A Study on Cultural Differences in Communication Styles

Abstract：This article focuses on the major dimensions of cultural variability used to explain cultural differences and/or similarities in communication across cultures. It briefly describes the influence of culture on communication. It is also intended to clarify the following questions: Is communication only one subordinate element of culture? Or is culture to be considered as only a sub-system of the communication system?

Key words:cultural variability dimensions communication

1 Introduction

We all communicate with others all the time—in our homes， in our workplaces， in the groups we belong to， and in the community. No matter how well we think we understand each other， communication is hard. \"Culture\" is often at the root of communication challenges. Our culture influences how we approach problems， and how we participate in groups and in communities. When we participate in groups we are often surprised at how differently people approach their work together.

Culture is a complex concept， with many different definitions. Herskovits (1955) defines culture as including everything that is human made. Geertz (1973) and Collier and Thomas (1988) define culture as a system of shared symbols and meanings. Keesing (1974) believes that culture is the implicit theory of the rules people share， which coordinates their behaviour in everyday life. Thus， culture influences people's behaviour， and therefore， their communication. In other words， culture is central to what we see， how we make sense of what we see， and how we express ourselves.

We all know that our success in life depends in a great deal on how good communicators we are. Among a number of factors that influence communication is culture. There are enormous cultural differences in low and high context communication， in how to approach other people， how to say what is relevant， in body language， in direct and indirect communication styles as well as in values and norms (Hall， 1976). The direct style strives to represent facts accurately and avoids emotional overtones and suggestive allusions. Indirect communication style is to the contrary， ambiguous and emotionally rich. The desire for precision is not as important as creating emotional resonance.

2 Dimensions of cultural variability

Cultural variability in communication has been extensively examined and systematically developed as an important body of research on culture and communication (see Gudykunst， 1997). He has noted that dimensions of cultural variability have been often employed by researchers to explain differences or similarities in communication behaviour across cultures. Of the many cultural-level dimensions that are used to study cultural variability (see Gudykunst Ting-Toomey， 1988)， the dimensions of cultural variability identified by Hofstede (1980， 1983) have been quoted most extensively to examine how cultures can be similar or different in communication.

Through a survey of over 116， 000 employees of IBM in 40 countries， Hofstede (1980， 1983) derived four key dimensions of cultural variability， which are labelled as Power Distance， Individualism-Collectivism， Masculinity-Femininity， and Uncertainty Avoidance. Individualism refers to the culture that emphasizes individual identity and goals， whereas collectivism refers to the culture that stresses on group identity and goals. Power difference indicates if the members of a culture values hierarchy or unequal distribution of power in the workplace or not. The uncertainty avoidance dimension refers to the extent to which the members of a culture are threatened by unknown situation. Finally， the members of a masculinity culture hold distinct gender roles， whereas the members of a feminine culture believe no gender roles in the workplace.

Keesing (1974) has noted that the ways individuals behave and their interpretations of others' behaviour are guided by the implicit theories of their cultures that they learn in the socialization process. These implicit theories have been identified in cross-cultural studies as the dimensions of cultural variability (e.g. Chinese Culture Connection， 1987; Hofstede， 1980， 1991; Kluckhohn Strodtbeck， 1961) and have been applied to account for similarities and differences in behaviours across cultures.

3 Differences in time orientation

Hall (1959， 1976) discovers that there are cultural variations in how people understand and use time， and that individuals are divided in two groups in the ways they approach time.

3.1 Polychronic cultures

A polychronic time system is a system where several things can be done at once， and a more fluid approach is taken to scheduling time. In other words， polychronic individuals are more flexible about time schedules. For them， maintaining relationships and socializing are more important than accomplishing tasks. These individuals usually see time in a more holistic manner. Unlike Americans and most northern and western European cultures， Latin American， African， Middle Eastern， and southern European cultures tend toward polychronism.

Polychronics tend to think in a nonlinear/spiral pattern. In Latin America， e.g. a businessperson may conduct business interviews by inviting a number of unrelated clients into his or her office at once， entertaining them for hours， and jumping from one to another and back again.

3.2 Monochronic cultures

According to Hall (1959， 1976)， a monochronic time system means that things are done one at a time and time is segmented into precise， small units. Under this system time is scheduled， arranged and managed. For monochromic individuals， task-oriented time is distinguished from socio-emotional time. In other words， there is a time to play and a time to work. These individuals value punctuality， completing tasks， and keeping to schedules.

Monochronics tend to think in a linear fashion. That is， they internally process information in a sequential， segmented， orderly fashion. For instance， monochronics schedule appointments linearly——arrival， meeting， conclusion， action，and they cycle through this same pattern all day long.

4 Low-Context versus High-Context Communication

As has been noted earlier， the four major cultural variability dimensions identified by Hofstede (1980) only indirectly account for broad differences in communication between cultures. Hall (1976) has proposed low- and high-context schema， which directly focuses on cultural differences in communication processes between cultures. The low- and high-context schema has been useful in accounting for variations in communication styles (Gudykunst et al.， 1996; Gudykunst Ting-Toomey， 1988).

4.1 High-context cultures

High-context cultures emphasize how intention or meaning can best be conveyed through the context (e.g.， social roles and positions) and the nonverbal channels (e.g.， pauses， silence， tone of voice) of the verbal message. High-context communication involves the use of indirect， implicit， ambiguous messages when speaking. 8)Openness is not characteristic of high-context communication. Individuals in high-context cultures do not reveal large amounts of personal information about themselves.

Examples of societies that value this communication style include most Asian cultures， such as the Japanese， Chinese， and Korean， and many of the Latin American countries.

4.2 Low-context cultures

Low-context cultures emphasize how intention or meaning is best expressed through explicit verbal messages. In low-context communication， the speaker is expected to be responsible for constructing a clear， persuasive message that the listener can decode easily. Low-context communication involves the use of categorical words such as \"certainly，\" \"absolutely，\" and \"positively.\" High-context communication is expressed through the use of qualifiers such as \"maybe，\" \"perhaps，\" and \"probably\" in conversation (R. Okabe， 1983). Speaking their minds and telling the truth in low-context communication require that individuals be open with others.

Examples of countries that would prefer this communication style include the United States and most European countries.

5 Conclusion

The dimensions of cultural variability do not only allow broad predictions of cultural similarities and differences， but each dimension is also manifested in a unique way within each culture (Gudykunst， 1997). Both poles of each dimension of cultural variability exist in all cultures. For example， both individualistic and collectivistic tendencies exist in all cultures， but one tendency tends to be predominant in specific spheres of life.

Studies of cultural variability on communication show that as culture varies， so do the specific communication behaviours. This article has discussed just a few of those ways. It's important to realize that the cultural dimensions presented here do not apply to all individuals within a culture. An individual's behavior may also vary depending on the situation. In other words， treat the differences discussed here as general guidelines and understand that there will always be individuals who don't fit the dimensions discussed here.

References：

[1]Chinese Culture Connection. Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology， 1987，18 (2)：143-164.

[2]Collier， M.J.， Thomas， M. Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y.Y. Kim， W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.)， Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park， CA.: Sage.1988.99-121.

[3]Geertz， C. The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books， Inc.1973.

[4]Gudykunst， W.B.Cultural variability in communication: An introduction. Communication Research，1997，24(4)：327-348.

[5]Gudykunst， W.B.， Ting-Toomey， S. with Chua， E. Culture and interpersonal communication.Newbury Park， CA: SAGE Publications.1988.

[6]Hall， E.T.Silent language. New York: Doubleday.1959.

[7]Hall， E.T. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.1976.

[8]Herskovits， M. Cultural anthropology. New York: Knopf.1955.

[9]Hofstede， G. Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills， Ca.: Sage.1980.

[10]Hofstede， G. Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In J. Deregowski， S. Dzuirawiec， R. Annis (Eds.)， Explications in cross-cultural psychology(pp. 389-407). Lisse， The Netherlands: Swets Zeitlinger.1983.

[11]Hofstede， G. Cultures and organizations: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival.HaperCollinsBusiness.1991.

[12]Keesing， R. Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology，1974，（3）：73-97.