social order. Personal wants and needs are often secondary to the needs of the larger group or society. There is significant pressure to adhere to social norms, and those who fail to conform risk social isolation, disconnection from family, or even banishment. China is typically considered a highly collectivistic culture. In China, multigenerational homes are common, and tradition often dictates that the oldest son cares for his parents as they age.

High Power-Distance and Low Power-Distance

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\)

Power is a normal feature of any relationship or society, but its perception varies significantly across cultures. In high power-distance cultures, members generally accept that power is unequally distributed and that this hierarchy is natural and normal. Those with power are often assumed to deserve it, and those without power are seen as being in their appropriate place. In such cultures, there is often a rigid adherence to the use of formal titles (e.g., "Sir," "Ma’am," "Officer," "Reverend"), and directives from those in higher power are typically obeyed with little question.

In low power-distance cultures, the distribution of power is considered far more arbitrary, often viewed as a result of factors like luck, money, heritage, or other external variables. Those in power are much more likely to be challenged in a low power-distance culture than in a high power-distance one. For example, a wealthy person might be seen as powerful in Western cultures, and elected officials, like United States Senators, gain power through majority support. However, individuals who attempt to assert power without earned legitimacy are often met with resistance. While some titles may be used, they are used less frequently than in high power-distance cultures. For instance, in colleges and universities in the U.S., it is common for students to address instructors on a first-name basis and engage in casual conversation. In contrast, in a high power-distance culture like Japan, students might rise and bow as the teacher enters the room, address them formally at all times, and rarely engage in personal conversation.

High Uncertainty Avoidance and Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\)

This dimension indicates the degree to which people within a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and try to avoid them.

Societies with high uncertainty avoidance prefer strict rules, guidelines, and behavior codes. They often rely on absolute truths or the idea that only one truth dictates proper conduct. High uncertainty avoidance cultures tend to resist change, placing a very high value on history, established practices, and stable cultural norms.

Low uncertainty avoidance cultures view change as inevitable and normal. These cultures are more accepting of contrasting opinions or beliefs, and society is generally less strict, with a greater tolerance for ambiguity. In a low uncertainty avoidance culture, innovation is highly valued. Businesses in the U.S., for example, that can change rapidly, innovate quickly, and respond immediately to market and social pressures are often seen as more successful. Even though the U.S. generally leans towards low uncertainty avoidance, some evidence of higher uncertainty avoidance can be seen related to certain social issues. As society changes, some individuals may resist, citing concerns about "forgetting the past," "dishonoring our ancestors," or "abandoning sacred traditions." Changing social norms create uncertainty, which can be unsettling for many.

 

Long-Term Orientation and Short-Term Orientation 

Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\)

Cultures perceive and value time differently. For some, the "here and now" is paramount, while for others, "saving for a rainy day" or planning for the distant future is the dominant view.

In a long-term oriented culture, significant emphasis is placed on planning for the future. For example, savings rates in countries like France and Germany are often significantly higher than in the U.S., suggesting a more "plan ahead" mentality (Pasquali & Aridas, 2012). These cultures often see change and social evolution as normal, integral parts of the human condition.

In a short-term oriented culture, emphasis is placed far more on the "here and now." Immediate needs and desires are paramount, with longer-term issues often deferred. The U.S. tends to fall more into this category. Legislation often addresses immediate problems, and it can be challenging for lawmakers to convince voters of the need for long-term perspectives on issues. With fairly easy access to credit, consumers are often encouraged to buy now rather than save. We also see a tendency to seek "absolute Truth" in our political discourse on issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and gun control, indicating a cultural preference against middle grounds where truth is not clear-cut.

Achievement vs. Nurturing (formerly Masculine and Feminine) 

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\)

Societal expectations and values related to achievement and interpersonal harmony are a core component of any culture. Hofstede's original "Masculinity vs. Femininity" dimension describes cultures based on their preference for assertiveness and material success versus cooperation and quality of life. To use more inclusive and descriptive language, we can refer to these as Achievement-oriented cultures and Nurturing-oriented cultures.

Achievement-oriented cultures (like the U.S.) highly value winning, assertiveness, and material success. They respect and honor those who demonstrate power and high degrees of competence. Consider the role of competitive sports such as football, basketball, or baseball in the U.S., and how the rituals of identifying the "best" are significant events. The 2017 Super Bowl had 111 million viewers (Huddleston, 2017), and the World Series regularly receives high ratings, with the final game in 2016 ending at the highest rating in ten years (Perez, 2016).

More Nurturing-oriented societies, such as those in the Scandinavian countries, certainly have their competitive moments. However, the culture is often more structured to provide aid and support to citizens, focusing energies on ensuring a reasonable quality of life for all and promoting consensus and cooperation (Hofstede, 2012b).

 

Indulgence and Restraint

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\)

A more recent addition to Hofstede’s dimensions, the indulgence/restraint continuum addresses the degree of rigidity of social norms of behavior. Hofstede states:

Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms (Hofstede, 2012a).

Indulgent cultures are comfortable with individuals acting on their more basic human drives. Social norms regarding personal expression, leisure, and even sexual mores may be less restrictive, allowing for more spontaneous behavior than in cultures of restraint. Those in indulgent cultures tend to communicate fewer messages of judgment and evaluation. Every spring, thousands of U.S. college students flock to places like Cancun, Mexico, to engage in a week of fairly indulgent behavior. Feeling free from the social expectations of home, many will engage in intense partying, sexual activity, and fairly limitless behaviors.

Cultures of restraint, such as many Islamic countries, have rigid social expectations of behavior that can be quite narrow. Guidelines on dress, food, drink, and personal conduct are often strict and may even be formalized in law. In the U.S., a generally indulgent culture, there are sub-cultures that are more restraint-focused. The Amish are highly restrained by social norms, but so too can be inner-city gangs. Areas of the country, like Utah with its large Mormon culture, or the Deep South with its large evangelical Christian culture, are more restrained than areas such as San Francisco or New York City. Rural areas often have more rigid social norms than do urban areas. Those in more restraint-oriented cultures will often identify and place pressure, either openly or subtly, on those not adhering to these norms to conform to social expectations.

Hall's Cultural Variations

In addition to Hofstede's six dimensions, American anthropologist Edward T. Hall identified two more significant cultural variations that profoundly impact communication (Raimo, 2008).

Monochronic and Polychronic

Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\)

Another aspect of variations in time orientation is the difference between monochronic and polychronic cultures. This refers to how people perceive, value, and manage time.

In a monochronic culture, like the U.S., time is viewed as linear, a sequential set of finite units. These units are treated as a commodity, much like money, to be managed and used wisely; once time is gone, it cannot be retrieved. Consider the language we use to refer to time: spending time; saving time; budgeting time; making time. These are similar terms and concepts we apply to money; time is a resource to be managed thoughtfully. Because time is valued so highly, this means:

• Punctuality is valued. Since “time is money,” if a person runs late, they are perceived as wasting a valuable resource.

• Scheduling is valued. Since time is finite, and only so much is available, there's a strong need to plan how to allocate this resource. Monochronic cultures tend to let the schedule drive activity, much like a financial budget dictates what we can and cannot afford to do.

• Handling one task at a time is valued. Because time is finite and seen as a resource, monochronic cultures value fulfilling the "time budget" by focusing on one scheduled task at a time. This is comparable to a financial budget where funds are allocated for different needs, and we assume those funds should be spent on the item budgeted. In a monochronic culture, since time and money are virtually equivalent, adhering to the "time budget" is highly valued.

• Being busy is valued. Since time is a resource, individuals who are busy are often viewed as "making the most of their time;" they are seen as using their resources wisely.

In a polychronic culture, like Spain, time is far more fluid and flexible. Schedules are more like rough outlines to be followed, altered, or ignored as events or relationships warrant. Relationship development is often more important than strict adherence to a schedule, and schedules do not rigidly drive activity. Multi-tasking is far more acceptable, as individuals can move between various tasks as demands change. In polychronic cultures, people make appointments, but there is more latitude for when they are expected to arrive. David's appointment may be at 10:15, but as long as he arrives sometime within the 10 o’clock hour, he is generally considered on time.

Consider a monochronic person attempting to do business in a polychronic culture. The monochronic person may expect meetings to start promptly, stay focused, and for work to be completed in a regimented manner to meet an established deadline. Yet, those in a polychronic culture will not bring those same expectations to the encounter, potentially sowing the seeds for significant intercultural conflict due to differing time perceptions.

High Context and Low Context 

Figure \(\PageIndex{8}\)

The last cultural variation to consider, identified by Hall, is whether the culture is high context or low context. To establish some background, consider how we communicate using a "communication package," which consists of all our verbal and nonverbal communication. As you have learned, our verbal communication refers to our use of language, and our nonverbal communication refers to all other communication variables: body language, vocal traits, and dress.

In low-context cultures, verbal communication is given primary attention. The assumption is that people will say what they mean relatively directly and clearly, with little left for the receiver to interpret or imply. In the U.S., if someone does not want something, we generally expect them to say, “No.” While we certainly use nonverbal communication cues to get a richer sense of the message, we consider what is explicitly said to be the core, primary message. Those in a high-context culture often find the directness of low-context cultures quite disconcerting, sometimes even perceiving it as rude.

In high-context cultures, nonverbal communication and the surrounding context are as important, if not more important, than verbal communication. How something is said, who is saying it, and the situation in which it is said are significant variables in interpreting what is meant. Messages are often implied and delivered quite subtly. Japan is well known for the reluctance of people to use blunt messages, so they have far more subtle ways to indicate disagreement than a low-context culture. Those in low-context cultures often find these subtle, implied messages frustrating due to their indirectness.

Figure \(\PageIndex{9}\)

In summary, Hofstede’s Dimensions and Hall’s Cultural Variations provide valuable tools to identify, categorize, and discuss diversity in communication. As we learn to recognize these differences, we are better equipped to manage intercultural encounters, communicate more provisionally, and adapt to diverse cultural variations.

While primarily intended to illustrate broad cultural differences, these variables can also be useful tools to identify variations among individuals within a given culture. We can use them to identify sources of conflict or tension within a given relationship, such as a marriage. For example, Keith tends to be a short-term oriented, indulgent, monochronic person, while his wife tends to be long-term oriented, restrained, and more polychronic. Needless to say, they frequently experience their own personal “culture clashes.”

 

Tidwell's Insights about Culture and Nonverbal Communication 

Dr. Charles Tidwell, a professor of Intercultural Business Relations at Andrews University, has spent many years studying and teaching intercultural communication. He provides valuable insights on cultural differences in dress, movements, gestures, eye contact, touch, and vocalizations. Following are notes published from his graduate course on Interpersonal Communication.

General Appearance and Dress

All cultures are concerned about how they look and make judgments based on appearance and dress. Some Americans, for instance, appear almost obsessed with dress and personal attractiveness. But cultural standards on what is attractive in dress and on what constitutes modesty vary greatly. An interesting area to research is how dress is used as a sign of status in different cultures.

Movements and Posture 

We send information on attitude toward a person by movements and posture (facing or leaning towards another), emotional states (tapping fingers, jiggling coins), and desire to control the environment (moving towards or away from a person). There are more than 700,000 possible motions we can make — so it is impossible to categorize them all! But be aware that body movement and position are key ingredients in sending messages. Consider the following actions and note cultural differences:

• Slouching (seen as rude in most Northern European areas)

• Hands in the pocket (disrespectful in Turkey)

• Sitting with legs crossed (offensive in Ghana, Turkey)

• Showing soles of feet (offensive in Thailand, Saudi Arabia)

Even in the US, there is a considerable difference in acceptable posture.

Gestures  

It is impossible to catalog them all. But we need to recognize that an acceptable gesture in one’s own culture may be offensive in another. In addition, the amount of gesturing varies from culture to culture. Some cultures are animated; others are restrained. Restrained cultures often feel animated cultures lack manners and overall restraint. Animated cultures often feel restrained cultures lack emotion or interest. Even simple things like using hands to point and count differ. People in the US point with the index finger; Germany with the little finger; and the Japanese with the entire hand (in fact most Asians consider pointing with the index finger to be rude). In counting with the fingers, Germans use the thumb to indicate the number 1; the middle finger is the symbol for 1 in Indonesia.

Facial Expressions

While many facial expressions such as smiling, crying, or showing anger, sorrow, or disgust are recognized worldwide, the intensity varies from culture to culture. Many Asian cultures suppress facial expressions as much as possible. Many Mediterranean (Latino / Arabic) cultures exaggerate grief or sadness while most American men hide grief or sorrow. Some see “animated” expressions as a sign of a lack of control. Too much smiling is viewed as a sign of shallowness in some cultures. Women tend to smile more than men.

Eye Contact and Gaze

In the USA, eye contact indicates our degree of attention or interest, regulates interaction, communicates emotion, defines power and status, and has a central role in managing the impressions of others. Western cultures often see direct eye-to-eye contact as positive and advise children to look a person in the eyes. But within the USA, differences exist. For example, African-Americans may use more eye contact when talking and less when listening, with the reverse being true for Anglo-Americans.

• Arabic cultures often make prolonged eye contact and believe it shows interest and helps them understand the truthfulness of the other person. (A person who doesn’t reciprocate is sometimes seen as untrustworthy).

• In Japan, parts of Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, avoiding direct eye contact can be a sign of respect.

Touch

Touch is culturally determined! The basic pattern is that cultures with high emotional restraint (e.g., English, German, Scandinavian, Chinese, Japanese) tend to have little public touch; those which encourage emotion (e.g., Latino, Middle-Eastern, Jewish) often accept frequent touches. But each culture has a clear concept of what parts of the body one may not touch. The basic messages of touch are to show affection or to control others (e.g., hug, kiss, hit, kick). But rules for touch vary greatly, as shown below:

• Traditional Koreans (and many other Asian cultures) often do not touch strangers, especially members of the opposite sex.

• Islamic and Hindu Cultures: typically do not touch with the left hand. To do so is often considered a social insult, as the left hand is traditionally associated with toilet functions. It is considered good manners in India to break bread only with your right hand (sometimes difficult for non-Indians).

• Islamic cultures generally do not approve of any touching between genders (even handshakes) in public. However, touching (including hand-holding, hugs) between same-sex individuals can be considered appropriate.

• Many Asians do not touch the head. (The head is often considered sacred or houses the soul, and a touch might be seen as putting it in jeopardy).

Vocalizations

Vocal characterizers such as a laugh, cry, yell, moan, whine, belch, and yawn send different messages in different cultures. (In Japan, giggling might indicate embarrassment; in India, a belch might indicate satisfaction). Other vocal qualifiers (volume, pitch, rhythm, tempo, and tone) also vary. Loudness can indicate strength in Arabic cultures and softness can indicate weakness; it indicates confidence and authority to Germans; it can indicate impoliteness to Thais; and it can indicate loss of control to the Japanese. (Generally, one learns not to “shout” in Asia for nearly any reason!). Loudness can also be gender-based: women tend to speak with higher pitch and more softly than men in some cultures.

 

Key Terms

• Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture
  • Individualism and Collectivism
  • Power Distance
  • Uncertainty Avoidance
  • Time Orientation
  • Achievement vs. Nurturing (formerly Masculine vs. Feminine)
  • Indulgence and Restraint
• Hall’s Cultural Dimensions
  • Monochronic and Polychronic
  • High-Context and Low-Context

Topics for Discussion

Although Hofstede's and Hall's Cultural Dimensions are useful in a study of cultures and co-cultures, it is important that we are careful not to oversimplify.  Watch The Danger of a Single Story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ihs241zeg). What were key takeaways from this video?