Inter Communication Patterns in High versus Low Context Culture

Inter Communication Patterns in High versus Low Context Culture

Hanafi Pelu (181061001001)

A.  Introduction

            A search for the word “culture” on Google results in more than one billion hits referring to a wide variety of topics (Julia Cameron, 2002). Academically, the concept has been approached in many different ways by many disciplines, and well over one hundred definitions can be found, K.E. (Weick, K.M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld, 2005: 416). While culture scholars from all disciplines agree that culture is an important element influencing people’s behavior, scholars have focused on different aspects of culture. For instance, scholars interested in comparing cultural groups tend to emphasize stable cultural dimensions that explain major differences in behavior across cultures (i.e., explaining why the Japanese in Japan behave differently from the French in France). Scholars focusing on explaining how individuals behave within a cultural context focus on how people use different cultural elements to assemble behaviors that are acceptable yet varied (how Japanese individuals behave differently yet consistently with Japanese culture). Depending on our needs, some of these aspects will be useful and meaningful.

Several scholars have approached the study of culture in order to understand how and why cultural groups differ from one another. Three aspects of this approach to culture are particularly salient for the discussion here:

1.      Culture is shared by members of a group and often defines the membership of the group itself. Culture is what lies in between what is universally shared among people and what is idiosyncratic to individuals. Cultural beliefs, values, customs, habits, and preferences are shared by a group of people, even if not by all members of the group. The fact that spicy food is common in Korean and Mexican cuisine suggests that many individuals in these cultures are habituated to and/or like spicy food, but it does not imply that all of them prefer such cuisine, nor does it imply that all Dutch or Canadians dislike it.

2.      Culture is learned through membership in a group or community. The norms of behavior, values, assumptions, and habits of a culture are learned through immersion in that culture and observation of other acculturated members. We acquire values, assumptions, and behaviors by seeing how others behave, growing up in a community, going to school, and observing our family. Think about the acculturation process that happens when we join a new organization, as in going to university or starting a new job. To become one of “them,” we receive training, observe others who have been members of that group for a longer time, and sometimes respond to explicit and implicit incentives to emulate them.

3.      Culture influences the attitudes and behaviors of group members. Culture tells us what behavior is acceptable and/or attractive and what behavior is unacceptable and/or unattractive. Culture defines the norms of behavior and puts pressure on members to accept and follow these norms. As a result, culture heavily influences how we see ourselves and what we believe and value. This, in turn, influences how we think those around us expect us to behave. This cycle further strengthens the role of culture in shaping behavior within a cultural community. As will be discussed later, when we are outside our cultural community, we may retain some components of our original culture but abandon others.

Hall (2002) defines culture as the way of life of a people: the sum of their learned behavior patterns, attitudes and materials things. Culture is often subconscious; an invisible control mechanism operating in our thoughts (Hall, 1983). In his view, we become aware of it by exposure to a different culture. Members of a certain society internalize the cultural components of that society and act within the limits as set out by what is ‘culturally acceptable’ (Hall, 1983, 230).

Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) theory aims to explain cultural differences through certain dimensions, such as power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity vs. femininity. Of these, we use the individualism vs. collectivism dimension. This dimension is defined by Hofstede (2008) as “the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side, we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose … On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families”.

B.  Discussion

The concepts of high context and low context refer to how people communicate in different cultures.  Differences can be derived from the extent to which meaning is transmitted through actual words used or implied by the context.

High context implies that a lot of unspoken information is implicitly transferred during communication.  People in a high context culture such as Saudi Arabia tend to place a larger importance on long-term relationships and loyalty and have fewer rules and structure implemented.

Low context implies that a lot of information is exchanged explicitly through the message itself and rarely is anything implicit or hidden.  People in low context cultures such as the UK tend to have short-term relationships, follow rules and standards closely and are generally very task-oriented.

Understanding whether your international colleagues are high context or low context will help you to adapt your communication style and build stronger relationships with them.  These concepts are covered during cross-cultural training programmers such as Communicating across Cultures and managing international teams.  Cultural awareness training which focuses on one or more specific cultures like Doing Business in India or Living and Working in China will also address these concepts.

When doing business in a high context culture such as Mexico, Japan or the Middle East, you might encounter the following:

1.      Misunderstanding when exchanging information

2.      Impression of a lack of information

3.      Large amount of information is provided in a non-verbal manner, e.g. gestures, pauses, facial expressions

4.      Emphasis on long term relationships and loyalty

5.      ‘Unwritten’ rules that are taken for granted but can easily be missed by strangers

6.      Shorter contracts since less information is required

When doing business in a low context culture such as Germany, Switzerland or the US, on the other hand, you might find the following:

1.      All meaning is explicitly provided in the message itself

2.      Extensive background information and explanations are provided verbally to avoid misunderstandings

3.      People tend to have short-term relationships

4.      People follow rules and standards closely

5.      Contracts tend to be longer and very detailed.

High and low context cultures usually correspond with polychronic and monochronic cultures respectively.  The table below shows some general preferences of people from high context and low context cultures.

The table below shows the high and low context context, as follow;

High Context	Low Context
Indirect and implicit messages	Direct, simple and clear messages
Polycrhonic	Monochronic
High use of non-verbal communication	Low use of non-verbal communication
Low reliance on written communication	High reliance on written communication
Use intuition and feelings to make decisions	Rely on facts and evidence for decisions
Long-term relationships	Short-term relationships
Relationships are more important than schedules	Schedules are more important than relationships
Strong distinction between in-group and out-group	Flexible and open

High-Context Cultures

A high-context culture relies on implicit communication and nonverbal cues. In high-context communication, a message cannot be understood without a great deal of background information. Asian, African, Arab, central European and Latin American cultures are generally considered to be high-context cultures.

High-context cultures often display the following tendencies, according to C.B. Halverson’s book Cultural Context Inventory.

1.      Association: Relationships build slowly and depend on trust. Productivity depends on relationships and the group process. An individual’s identity is rooted in groups (family, culture, work). Social structure and authority are centralized.

2.      Interaction: Nonverbal elements such as voice tone, gestures, facial expression and eye movement are significant. Verbal messages are indirect, and communication is seen as an art form or way of engaging someone. Disagreement is personalized, and a person is sensitive to conflict expressed in someone else’s nonverbal communication.

3.      Territoriality: Space is communal. People stand close to each other and share the same space.

4.      Temporality: Everything has its own time, and time is not easily scheduled. Change is slow, and time is a process that belongs to others and nature.

5.      Learning: Multiple sources of information are used. Thinking proceeds from general to specific. Learning occurs by observing others as they model or demonstrate and then practicing. Groups are preferred, and accuracy is valued.

Low-Context Cultures

A low-context culture relies on explicit communication. In low-context communication, more of the information in a message is spelled out and defined. Cultures with western European roots, such as the United States and Australia, are generally considered to be low-context cultures.

Low-context cultures often display the following tendencies, according to Halverson.

1.      Association: Relationships begin and end quickly. Productivity depends on procedures and paying attention to the goal. The identity of individuals is rooted in themselves and their accomplishments. Social structure is decentralized.

2.      Interaction: Nonverbal elements are not significant. Verbal messages are explicit, and communication is seen as a way of exchanging information, ideas and opinions. Disagreement is depersonalized; the focus is on rational (not personal) solutions. An individual can be explicit about another person’s bothersome behavior.

3.      Territoriality: Space is compartmentalized. Privacy is important, so people stand farther apart.

4.      Temporality: Events and tasks are scheduled and to be done at particular times. Change is fast, and time is a commodity to be spent or saved. One’s time is one’s own.

5.      Learning: One source of information is used. Thinking proceeds from specific to general. Learning occurs by following the explicit directions and explanations of others. Individual orientation is preferred, and speed is valued.

Communication Dynamics in High- and Low-Context Cultures

Cultural differences shape every aspect of global communication, says Forbes contributor Carol Kinsey Goman. This helps explain why people in Japan (a high-context culture) prefer face-to-face communication over electronic technology favored by other industrialized countries like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany (low-context cultures).

High-context cultures also prefer personal bonds and informal agreements over meticulously worded legal documents. They “are looking for meaning and understanding in what is not said — in body language, in silences and pauses, and in relationships and empathy,” Goman says. Meanwhile, low-context cultures “place emphasis on sending and receiving accurate messages directly, and by being precise with spoken or written words,” she explains. U.S. business leaders often fall into a communication trap by disregarding the importance of building and maintaining personal relationships when interacting with people from high-context cultures.

People should also watch for differences within high- and low-context cultures. This classification is an oversimplification, according to A.C. Krizan and others in the book Business Communication. “For example, although American culture is classified as low context, communication among family members tends to be high context,” they write. “Family relationships and members’ high level of shared experiences require fewer words because of mutual understandings.”

On the other hand, communication between two businesspersons from a low-context culture tends to be more specific and direct. Attention focuses more on what is said than relationships. In China or Japan, words receive less attention than relationships, mutual understandings and nonverbal body language.

Context is defined as the information that surrounds an event; it is inextricably bound up with the meaning of that event: “The cultures of the world can be compared on a scale from high to low context” (Hall & Hall, 1990, 6).

1.      High vs. Low Context Cultures

Hall (1976) suggested the categorization of cultures into high context versus low context cultures in order to understand their basic differences in communication style and cultural issues. Communication style refers to ways of expressing oneself, to communication patterns that are understood to be ‘typical’ of, say, Finns or Japanese people. Cultural issues mean certain societal factors, such as the country’s status, history, religion and traditions. Cultural issues also include Hofstede’s (2008) individualism vs. collectivism dimension.

2.      Communication style in a high vs. low context culture

In HC cultures, communication style is influenced by the closeness of human relationships, well-structured social hierarchy, and strong behavioral norms (Kim et al., 1998, 512). In a high context (HC) culture, internal meaning is usually embedded deep in the information, so not everything is explicitly stated in writing or when spoken. In an HC culture, the listener is expected to be able to read “between the lines”, to understand the unsaid, thanks to his or her background knowledge. Hall (1976, 91) emphasized that “a high-context communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, or transmitted part of the message”.

In an HC culture, people tend to speak one after another in a linear way, so the speaker is seldom interrupted. Communication is, according to Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988), indirect, ambiguous, harmonious, reserved and understated.

In an HC culture, communication involves more of the information in the physical context or internalized in the person; greater confidence is placed in the nonverbal aspects of communication than the verbal aspects (Hall, 1976, 79). In a low context (LC) culture, meanings are explicitly stated through language. People communicating usually expect explanations when something remains unclear.

As Hall (1976) explains, most information is expected to be in the transmitted message in order to make up for what is missing in the context (both internal and external). An LC culture is characterized by direct and linear communication and by the constant and sometimes never-ending use of words. Communication is direct, precise, dramatic, open, and based on feelings or true intentions (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).

3.      Cultural issues in high vs. low context cultures

Rooted in the past, HC cultures are very stable, unified, cohesive and slow to change. In an HC culture, people tend to rely on their history, their status, their relationships, and a plethora of other information, including religion, to assign meaning to an event. LC cultures typically value individualism over collectivism and group harmony. Individualism is characterized by members prioritizing individual needs and goals over the needs of the group (Triandis, Brislin & Hui, 1988; as cited in Pryor, Butler & Boehringer, 2005, 248).

Another salient feature that is often seen to differentiate these two contextual cultures is the notion of politeness. In an LC culture, it is thought to be polite to ask questions that in an HC culture often seem too personal and even offensive. (Tella, 2005; see also Tella, 1996.)

4.      Cultural Categories of Communication, and Western vs. Eastern Values

According to Lewis (2005, 70, 89), linear-active cultures are calm, factual and decisive planners. They are task-oriented, highly organized and prefer doing one thing at a time. They stick to facts and figures that they have obtained from reliable sources. They prefer straightforward, direct discussion, and they talk and listen in equal proportions.

Reactive are courteous, outwardly amiable, accommodating, compromising and good listeners. Their cultures are called ‘listening cultures’. Reactive prefer to listen first, in order to establish both their own and the other’s position. They often seem slow to react after a presentation or speech, and when they speak up, it is without clear signs of confrontation. (Lewis, 2005, 70–71.)

Multi-actives are warm, emotional, loquacious and impulsive. They like to do many things at a time. They often talk in a roundabout, animated way. It is typical of them to speak and listen at the same time, leading to repeated interruptions. They are uncomfortable with silence and seldom experience it between other multi-actives. (Lewis, 2005, 70, 89).

C.  Conclusion

Since pre-historic times, people have been trying to communicate with each other in an effective way related to their evolution. From the beginning to now people have been using non-verbal communication regales of their evolutionary process. They have been using body language, gesture. etc. to send messages. While decoding those non-verbal messages, people use their culture as a filter. At those times, there was just basic understanding needed among people but nowadays, with the help of technological developments people all around the world have been started to interact and communicate with each other and necessities changed. Because of the fact that all people carry their experiences to their relations, they are acting in accordance with their cultures. In the same culture, there may not any problem between relations in terms of context but, when people come across from different cultures to communicate, which is called cross-cultural communication, most of the times contextual misunderstandings can be observable. When low& high context cultures are taken into account to understand the differences between cultures, it can be easily said that people need to know much more about other cultures to send the message without any barrier.

References

A.C. Buddy Krizan, Patricia Merrier, Joyce P. Logan, Karen Schneiter Williams, 2010. Business Communication  Business Communication Series. Cengage Learning,

Edward T. Hall, 2002. The History of Intercultural Communication: The United States and Japan Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002.

Geert Hofstede, 1991. Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind, Maidenhead, U.K.: McGraw-Hill.

Gudykunst, W. B. & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., 2011. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.

Julia Cameron, 2002. The Artist’s Way: A Spiritual Path to Higher Creativity (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam

Kim et al., 1998. High- versus low-context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean and American cultures. Psychology & Marketing

K.E. Weick, K.M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld, 2005. “Organizing and the Process of Sense making,” Organization Science.

Lewis, R. D., 2005. Finland Cultural Lone Wolf. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.