COM 372—Theory and Research in Intercultural Communication
Read in conjunction with PPt: http://www.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/372/Cultural%20Values.ppt [Same content—PPt available upon request]
Main Objectives for this class: After this class you should be able:
I. Understanding Cultural Influences
A. Cultural influences
Many writers attempt to model the communication process. As we learn in introduction to theory classes, every model has the strengths of allowing us to troubleshoot where problems might lie in a process or to visualize what is happening in the process. But we also know that by focusing on some elements, every model also leaves out other elements. Gudykunst and Kim (2003) suggest that the “cultural influences” on communication are group-held values, norms, beliefs and attitudes that influence the interaction. Triandis calls these the subjective culture, as opposed to the physical and even behavioral manifestations of culture (objective culture). As an example, a rule or norm is an expectation for how one should or can behave in a culture (with norms having more of a “morality” component, as we shall explain below). They guide behavior, but they are not the behavior itself.
The rest of this website will summarize some of these, with greatest attention to values. I will draw on the work of several authors.
B. Cultural versus Individual difference:
At first read, it seems like self-construal and individualism/collectivism are pretty much the same thing. But they are not! One (I/C) describes a cultural orientation—that is, the values that the culture as a whole upholds or privileges. The other is an aspect of the individual person. Thus, even though Gwen might live in an individualistic culture, she might perceive herself as much more interrelated to those around her and consider their perspectives and needs as she makes decisions. So also, someone in a highly “collective” culture might, in fact, make very self-focused decisions. We will find that most “cultural-level” variables below also have an “individual-level” component. We should not say that a person is “individualistic” as that term refers to a whole culture. Rather, we would say she has an “independent” self construal. The same applies to uncertainty avoidance (she has a high tolerance for ambiguity, even though she lives in a culture with high uncertainty avoidance), gender orientation (she is “androgynous” even though she lives in a “masculine” culture), and so on.
Egalitarianism (cf group/ individual power)
Tolerance for ambiguity
Individual-level M/F (androgyneity)
C. What do we mean by “cultural difference”? Further, we should realize that when we do speak of “cultural difference,” we are not making absolute predictions, but must recognize that each culture has variety and diversity within it. Often, students think that when we talk about cultural difference, we are suggesting that all Latinos think or communicate like that and all Pakistani-Americans think or communicate like this. Instead, we should think of differences between groups (including men and women, rich and poor, etc.) like overlapping bell curves. If I were to line up all of the class in terms of height, we would have some women who are taller than some men and some men who are shorter than some women. But if we plotted a bell curve, we would find that on average, we could predict that men are higher than women. It is very important to note that when making predictions about human (communication) behavior, we are making probabilistic, not absolute predictions! That is, we are predicting that “in most cases,” with “other variables being the same,” Chinese people are more likely to prefer such-and-such style of compliments, and Russians are more likely to sense that type of love in romantic relationships. If one is thinking as a “social scientist,” the critique of scientific studies and theories that “this theory does not work, because everybody is different” does not make sense and is not a valid critique!!!! (I’m trying to be subtle here!) Instead, the scientist would try to explain more and more of the difference between individuals with additional variables. All social scientists recognize that individuals are unique, but they tend to believe that we do act in patterned and predictable ways.
D. Some important terms dealing with “cultural difference”:
· Attitudes: According to Samovar & Porter, a disposition to respond to something in a certain way. For our purposes, it will be you feelings towards a particular person, object, or idea.
· Beliefs: According to S&P, a thought about the connection between two concepts, for example, “sky” and “blue” or “Communism” and “desirable.”
· Values: What an individual or group of people hold to be important, either as a desired end-state or as a characteristic of a person.
· Norms: “Guidelines of how we should or should not behave that have a basis in morality” (Gudykunst, 2004, p. 43)
· Rules“Guidelines for the ways we are expected to communicate. Rules are not based in morality” (p. 43).
· Taboos/Mores: A taboo or more is a strong norm, usually with stronger social consequences. For example, incest has been found to be a taboo in most cultures.
· Laws: A rule or norm that is strong enough to be codified into a written or spoken formal code for a culture, usually with prescribed punishments.
· World View: A view about the connections between the elements in the cosmos, such as between people and nature, between the deity, and so on. Also involves metaphysical views about the nature of life (e.g., reincarnation, judgment).
As brief examples, consider the following:
Thought Box: Go out this week and violate the “rules” or “scripts” of a situation. See what happens. One of my favorites is to get on a crowded elevator, put my back to the door and look everyone in the eyes and say, “You’re probably wondering why I’ve gathered you all here today,” or “I feel good all under!” Be careful where you do this. For example, as one commercial demonstrated, offering to show your family pictures to the man at the urinal next to you in the public restroom might get you a punch in the eye. If this is an application essay, discuss what would make it fall under each of several categories (e.g., rules, norms, mores, laws), to demonstrate your understanding of these.
II. Some (Etic) frameworks for understanding cultural values
Gudykunst and Kim (2003) present a variety of
frameworks that can be used to compare cultures. That is, they tend to be used
communication (with the assumption that when people engage in intercultural communication, they
might reflect these same values). Further, to be able to compare cultures,
these frameworks are used for all cultures studied, rather than specific to any
single culture (that is, they are etic
frameworks). Finally, they are most frequently used to be able to make
predictions about cultures—for example, researchers have conducted studies to
see if people in individualistic or collectivistic cultures are more
likely to use hints or direct requests as a first strategy to influence
someone’s behavior (see work by Min Sum Kim on
o “Objective” (scientific) researchers seldom study cultures for the sake of the culture’s themselves, but rather use the cultures to tap some underlying variable, such as power distance or high/low context.
o “Subjective” researchers would probably not use these frameworks as a whole; they might use specific terms, but may instead look at a single idea (such as “social status”) and how it is defined and communicated within a single culture.
o Scholars are increasingly using both group- and individual-level variables. For example, the work of M.S. Kim above does group comparisons by country, but also measures “self-construal” to make predictions about people who see themselves independent or interdependent of others (regardless of culture) on how they make requests.
o These frameworks provide some of the “basic language” of interculturalists. Just like learning a foreign language, your mastery of these terms is essential for your future reading in the course!
A. High and Low Context: This deals with where one looks for meaning. According to Hall,
B. Hofstede’s Dimensions Plus Two. Geert Hofstede, an organizational psychologist, developed a survey by studying IBM employees in 40 different nations. From the survey, he derived four dimensions that he then used to categorize the 40 nations. Now upwards of 100,000 people have taken his measure. You can find out more about his dimensions or see visualizations of the placement of many cultures in the world on his website: http://www.geert-hofstede.com/. BTW, while I think that his approach has both strengths and limitations (what doesn’t!?), the company that I do intercultural training with on the side places a large amount of the cultural training in terms of Hofstede’s dimensions and Hall’s notion of high and low context. Note that each of these is meant to describe cultures as a whole, not specific individuals.
Hofstede plots nations upon pairs of dimensions, such as this following sample, which shows that generally, the more individualistic a culture, the lower the “power distance”; the more industrialized and urbanized a nation, the more individualistic; and certain regions of the world (e.g., East Asia, Latin America, Mediterranean Europe) might be similar in their placement. See his reading in the Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel reader for a full explanation of the dimensions. Many scholars say that I/C is the fundamental, most important cultural value distinction by which cultures can be explained, and for our course, it will likely be the most important cultural value notion you can “pick up” all term!
C. Parson’s Pattern Variables. Talcott Parsons, a sociologist, developed another framework to differentiate cultures. There is some overlap between this and some of Hofstede’s notions. Here are the dimensions, with my brief and simple explanations and examples:
Thought Box: Where would you place either American culture or your own “culture” (whichever you choose to describe, or your national culture, if you are not American) on one of these sets of dimensions? Justify your answer.
Triandis, H. C. (2012). Culture and conflict. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (13th ed., pp. 34-45). Boston: Wadsworth.
D. Triandis’ cultural syndromes. Harry Triandis, a cross-cultural psychologist at the University of Illinois, is an extensive writer on culture, focusing especially on individualism-collectivism (see numerous articles or books he has collaborated on). Triandis (2012) summarizes what he feels are some key dimensions of culture. See if you can recognize the same concepts by different names from other frameworks? How might each apply to communication?
1. Before we get there…
· Defining culture: For Triandis culture is “a shared meaning system found among those who speak a particular language dialect, during a specific historic period, in a definable region. It functions to improve the adaptation of members of the culture to a particular ecology, and it includes the knowledge that people need to have in order to function effectively in their social environment” (p. 35). What type of def is it? What does it include? What does it exclude?
· Objective and subjective culture: Triandis mentions subjective culture more in passing (p. 35). In other works, he differentiates this, the norms, values, and other meaning components of a culture, from objective culture, which are the tangible artifacts that people in a group make, what he elsewhere calls “material culture” (http://www.wwu.edu/culture/triandis1.htm). (I wonder where he would put communicative behavior?
· Cultural distance: A very important notion in IC comm—cultures vary in how close or similar they are to one another, with greater conflict (the focus of this chapter) more likely between those cultures with greater distance.
· Attribution (p. 39): Giving meaning to the behavior of others or ourselves. This is central to cultural (mis)understanding! We often make errors in attribution, especially between in- and out-groups or towards groups we are more favorable toward and those we like less. We’ll say more about this in our unit on intolerance.
· Aggression: The chapter is about conflict, and we may not come back to it, but note the factors that lead to aggression (p. 41)—how many of those do you see in U.S. American culture?
2. Cultural Syndromes: Be able to recognize these and see how they relate to other dimensions we have discussed. Especially, know bold, red terms. You’ll note many repeat ideas of earlier authors (e.g., Parsons)
· Vertical and horizontal cultures
· Active-passive cultures
· Emotional expression or suppression
Note: The last (K&S) really seems to deal more with world view than with values per se. I will outline these when I fill out the webpage, but if you want to know more about the latter sets of dimensions or want to read about them on your own, I refer you to Ch. 3 of Communicating with Strangers: https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBADJGU2.PDF
II. Some other frameworks for understanding cultural values: Emic and Not
While many authors seek a single set of dimensions or terms that can be applied for comparison across all cultures, other researchers prefer to study a single culture, or sometimes only two cultures, to compare them against one another. And still others seek a single framework that might apply to all cultures. Neuliep, for example, presents both in his section on “value orientations” (pp. 64-76). In a way, the wording is a bit broad, because the other orientations in the chapter are also value orientations, and at least one of the items contained here (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck) deals as much with world view as with values (so you’ll find discussion of their dimensions, important for the exam, below!). Here are some examples:
A. Emic approaches:
1. Hsu’s postulates of basic American values.
2. The Chinese Value Survey (this original measure of Chinese culture later developed into the long-term orientation now considered often with Hofstede’s analysis, above).
3. We will see others from a variety of cultures as we move through the course!
B. Schwartz’s Universal Values: Shalom Schwartz sought to develop a framework for values that would apply to all cultures—11 “motivational types of values” (Neuleip, 2006, p. 69). These values represent underlying universal needs (biological, social coordination, survival & welfare), though each culture might have its own priorities. This is a frequently cited list and useful to know! (though not for our exam…)
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2002). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
· Ch 3: Part A (individual versus cultural differences:
· Ch. 3: Part B (various frameworks briefly described):
Web Resources: (links provided, rather than hotlinks, due to PDF format for Blackboard)
· How stuff works: Culture & tradition channels: http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-and-traditions-channel.htm
· ChangingMinds.org on E.T. Hall’s Dimensions (hi/low context): http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/hall_culture.htm
· Youtube on Hi/Lo context cultures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIUilYX56E
· Intercultural Press’s books on specific cultures: http://nicholasbrealey.com/boston/subjects/interculturalpress.html
· Let me know if you find other helpful links!
Dodd, C. H. (1998). Dynamics of intercultural communication (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Friday, R. A. (2000). Contrasts in discussion behaviors of German and American managers. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed., pp. 329-334). Belmont, CA: Wadsorth.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 25-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nakayama, T. K., & Martin, J. N. (2002). Worldview, religion, and intercultural communication. In J. K. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 21-31). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Reynolds, B. K. (1984). A cross-cultural study of values of Germans and Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 269-278.