Characteristics And Differences Between High And Low Context Culture

I consider myself high Context Culture because I’m responsible and responsibility is at the top of High Context Culture. People in high Context cultures sand close to each other and share the same space, which applies to me. I rely on support and it might be hard to get support outside of my group. Some times it might take a long time to happen but once a relationship reaches the bonding stage it will often stay that way. When I meet someone for the first time I immediately ask him or her about their age and status as my first impression.

Looking at the chart the first dimension of culture plotted is individualism-collectivism. This dimension addresses how people define themselves and their relationships with others. Cultures that fall on the individualism side of the continuum share four characteristics. First, such cultures consider the individual to be the most important entity in any social setting. Second, individualistic cultures stress independence rather than dependence. Third, individualistic cultures reward individual achievement. The last characteristic is; individualistic cultures value each individual’s uniqueness.

In the article Hall’s cultural factors America is described as a low context culture where very little is taken for granted and there is less of a chance of having a misunderstanding when visitors are present (Hall’s, p 1.). Hall also describes in a low context culture such as America messages are simple and clear, people blame others for failure, there is more focus on verbal communication rather than body language, reactions are visible, flexibility is present when change is needed, bonds between people are fragile with little loyalty, task are more important than relationships, and time is not flexible (Hall, p1). I agree with Hall’s views about America being a low context culture. I think the messages American’s want to get across to others are clear. I also have seen many situations where people blame others for their failure and I know I have blamed someone else for my mistake. I also know that people listen and body language is not as important as the actual words that are being communicated. I have been in relationships where strong bonds are broken over something silly. I also know time is very important to Americans and it seems everyone is always busy and schedules are not very flexible. I can think of an example for all of Hall’s descriptions of America being a low context culture and that is why I think I am “in line” with general views about

Collectivist societies, people belong to “in group” that take care of them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

The most famous researcher of prevailing cultures in different countries goes by the name of Geert Hofstede. “He conducted one of the most comprehensive studies of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture” (). With the help of his research team, Professor Geert Hofstede created a model of national culture consisting of six dimensions. “The cultural dimensions represent independent preferences for on state of affairs

Review section on "Context" starting on p. 126, specifically Exhibit 4-4 on p. 127.  Describe an incident from your own experience or even from a movie you saw where "High Context" intersected with "Low Context."  Otherwise, pick a country off of Exhibit 4-4 from the High context section (ie. Japan, Middle East) and then a country from a Low Context (ie. Germany, United States) and then describe a hypothetical situation.

In low context cultures, the weight seems to fall on the speaker to precisely and completely pass on the importance in her talked or composed message. For a more broad exchange of intercultural contrasts in the middle of high and low context cultures (Cohen, 1997).

Knowing whether a culture is either high or low context can also create more effective communication among cultures. Because of the advancements in technology, people are having more and more contact with individuals from around the world. Understanding the meaning of high and low-context is of course important, not only in traveling, vacationing, and touring the world, but is even more important with the increase in diplomatic and business relationships that countries are developing with each other around the world. For example, in a business setting this is extremely important if an individual is giving a presentation to another country. If the presentation is given by a low-context group to a high-context group, the high context members may feel as though there is way too much information being given, and the presenter should just get to the point. The opposite can be said when high-context individuals present to a low-context group, there may be a feeling of ambiguity or vagueness because everything was not spelled out precisely during the presentation. These ideas can help support our ability to appreciate others and be understood.

Any speech utterance cannot be occurred without an environment or a context, but instead each is related and deepened by the social and cultural backgrounds. That is, any speech utterance or act is culturally affected and interpreted. Thus, misunderstanding and miscommunication happen when interlocutors do not aware of the cultural variability for the utterances of each.

The greatest diversion in cultural values between eastern and western nations can be observed through the mentality that shapes social behaviors in terms of relationships and in response to goals. The Hofstede dimension which best represents this aspect of society is the Individualism versus Collectivism index. This dimension refers to the degree of interdependence among the members in a particular society.

A review of Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions,this model looks at the effect of cultures, value of its members, and how they relate to behavior within that culture. The model has been successfully used for effective intercultural, interpersonal communications around the world. There are five values that Hofstede’s has identified: Power Distance; Individualism or Collectivism; Masculinity and Femininity; Uncertainty Avoidance and Short or Long Term Orientation. Each value aids in developing a model to understand an approach and the preparation that should be taken to be effective and successful in its dealings with that particular culture.

Hofstede Model suggested four main cultural dimensions to illustrate the dissimilarities: Power distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity versus Femininity (Khalid at el. 2011). Long/Short term Orientation was recognised later on by Hofstede and Bond as a fifth dimension (Hofstede & Bond 1988 cited in Khalid et al. 2011). Several business frameworks had applied Hofstede’s model such as managerial behaviour, innovation, training programs and leadership style (Jones 2007). Respectively, some other cultural models had been identified such as Schwartz and the recent Globe project study (Mooij & Hofstede 2010). The three of the mentioned models

In order to elucidate the conceptual nature of the cultural dimensions, Hofstede made various efforts to elaborate the contrast between the individualists as well the collectivist cultures. As this is not the only source of difference, several other Researchers such as Draguns, Lee & McCauley, 1999 also carried out studies on individualist cultures where the individuals are not tightly connected. They found that the priority lies with looking after themselves or any other members of the immediate family. These individuals have different goals and aspirations that might not be in line with the values and norms of the entire group. However when there is a conflict of ideas, in individual

Language is another medium of interaction with people. In chapter three ‘Culture’ explains that language is the thread that weaves members of a society into the symbolic web we call culture. Language communicates not only a surface reality but also deeper levels of meaning. Language defines men and women differently in terms of both power and value (Henley, Hamilton, and Thorne, 1992; Throne, Kramarae and Henley, 1983).

There are three aspects of culture, including cultural context, language differences, and thought patterns, that influence conflict management style (Chen and Starosta, 1997-8). It is important to understand which cultural aspects of communication pattern may be at play when having conflict. One of the key factors that I have found for exploring the communication issues present in intercultural conflicts is the concept of high and low context communication. The idea of high and low context communication was first described by anthropologist Edward T. Hall. (Ting-Toomey, 2012) It helps us to better understand the powerful effect culture has on people and their conflict resolve conflict styles. Chen and Starosta (1997, 1998) wrote that language systems influence thinking or reasoning patterns. “The most common thinking pattern of English speakers is linear in language sequence, while the reasoning pattern behind Chinese or Japanese languages tends to be nonlinear, and is characterized by an indirect writing style that is akin to the method of deduction. Differences in reasoning patterns behind languages may induce intercultural and international.” (Chen & Starosta, 1997, 1998, p.3) The characteristics of the language we speak influence some aspects of our thinking patterns and our conflict management styles.