Two influential theories of cultural difference
While there is much written about culture, two important 20th century researchers deserve mention here as their theories have had a major influence on how we understand the impact of culture on communication.
1. Edward T. Hall: The Theory of High & Low Context Cultures
We mentioned Hall in our discussion of non verbal communication, as the anthropologist who coined the term 'proxemics': the study of how people use space. He has written a number of books about both non verbal communication and culture, including The Silent Language (1959 & 1990), The Hidden Dimension (1969) and Beyond Culture (1976). Hall argued that cultural differences could be better understood if they were divided into two groups: high context and low context. A key factor in his theory is context. This relates to the framework, background, and surrounding circumstances in which communication or an event takes place. Here's some more information.
The following summary highlights the problems facing low-context North Americans when they interact with people from high-context cultures.
a. High-context cultures (including much of the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and South America) are relational, collectivist, intuitive, and contemplative. This means that people in these cultures emphasize interpersonal relationships. Developing trust is an important first step to any business transaction. According to Hall, these cultures are collectivist, preferring group harmony and consensus to individual achievement. And people in these cultures are less governed by reason than by intuition or feelings. Words are not so important as context, which might include the speaker’s tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, posture—and even the person’s family history and status. A Japanese manager explained his culture’s communication style to an American: “We are a homogeneous people and don’t have to speak as much as you do here. When we say one word, we understand ten, but here you have to say ten to understand one.” High-context communication tends to be more indirect and more formal. Flowery language, humility, and elaborate apologies are typical.
b. Low-context cultures (including North America and much of Western Europe) are logical, linear, individualistic, and action-oriented. People from low-context cultures value logic, facts, and directness. Solving a problem means lining up the facts and evaluating one after another. Decisions are based on fact rather than intuition. Discussions end with actions. And communicators are expected to be straightforward, concise, and efficient in telling what action is expected. To be absolutely clear, they strive to use precise words and intend them to be taken literally. Explicit contracts conclude negotiations. This is very different from communicators in high-context cultures who depend less on language precision and legal documents. High-context business people may even distrust contracts and be offended by the lack of trust they suggest.
2. Geert Hofstede:
Dr. Geert Hofstede conducted perhaps the most comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture. From 1967 to 1973, while working at IBM as a psychologist, he collected and analyzed data from over 100,000 individuals from forty countries. From those results, and later additions, Hofstede developed a model that identified four primary dimensions with which to analyse and differentiate cultures. He later added a fifth dimension. These dimensions work on a continuum which measures the degree to which different cultures exhibit these characteristics. They are:
a. Power distance index (PDI)
b. Individualism (IDV)
c. Masculinity (MAS)
d. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)
e. Long Term Orientation (LTO)Hofstede's research has been used widely in business as a training aid in understanding international cultural relationships. For more detail on the dimensions, check out Hofstede's site and his explanation of how the dimensions work.
To see how the orientation rankings are applied to different countries, check out this link. For a critique of Hofstede's research, read this journal article.
Ray's textbook Communicating As Professionals (2007) also has a good chapter on Intercultural Communication (chapter 4, p.87). In particular check out exhibit 4.2 on p.101 for an overview of Hofestede's dimensions and how they apply when you compare aspects of behaviour in Australia and other cultures.