4 Cultural Cues Nonverbal Communication in a Diverse World MERICA HAS ALWays been one of the most culturally diverse nations on earth, As Garreau (1981) maintains in his book The Nine Nations of North America, “It is no surprise that the second most commonly asked question after “What's your name?’ is ‘Where are you from?”” (p. xvi). Although some Ameri- cans grow up in ethnically homogeneous communities, most of us live and work in communities that are ethnically and culturally diverse, Look around your class- room or your workplace. Chances are there are people who grew up in many regions of the United States, as well as people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds than your own. Intolerance and prejudice against various ethnic groups has been a problem throughout much of U.S. history, yet diversity has served as one of our nation’s greatest strengths. Americans have benefited from the rich mix of traditions, foods, music, and technology contributed over the years by people of many backgrounds. Americans are the most mobile people on earth. According to Dinnerstein and Reimers (1975), “Never before—and in no other country—have as many varied ethnic groups congregated and amalgamated as they have in the United States” (p. 1). Moreover, once immigrants settle in America, they and their fami lies frequently move to new states and regions. More than 20 percent of Ameri- cans move annually (Fielding, 1974), and this has been true for centuries (Lewis, 1972; Zelinsky, 1973). One of the biggest communication challenges you will face is effectively interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds than your own, Indeed, without ever leaving the United States, you are likely to com- ‘municate with people from dozens of different ethnic and cultural traditions. Lustig and Koester (1993) conclude: On this, the threshold of the twenty-first century, competence in intercultural ‘communication is an absolute necessity. In both your private and public lives, 74‘Cultural Cues in all of your personal and professional endeavors, itis imperative that you learn to communicate with people whose cultural heritages make them vastly different from yourself. (p. xv) Furthermore, people are traveling today in record numbers, and interna- tional trade is at an all-time high (Brown, Kane, & Rodman, 1994). Never before have so many people from so many cultures had so much contact with one an- other. Language differences constitute a major barrier to effective intercultural communication, yet they are just the tip of the iceberg, Nonverbal behaviors are both biological (for discussions on the biological basis of nonverbal communi- cation see Chapters 1,5, and 7) and cultural in origin. Because cultural differences exist in each channel of nonverbal behavior and because nonverbal behaviors are multichanneled, the chance for intercultural misunderstandings in nonverbal communication is substantial Culture is mainly an implicit, spontaneous, nonverbal phenomenon. Most aspects of one’s culture are learned through observation and imitation rather than, through explicit verbal instruction or expression. The primary level of culture is communicated implicitly, without awareness, by primarily nonverbal means (An- dersen, 1986, 1988; E. T. Hall, 19845 Sapir, 1928), For example, cultural customs such as how to wait in line, what foods to eat, how to treat one’s elders, and how to greet other people are communicated nonverbally from adults to children, often with no verbal instruction. In fact, one of the most basic and obvious functions of nonverbal communication is to communicate one’s culture. People cling tena- ously to cultural, religious, and ethnic customs and are unwilling to give up important aspects of their culture, including language, dress, gestures, tactile be- haviors, and the many other aspects of nonverbal behavior that you will read about in this chapter. Indeed, culture is such @ powerful force that throughout history people have gone to war to preserve cultural customs and behaviors. Until people communicate interculturally, they are unaware of most of their ‘own nonverbal behaviors, because these behaviors are enacted mindlessly, spon- taneously, and unconsciously (Andersen, 1986; Burgoon, 1985a; Samovar & Por- ter, 19855 see also Chapter 1). Indeed, Edward Sapir stated many years ago, “We respond to gestures with an extreme alertness and, one might almost say, in ac- cordance with an elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known to none and understood by all” (1928, p. 556). In fact, “culture is so basic, learned at such a tender age, and so taken-for-granted, that it is often confused with human nature itself” (Andersen, 1997, p. 224). Because we are not usually aware of our own nonverbal behavior, which we take for granted, we have great difficulty un- derstanding or learning the nonverbal behavior of another culture. Frequently, people feel uncomfortable in other cultures because they intuitively think “some- thing isn’t right.” “Because nonverbal behaviors are rarely conscious phenomena, it may be difficult for us to know exactly why they {people from other cultures] are feeling uncomfortable” (Gudykunst & Kim, 1992, p. 172). In this chapter, we will focus on six conceptual differences among cultures 7576 Chapter 4 + Cultural Cues that provide a theoretical explanation for why cultures differ in their nonverbal i communication. Indeed, a multitude of nonverbal differences exist between cul- tures, and detailing these myriad differences would be impossible and somewhat trivial. To begin, we will briefly explore intercultural interactions in terms of the nonverbal codes that were discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. Following that, we will examine in detail the six cultural dimensions that help explain differences in non- | verbal communication across cultures. Cultural Differences in Nonverbal Communication Codes Chronemics According to Edward Hall, the founder of the intercultural communication field, “time talks. It speaks more plainly than words” (1959, p. 15). In the following extract, Hall (1959) describes an American diplomat in a Latin country arriving for an appointment to see a cabinet minister of the government: ‘Arriving a little before the hour (an American respect pattern), he waited. The | hour came and passed;—five minutes—ten minutes—fifteen minutes. At this point he suggested to the secretary that pethaps the minister did not know | he was waiting in the outer office... thirty minutes—forty-five minutes (the insult period)! He jumped up and told the secretary that he had been “cooling his heels in an outer office for forty-five minutes and he was damned sick and tired” of this type of treatment. The message was relayed to the minister who said, in effect, “Let him cool his heels.” The attaché’s stay in the country was not a happy one. The principal source of misunderstanding lay in the fact that in the country in question the five-minute delay interval was not significant. Forty-five minutes, on the other hand, instead of being at the tail end of the ‘waiting scale, was just at the beginning.” (p. 18) Cultures dance to different drummers. Chronemics is probably the most- discussed and best-researched nonverbal code in the intercultural literature (Bru- neat 1979; Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996; Gudykunst & Kim, 1992; Hall, 1959, 1976, 1984). Although each culture is unique in its use of time, Hall (1984) main- | tains that the big cultural gulf is between monochronic, or M-time, cultures and polychronic, or P-time, cultures. M-time cultures, including countries in north- ‘em Europe or with northern European roots (for example, England, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and the United States), believe in doing one | thing at a time. P-time cultures have little regard for artificial schedules and stress informality, people-centeredness, multiple simultaneous activities, and the im- | portance of context. | Some years ago on a trip to some remote island in the Bahamas (a P-time culture), I (being from an M-time culture) was surprised to discover that life in :Cultural Differences in Nonverbal Communication Codes the islands totally stops when it rains. Until the rain stopped, the ground crew at the airport would not unload our airplane, nor would gas station attendants pump gas. We American college students who were visiting the island on our short one-week spring break were outraged by this behavior. But our anger was useless, for we were up against a cultural (P-time) custom of the Caribbean people. As this story illustrates, the time frames of cultures vary so substantially that if only chronemic differences existed, intercultural misunderstandings would still be considerable. As described in Chapter 3, people in the United States view time as a commodity that can be wasted, spent, saved, and used wisely. Of course, many cultures have no concept of time as being segmented into arbitrary units (seconds, minutes, hours, weeks, months, and so on). In many third world cul- tures, life moves to the rhythms of nature: the day, the weather, the tides, and such, Things are experienced polychronically and simultaneously. By contrast, in Western cultures time is modularized, and events are scheduled sequentially not simultaneously. It is thus very important to remember when interacting with people from different cultures that the beat of their life may be to a totally differ- ent drummer. As an American visiting a third world culture, it would be safe to assume that all your assumptions about time are false. Proxemics Research on proxemics has shown that cultures differ substantially in their use of, interpersonal space, in their regard for territory, and in the meanings they assign to proxemic behavior (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996; Gudykunst & Kim, 1992; Hall, 1959, 1976; Malandro & Barker, 1983; Scheflen, 1974; see Chapter 2 for more on proxemic behavior). For example, according to Lustig and Koester (4993), people from colder climates typically maintain larger interpersonal dis- tances when they communicate, whereas those from warmer climates prefer closer interpersonal distances (p. 196). (One Saturday night in Mexico City several years ago, I rode in a subway train with several other Americans. As thousands of people boarded the train and the crush became intense, the Americans showed signs of pain and claustropho- bia, yet the Mexicans remained blasé, though somewhat amused by our discom- fort. It is common for Americans to perceive Mexicans as rude and Arabs as pushy because they maintain close personal-space boundaries and expect and employ closer interpersonal distances than do Americans. Conversely, Arabs and Mexicans may perceive Americans as aloof and unfriendly because of cultural differences in proxemic behavior. Kinesics Considerable intercultural differences have been observed in all aspects of peo- ple’s kinesic behavior, including facial expressions, body movements, gestures, and conversational regulators (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989; Gudykunst & 7apter 4+ Cultural Cues Kim, 19925 Hall, 1976; Jensen, 1985; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 19813 Scheflen, 1974). i For example, the A-OK sign, which is formed by making a circle with the thumb | and index finger, is familiar to all Americans. When Richard Nixon visited Ven- | ezucla as the US. vice president in 1956 and gave two A-OK signs to a crowd of demonstrators in Caracas, a huge riot erupted. Nixon was later informed that the A-OK sign actually had a different meaning in Venezuela, similar to an upraised middle finger in America. In Italy, China, and Colombia good-bye is signaled by moving the palm and fingers back and forth toward one’s body, a gesture that means “come here” in the United States (Jandt, 1995). These differences in em- blems—wordlike gestures with explicit meanings—really constitute a different | language as people travel from culture to culture. Northern Europeans and northeast Asians engage in much more restrained nonverbal displays than, for example, Africans, southern Buropeans, or Mexi- cans. Gestures and movements differ dramatically in meaning, extensiveness, | and intensity. Americans and northern Europeans seem “square” and unexpres- sive to most Italians and Egyptians. Conversely, the gestural behavior of people from the Mediterranean seems almost undignified and overly emotional to most Americans. Haptics Research has confirmed that interpersonal patterns of tactile communication, or haptics, show considerable intercultural variation (Andersen & Leibowitz, 1978; Malandro & Barker, 1983; Prosser, 1978; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981). Recent studies reveal differences in international and intercultural touch in amount, lo- cation, type of touch and whether it is manifested in public or private (Jones, 1994; McDaniel & Andersen, 1998). Touch behavior represents a major source of diversity among couples from different cultures. During a recent data-collection session at an international air- port, a colleague and I observed incredibly diverse tactile behaviors between people of many cultural backgrounds (see McDaniel & Andersen, 1998). A family leaving for ‘Tonga formed a circle, wove their arms around each others’ backs, and prayed and chanted together. A tearful man returning to Bosnia repeatedly tried to leave his sobbing wife; each time he turned back to her, they would grip each other by the fingertips and exchange a passionate, tearful kiss and a powerful embrace. Two Korean couples departed without any touch, despite the prolonged separation that lay ahead of them. Physical Appearance | Physical appearance, the most salient nonverbal code during initial encounters, is crucial because many intercultural encounters are based on stereotypes and superficial physical cues. Certainly, what is “beautiful” varies greatly from culture eee ACultural Differences in Nonverbal Communication Clothing communicates culture. This man is wearing traditional clothing appropriate to his culture and climate. to culture, particularly in terms of clothing, artifacts, body ornamentation, body type, and body shape (see Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981). There is some cross-cultural similarity in what constitutes an attractive face, but little else is similar. Ubangi women insert pieces of wood into their mouths to create lips up to ten inches in diameter. In China during much of this century, women often had their feet bound and de- formed, which prevented walking outside the home. This culturally imposed de- formity was considered a very desirable trait in China, although most Americans would consider such a tradition grotesque and perhaps evil. The amount of body and facial hair that is desirable also varies greatly from culture to culture. Ameri- can advertisers have been quite successful in convincing women that hair on their legs or underarms is unsightly, and they have been somewhat successful in con- vincing men, particularly in the business world, that facial hair is unprofessional.80 Chapter 4 + Cultural Cues White shirts and ties have become the universal attire of the international business culture, transcending local cultural dress. Judging by their clothing alone, it would be difficult to determine what culture these businessmen are from. By contrast, European women are much less likely than American women to remove the hair from their legs and underarms, and businessmen in the Middle Bast are much more likely to have mustaches or beards than American business- men. And although T-shirts, blue jeans, business suits, and basketball shoes are now internationally accepted attire, many cultures still observe local dress cus- toms. Recently, during the previously mentioned field study at an international airport, I witnessed Tongans in multicultural ceremonial gowns, Sikhs in white turbans, Hasidic Jews in blue yarmulkes, and Africans in white dashikis—along- side Californians in running shorts and halter tops. Oculesics Oculesics, the study of messages sent by the eyes, through eye contact, blinks, eye movements, and pupil dilation, has received only marginal attention by intercul- tural communication scholars (Gudykunst & Kim, 19925 Jensen, 1985; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981). Because eye contact has been called an “invitation to com- ‘municate,” its cross-cultural variation is an important communication topic, yet ‘most books on intercultural communication fail to cite any research on this im- portant topic. —Cultural Differences in Nonverbal Communication Codes Several years ago I served as an instructor for a university-wide orientation for teaching assistants. Among the participants were two young women from France who were in America for the first time. These very attractive young women expressed their disappointment to the class that during their brief stay they had received no attention at all from American men. “They don't even look at us,” one complained. “Are American men gay?” queried the other. These women were used to the eye behavior of men in France, where staring at a woman's body is quite acceptable and, in certain contexts, even flattering, Such staring would be considered rude in America, where men take fleeting glances at a woman's body and try not to get caught looking, Vocalics Vocalics, or paralinguistics—the tones, pitches, and other nonverbal elements of the voice—has received relatively little attention in intercultural communica- tion research (Gudykunst & Kim, 1992; LaBarre, 1985; Rich, 1974; Scheflen, 19735 Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981). The sounds of the human voice vary greatly from. culture to culture, For example, to speakers of other languages, German speakers seem dominant and angry, Americans often erroneously perceive Saudi Arabians to be excited or angry due to their intonation patterns (Lustig & Koester, 1993). Despite the linguistic similarity between the Scandinavian languages Swedish and Danish, the differences in pronunciation cause Swedes to joke that “Danes don't spéak, they just make animal sounds!” Italians and Mexicans complain that the tones of English are unromantic and difficult to use to communicate intimacy. ‘Music and singing, universal forms of nonverbal communication, have been almost completely overlooked in intercultural research, except for one excellent study (Lomax, 1968) that identified several groups of worldwide cultures through differences and similarities in their folk sounds. Lomax’s research is so thorough that migration and diffusion patterns among cultures can be studied by examin- ing his data. ‘Accents are one aspect of vocalics that has been widely researched (for a summary see Giles & Street, 1994). Research has shown that regional, ethnic, and Dlue-collar accents are preferred by members of one’s own group but thought of as signs of low intelligence, low education, low status, and low success by the dominant, or “mainstream,” culture. This research on vocalic stereotyping has been conducted in a number of countries, with similar patterns emerging regard- less of the country. Olfactics Olfactic differences among cultures have not been widely studied. Reports of chemical and olfactic communication are given only cursory treatment in con- temporary intercultural textbooks because of the limited research on this topic 8182 ‘Chapter 4 + Cultural Cues (see Gudykunst & Kim, 1992; Jandt, 1995; Lustig & Koester, 1993). One thing we do know is that North Americans are arguably the most uptight culture on earth about smell. To them, no body odor is a good body odor. Not so in other places. In the Middle East communication is so much more intense than in Europe and in the United States and Canada. According to Hall (1966b), in Arab cultures, “Not only is the sheer noise level much higher, but the piercing look of the eyes, the touch of the hands, and the mutual bathing in the warm, moist breath rep- resents stepped-up sensory inputs to a level Europeans find unbearably intense” (p. 158). The feel and smell of another's breath, considered obnoxious and offen- sive by Americans and Canadians, is an intimacy cue in the Middle East, much like eye contact and nodding in the United States. Locating and Defining Culture The word culture is frequently used in a variety of ways. To avoid confusion, culture is defined in this book as “the enduring influence of the social world ‘on one’s behavior, including interpersonal communication behavior” (Andersen, 1997, p. 246). Culture, along with the social situation and the individual's personal traits and internal state, is one of the four primary antecedents of interpersonal behavior (Andersen, 1987, 19975 Figure 4.1). Culture is a learned set of shared perceptions about belief, values, and needs that affects the behaviors of relatively large groups of people (Lustig & Koester, 1993). Culture exerts a considerable force on individual behavior through what Geertz (1973) calls “control mecha- rnisms—plans, recipes, rules, instructions (what computer engineers call ‘pro- grams’)—for the governing of behavior” (p. 44). Culture has persuasive effects on members who live in its sphere, although not all people are affected uni- formly. Culture is usually an intergenerational phenomenon, because the family and the community inculcate in children the views, rules, norms, and folkways of their culture, “Culture can be behaviorally observed by contrasting intragroup homogeneity with intergroup heterogeneity” (Andersen, Lustig, & Andersen, 1986, p. 1). Culture is often confused with personal traits because both are enduring influences on a person's nonverbal behavior (Andersen, 1987, 1997). Personal traits, however, derive from multiple sources (Andersen, 1987), including ge- netics, environmental influences, and individual consciousness, as well as cul- ture. Culture is also sometimes confused with the situation because both are part of one’s social environment. Culture, however, is an enduring phenomenon, whereas each situation is a transient experience with an observable beginning and end. Culture, along with genetics, is the most enduring, powerful, and invisible shaper of our communication behavior. ae |Dimensions of Cu Location of influence FIGURE 4.1 Sources of Social itterhar influence on interpersonal environment forces behavior. Enduring Gs phenorna | Culture Traits Time fame |, ransient Prennena | Situation State Dimensions of Culture Each culture manifests thousands of nonverbal behavioral differences—some small and subtle, some large and obvious—that distinguish it from every other culture. Because there are hundreds of different cultures on earth, the list of these differences is almost an endless one. Fortunately, there is a way to organize these differences into meaningful dimensions or groups. Researchers have identified @ set of six dimensions that may explain why cultures differ in their nonverbal be- havior (Andersen, 1988; Hecht, Andersen, & Ribeau, 1989; Hofstede, 1982). Ar- guably, most cultural variations in nonverbal behavior, including those discussed in the first part of this chapter, are the result of these fundamental dimensions. Immediacy Orientation Immediacy behaviors are defined as actions that simultaneously communicate warmth, closeness, and availability for communication and signal approach rather than avoidance and closeness rather than distance (see Chapter 8 for more ‘on nonverbal immediacy). Cultures that display considerable interpersonal close- ness or immediacy have been labeled contact cultures; people in these cultures stand closer to each other, touch more (Hall, 1966b), and are generally more expressive than are people in noncontact cultures, who tend to stand farther apart, touch less, and manifest less nonverbal expressiveness. Patterson (1983) maintains: These habitual patterns of relating to the world permeate all aspects of every- day life, but their effects on social behavior define the manner in which people relate to one another. In the case of contact cultures, this general tendency is manifested in closer approaches so that tactile and olfactory information may be gained easily. (p: 145) Cultures also differ in the degree of sensory stimulation they prefer. Contact cul- tures create immediacy by increasing sensory input, whereas noncontact cultures prefer less sensory involvement.84 Chapter 4 + Cultural Cues y [ Noncontact Cutures [BBD Contact Cultures Myanmar Taiwan Mediterranean region, Northern Africa (formerly Burma) Thailand including: Eastem Europe China Vietnam France (including Russia) Hong Kong Norway Greece Indonesia Japan Sweden Israel Middle East South Korea Finland taly Latin America Philippines Germany Portugal {including Mexico) Spain South America FIGURE 4.2 _Immediacy orientations of selected countries and regions. Although much has been written about contact and noncontact cultures, only a handful of studies have examined the immediacy dimension of culture. As shown in Figure 4.2, research indicates that contact cultures include Indonesia, most Arab countries (including those in northern Africa), as well as coun- tries in the Mediterranean region (including France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain), the Middle East, eastern Europe (including Russia), and virtually all of Latin America (including Mexico; Condon and Yousef, 1983; Hecht, Andersen, & Ribeau, 1989; Jones, 1994; Jones & Remland, 1982; Mehrabian, 1971a; Patterson, 1983; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981; Scheflen, 1972). Australians are moderate in their cultural-contact level. Noncontact cultures include most of northern Eu- rope (including Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Great Britain), Anglo- Americans (the predominant culture of the United States), as well as virtually every Asian country (including Myanmar—formerly Burma—China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; ‘Andersen, Andersen, & Lustig, 1987; Heslin & Alper, 1983; Jones, 1994; Jones & Remland, 1982; McDaniel & Andersen, 1995; Mehrabian, 19714; Patterson, 19835 Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981; Scheflen, 1972).Dimensions of Culture 85 Although, in general, the Japanese touch very little and strive to maintain their personal space, extreme crowding during rush hour in Tokyo is quite common and accepted as normal by urban commuters. Two recent studies (McDaniel & Andersen, 1998; Remland, Jones, & Brick- man, 1991) suggest that residents of the United States, Canada, and Great Britain may actually fall under the contact category. According to this research, these cultures engage in considerable touch and maintain relatively close interpersonal distances. These studies question Hall’s (1966b) research and suggest that his original designation of some cultures—such as Europe and North America (ex- cluding Mexico)—as noncontact cultures was an oversimplification. One expla- nation for these conflicting findings is that younger people—that is, those born after World War II—in England and the United States exhibit much higher con- tact and more nonverbally expressive behaviors than their parents and grandpar- ents. Members of the baby-boomer generation and generations that followed have grown up in a culture permeated by international and intercultural media, intercultural contact, mediated sports celebrations replete with physical contact, rock and roll, and a counterculture ideologically predisposed to contact. Try giv- ing a hug or a high five to a person over 55 (with the exception of family mem- bers) and see if I’m right. A person in his or her 20s—that is, a member of a contact culture—is much more likely to respond to your high five. It may not be that Hall’s findings about Europe and North America were wrong; instead, they may have simply failed to detect the dramatic culture change that was simulta- neously occurring in our globally mediated world.86 Chapter4 + Cultural Cues Contact cultures tend to be located in the Middle East, the Mediterranean region, and in lower latitudes near the equator. Research has identified several factors—including energy level, climate, sunlight, and metabolism—that may explain such latitudinal variations (Andersen, Lustig, & Andersen, 1990). Evi- dently, cultures in cooler climates tend to be more task-oriented and interperson- ally “cool,” whereas cultures in warmer climates tend to be more interpersonally oriented and interpersonally “warm.” Even within the United States, more- immediate cultures tend to be located in the warmer latitudes. Andersen, Lustig, & Andersen (1990) report a 31 correlation between latitude and touch avoidance among American university students. ‘These data suggest that students attend- ing universities located in the sun belt are more touch-oriented and thus consti- tute contact cultures or subcultures. Furthermore, research suggests that African ‘Americans tend to be warmer, more expressive, and more immediate than Eu- ropean Americans (Lustig & Koester; 1993). Recently, Pennebaker, Rime, and Sproul (1994) found a correlation between latitude and expressiveness within dozens of countries. Their studies show that northerners are less expressive in Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Ja~ pan, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States than are southerners in these countries; in fact, a difference in expressiveness has been found to exist actoss the entire northern hemisphere. Pennebaker et al. (1994) conclude: Logically, climate must profoundly affect social processes. People living in cold climates devote more time to dressing, to providing warmth, to planning ahead for food provisions during the winter months. ... In warm climates, people are more likely to see, hear, and interact with neighbors year round. Emotional expressiveness, then, would be more of a requirement. (pp. 15-16) Similarly, Andersen, Lustig, and Andersen (1990) conclude: In Northern latitudes societies must be more structured, more ordered, more constrained, and more organized if the individuals are to survive harsh weather forces. ... In contrast, southern latitudes may attract or produce a culture characterized by social extravagance and flamboyance that has no strong incli- nation to constrain or order their world. (p. 307) McDaniel and Andersen's (2998) data on public touch suggest the biggest cultural difference in immediacy is between Asians, who rarely touch in public, and people from virtually every other culture, all of whom manifest higher de- grees of public touching, These findings are consistent with other research that suggests that China and Japan are distinctly nontouch cultures (Barnland, 19785 Jones, 1994). Research by Klopf and Thompson (1991) reveals that Japanese stu- dents reported themselves to be significantly less immediate than either Finnish or American students, This provides additional evidence that Asia is a low- immediacy, noncontact region and that northern Europe and North America— excluding Mexico—may be higher-immediacy regions than previously believed,Dimensions of Culture 87 ri ‘The United States is the most individualistic culture on earth. Despite traffic jams and air pollution, individualistic Americans typically commute one person to a car. though not as highly immediate as cultures located in Latin America, the Medi- terranean, or the Middle East. Little other research has been conducted on the differences in immediacy and contact between Asia and the rest of the world. Why is Asia such a low- immediacy culture? McDaniel and Andersen (1995) speculate that Confucianism, with its emphasis on self-control, respect, decorum, and proper behavior, may restrain the expressiveness of cultures under its influence. Perhaps the Asian em- phasis on collectivism (discussed in the following section) is a primary force that emphasizes respect of others at the expense of individual expressiveness. To summarize the cultural differences in immediacy: in general, north- ern countries, northern parts of individual countries, traditional cultures, and Asian countries are the least immediate and expressives southern regions, modern countries, and non-Asian cultures are the most expressive and immediate. Obvi- ously, these findings are painted with a fairly broad brush and must await a more detailed cultural portrait. Individualism Versus Collectivism Perhaps the most fundamental dimensions along which cultures differ is their degree to which the core values of a culture center on individualism versus col-[Bi coltectvist Cultures [Ed inividuatstic Cuttures (11 highest counties, in orden (I highest courres, in order) | 1. Venezuela 7. Singapore 1. United States 7. aly | Zcolombia 8. Chile 2Ausialia—&. Belgium j SiPakistan 9. Hong Kong 3. Great Briain 8: Denmark Pera 10, Yugoslavia XGanada 101 France S.Taiwan 17, Portugal S.Netherlands 11; Sweden 6. Thaland 6. New Zealand FIGURE 4.3 _Individualistic versus collectivist rankings of selected countries (Hofstede, 1982). lectivism. This dimension explains the ways in which people live (for example, i alone, in families, in villages or tribes, see Hofstede, 1982), their values, and how | ‘they communicate, including how they communicate nonverbally. Individualistic cultures value space, privacy, emotional expression, and personal choice of non- verbal behavior. Collectivist cultures value contact, togetherness, and restrained individual expression of emotion, particularly the expression of negative emo- tion. Collectivists engage in nonverbal behaviors that benefit the group. | In his landmark study of forty noncommunist countries, Hofstede (1982) | reports that the nine most individualistic nations are (in order) the United States, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Italy, Belgium, and Denmark—all of which are Western, developed cultures with predominantly Furopean roots (Figure 4.3). The nine most collectivist nations are (in order) Venezuela, Colombia, Pakistan, Peru, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Chile, and Hong Kong—all Asian or South American cultures. Similarly, Sitaram and Cod- gell (1976) reported individuality to be of primary importance in Western cul- tures, of secondary importance in African cultures, and of lesser importance in Eastern and Muslim cultures. oe| ee Dimensions of Culture Individualism is one of the fundamental dimensions that distinguish cul- tures, particularly Eastern cultures from Western cultures. “There is little doubt that Western culture is individualistic, so people rely on personal judgments. Eastern cultures emphasize harmony among people, between people and nature, and value collective judgments” (Hecht, Andersen, & Ribeau, 1989, p.170). Tom- kins (1984) argues that an individual’s psychological makeup is the result of this, cultural dimension. He states, “Human beings, in Western Civilization, have tended toward self-celebration, positive or negative. In Oriental thought another alternative is represented, that of harmony between man and nature” (p. 182). ‘According to Lustig and Koester (1993), individualism is characterized by the key words “independence, privacy, self, and the all-important I” (p. 144). By contrast, collectivist cultures emphasize we and a sense of connection and belonging. Ac- cording to Jandt (1995), the Japanese concept of amea best typifies collectivist cultures. Amea is characterized by nurturing concern, dependence on others, and a wish to be loved and cared for unconditionally. For better or worse, Americans are individualists. According to the U.S. census of 1990, the most common American houschold consisted of one person and the second most common household comprised two people. Americans see individualism as a blessing and have elevated it to the status of a national religion (Andersen, 1988). From the early days of the American republic, individualism has been celebrated. In his writings about America in the 1830s, the Erench phi- osopher Alexis de Tocqueville (1835/1945) noted: Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and friends, so that he has thus formed a little circle of his ‘own, ... he willingly leaves society at large to itself (p. 104). “The best and the worst of American culture is attributable to individualism. Proponents of individualism have argued that itis the basis of liberty, democracy, freedom, and economic incentive and that it serves as a protection against tyr- anny. Conversely, individualism has been blamed for our alienation from one another, loneliness, selfishness, crime, and narcissism. Indeed, Hall (1976) has claimed that as an extreme individualist, “Western man has created chaos by denying that part of his self that integrates while enshrining the parts that frag- ment experience” (p. 9) ‘Although the United States is the most individualistic country on earth (An- dersen, 1988; Hofstede, 19825 Prosser, 1978), regions of the United States vary in their degree of individualism. Elazar (1972) has shown that the central Midwest and mid-Atlantic regions are the most individualistic political culture, whereas the Southeast is the most traditionalistic and least individualistic. Remember, however, that these findings are all relative; by world standards, even Mississippi is an individualistic culture. Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton (1985) 8990 Chapter 4 + Cultural Cues Individualism lies at the very core of American culture. ... Anything that ‘would violate our right to think for ourselves, judge for ourselves, make our own decisions, live our lives as we see fit, is not only morally wrong, itis sacri- legious. (p. 142) Just as geographical regions of the United States differ in their degree of individu- alism, s0 too do various ethnic groups. African Americans, for example, empha- size individualism, whereas Mexican Americans emphasize group and relational solidarity (Hecht, Andersen, & Ribeau, 1989). Indeed, extreme individualism makes it difficult for most Americans to interact with and understand people from other cultures. As Condon and Yousef (1983) stated, “The fusion of indi- vidualism and equality is so valued and so basic that many Americans find it most difficult to relate to contrasting values in other cultures where interdependence greatly determines a person's sense of self” (p. 65). Whether a culture is individualistic or collectivist affects the nonverbal be- havior of that culture in every way. First, people from individualistic cultures are more remote proxemically. Collectivist cultures are interdependent, and as a re- sult, people work, play, ive, and sleep in close proximity to each other. Hofstede (1982) cites research that suggests that as hunters and gatherers, people lived apart in individualistic, nuclear families. As agricultural societies developed, the inter- dependent extended family began living in close proximity in large family or tribal units, Urban-industrial societies later returned to the norm of individu alism, nuclear families, and lack of proximity to one’s neighbors, friends, and coworkers. Kinesic behavior tends to be more synchronized in collectivist cultures. Where families work collectively, movements, schedules, and actions need to be highly coordinated (Argyle, 1975a). In developed, urban cultures, family members often “do their own thing,” coming and going, working and playing, eating and sleeping, all on different schedules. People in individualistic cultures also smile more than in normatively, or collectively, oriented cultures, according to Tom- kins (1984). This is probably due to the fact that individualists are responsible for their relationships and their own happiness, whereas collectively oriented people regard compliance with norms as a primary value and personal or interpersonal happiness as a secondary value (Andersen, 1988). Matsumoto (1993) contends that “collective cultures will foster emotional displays of their members that maintain and facilitate group cohesion, harmony, or cooperation, to a greater degree than individualistic cultures” (p. 132). Similarly, Lustig and Koester (1993) maintain that “people from individualistic cultures are more likely than those from collectivist cultures to use confrontational strategies when dealing with in- terpersonal problems; those with a collectivist orientation arc likely to use avoid- ance, third-party intermediaries, or other face-saving techniques” (p. 147). People in collectivist cultures may suppress both positive and negative emotional dis- plays that are contrary to the mood of the group, because maintaining the group'sDimensions of Culture 91. cohesion is a primary value (Andersen, 1988). Bond (1993) reports that the Chi- nese culture is lower in frequency, intensity, and duration of emotional expres- sion. Bond contends that “the expression of emotion is carefully regulated out of a concern for its capacity to disrupt group harmony and status hierarchies” (p. 245). People in individualistic cultures are encouraged to express emotions nonverbally, especially in their face and voice, because individual freedom is a paramount value. Research suggests that people in individualistic cultures are nonverbally affiliative. Intuitively, the reason for this is not obvious, because in- dividualism doesn't require affiliation. However, as Hofstede (1982) explains: In less individualistic countries where traditional social ties, like those with extended family members, continue to exist, people have less of a need to make specific friendships. One's friends are predetermined by the social rela- tionships into which one is born. In the more individualistic countries, how- ever, affective relationships are not socially predetermined but must be acquired by each individual personally. (p. 163) In individualistic countries, affiliation, dating, flirting, small talk, smiling, and initial acquaintance are more important than in collectivist countries, where the social network is more fixed and less reliant on individual initiative. Bellah etal. (1985) maintain that over the centuries, the individualistic and mobile nature of US. society has enabled people to meet more easily and maintain more open communication; at the same time, however, it has caused their relationships to be more casual and transient. Finally, in an impressive study of dozens of cultures, Lomax (1968) found that song and dance styles of a country were related to its level of social cohesion and collectivism. Collectivist cultures exhibit higher cohesiveness in their sing- | ing styles and more synchrony in their dance styles (Lomax, 1968). It isn’t sur- | prising that rock dancing, which emphasizes separateness and “doing your own thing,” evolved in such individualistic cultures as England and the United States. | Americans’ style of dancing may serve as a metaphor for the whole USS. culture, which emphasizes individuality more than any other country in the world (An- dersen, 1988). Gender Orientation ‘The gender orientation of culture has a huge impact on many aspects of com- | munication, including nonverbal behavior. Although gender is a biologically de- termined trait—each of us is born as a male or female- is also regulated by the gender rules of each culture. In most cultures, males are socialized into so- called masculine roles, which emphasize qualities such as power and dominance, | and females are socialized into traditionally feminine roles, which emphasize | qualities such as nurturance and compassion. Gender roles regulate (1) the types92 Chapter4 + Cultural Cues of expressions permitted by each sex, (2) occupational status, (3) nonverbal as- pects of power, (4) the ability to interact with strangers or acquaintances of the opposite sex, and (5) all aspects of interpersonal relationships between men and women, “While numerous studies have focused on gender as an individual char- acteristic, gender has been neglected as a cultural dimension” (Hecht, Andersen, & Ribeau, 1989, p. 171). ‘As conceptualized here, gender orientation refers to the degree of mascu- linity or femininity exhibited by a culture. In rigidly masculine cultures, positive traits typically include strength, assertiveness, competitiveness, and ambitious- ness; less valued are typically feminine traits such as affection, compassion, nur- turance, and emotionality (Bem, 1974; Hofstede, 1982). Masculine cultures also regard power and materialism as important values (Gudykunst & Kim, 19933 Hofstede, 1982). People in masculine cultures believe in ostentatious manliness (Lustig & Koester, 1993). Masculine Latino countries such as Mexico and Vene- zuela emphasize machismo, or macho male characteristics. Similarly, masculine Germanic countries such as Austria, Germany, and Switzerland value “manly” ‘men—as satirically depicted in the classic “Hans and Frans” routine on Saturday Night Live, in which Hans and Frans are “all pumped up,” not “ittle girlie guys.” By contrast, feminine (also called androgynous) cultures emphasize nurtur- ance, compassion, and quality of life (Hofstede, 1982). These cultures have more flexible sex roles and allow both men and women to express more diverse, less stereotyped sex-role behaviors. Not surprisingly, women have more rights and privileges in feminine cultures. Hofstede (1982) has measured the degree to which a culture endorses mas- culine or feminine goals. The masculinity of a culture is negatively correlated with a high percentage of women in technical and professional jobs and positively correlated with segregation of sexes in higher education (Hofstede, 1982). The countries with the nine highest masculinity index scores, according to Hofstede (1982), are (in order) Japan, Austria, Venezuela, Italy, Switzerland, Mexico, Ireland, Great Britain, and Germany (Figure 4.4). The majority of the countries in this ist are located in western and central Europe and the Caribbean region. The nine countries with the highest feminine scores are (in order) Swe- den, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Finland, Chile, Portugal, and Thailand—a good percentage of these countries being located in northern Europe. Compared to low-masculinity countries, high-masculinity countrieshave fewer women in the labor force, have only recently afforded voting privileges to women, and are least likely to consider wife rape a crime (Seager & Olson, 1986). Why don't most South American cultures manifest stronger masculine orientations and the Latin pattern of machismo? Hofstede (1982) suggests that machismo is more prevalent in the Caribbean-bordering countries than in the remainder of South America. In fact, South America, as compared to Central ‘America, has a much higher percentage of working women, much higher school attendance by gitls, and more women in higher education (Seager & Olson, 1986).Dimensions of Culture [a Feminine Androgynous) Cultures [Bi Maseutine Cultures (11 highest countries, inorder (1 highest countries, in order) 1.Sweden 7. Chile 1. Japan 7. eland 2Nonay 8. Portugal ZAtstia 8, Great Brain 2 Netherlands 9. Thailand Svenezuela 9. Germany 4. Denmark 10. Spain 4 tly 10. Philippines 5. Yugoslavia 11. Feru 5. Switzeriand 11, Colombia 6. Finland 6. Mexico FIGURE4.4 Gender orientations of selected countries (Hofstede, 1982). Furthermore, Brazil—the largest country in South America—manifests consid- erable Portuguese influence in its language and culture. Because Portugal tends to be feminine in its gender orientations, its values may still be evident in contem- porary Brazilian behavior. Research suggests that androgynous patterns of behavior (that are both feminine and masculine) result in higher levels of self-esteem, social competence, success, and intellectual development for both males and females (Andersen, 1988) and may even lead to greater physical health, because both masculine strength and fitness and feminine expressiveness and nurturance are associated with good health. Is ita coincidence that the more androgynous (feminine) coun- tries are associated with longer life expectancies? Perhaps not. Nonverbal styles that allow both men and women alike to express both masculine traits (such as, dominance and strength) and femninine attributes (such as warmth and emotion- ality) are likely to contribute to physical and emotional well-being. Buck (1984) hhas demonstrated that many males may harm their health by internalizing emo- tions rather than externalizing them, as women usually do. Internalized emotions that aren't expressed result in more stress and higher blood pressure. Interest- ingly, more-masculine countries show higher levels of stress (Hofstede, 1982). 93 “om94 —— Chapter4 + Cultural Cues Considerable research has demonstrated significantnonverbal vocalic differ- ‘ences between egalitarian and nonegalitarian countries, Countries where women are economically important and where sexual standards for women are permissive show more relaxed vocal patterns than less-egalitarian countries (Lomax, 1968). Moreover, these egalitarian countries show less tension between the sexes, more vocal solidarity and coordination in their songs, and more synchrony in their overall movement (Lomax, 1968). Tn feminine countries, as compared to masculine countries, same-sex touch is more common. Masculine cultures tend to have a more rigid and unaccepting view toward same-sex touch, particularly among males, Feminine countries have more permissive attitudes about sexual behavior, particularly for women (Hof- stede, 1982). Indeed, many of the most feminine countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, are criticized by people of other nationalities for their liberal attitudes and laws regarding sexual behavior. Itis important to note that, according to Hofstede (1982), the United States tends to be a masculine country, although it is not among the very most mascu- line. Intercultural communicators should keep in mind that other countries may be either more or less sexually egalitarian than the United States. Because most countries are more feminine than the United States (that is, they are more nur- turing and compassionate), Americans of both sexes frequently seem dominant, oud, aggressive, and competitive by world standards, conveying the image of the “ugly American.” Likewise, Americans’ attitude toward women may seem sexist in extremely feminine cultures such as Scandinavia. Power-Distance Orientation A fourth basic dimension of intercultural communication is power distance. Power distance —the degree to which power, prestige, and wealth are unequally distributed in a culture—has been measured in a number of cultures using Hofstede’s (1982) Power Distance Index (PDI). In cultures with high PDI scores, power, wealth, and influence are concentrated in the hands of a few rather than being more equally distributed throughout the population. Condon and Yousef (2983) distinguish among three cultural patterns: democratic, authority-centered, and authoritarian. The PDI is highly correlated (.80) with authoritarianism (Hof- stede, 1982). ‘According to Hofstede (1982), the highest-PDI countries are (in order) the Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela, India, Yugoslavia, Singapore, Brazil, France, Hong Kong, and Colombia (Figure 4.5). This list is dominated by countries lo- | cated in the low latitudes of Asia and the Americas. Gudykunst and Kim (1992) | report that both African and Asian cultures usually establish hierarchical relation ships. Asian students are expected to be modest and deferent nonverbally in the presence of their instructors. Likewise, the Vietnamese consider teachers and em- | ployers to be their mentors and will not question orders. The nine lowest PDI | countries are (in order) Austria, Israel, Denmark, New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, ae| [i Low-Power-Distance Cultures [EI] High-Power-Distance Cultures (17 lowest countries, in order) (17 highest counties, in order) 1. Austria 7.Nonway 1. Philippines 7. Brazil 2 Israel 8 Finland 2.Mexico 8 France 3. Denmark 9. Switzerland 3. Venezuela _9. Hong Kong 4. New Zealand 10. Great Britain 4. India 10, Colombia 5. ireland 11. Germany 5, Yugoslavia 11. Turkey 6, Sweden 6. Singapore FIGURE4.5 Power-distance orientations of selected countries (Hofstede, 1982). Norway, Finland, and Switzerland (Hofstede, 1982). Most of the countries in this list are middle-class, developed democracies located at high latitudes. A primary determiner of power distance is weather and climate (for a dis- cussion of these macroenvironmental nonverbal factors see Chapter 3). Hofstede (1982) claims that latitude and climate are major forces that shape a culture. He maintains that the key intervening variable is climate. For example, in colder climates, technology is needed for survival. This produces a chain of events in which people come to rely on each other rather than on authority figures. Edu- cation, teamwork, and individual initiative are necessary to survive in harsh, vari- able climates, as are creative solutions to problems and changing conditions, rather than simple obedience to authority. The result is that most low-PDI cul- tures are found in high latitudes and harsh climates; in fact, Hofstede (1982) reports a .65 correlation between PDI and latitude! In a study conducted at forty U.S. universities, Andersen, Lustig, and Andersen (1990) reported a —.47 correlation between latitude and intolerance for ambiguity and a —.45 correlation between latitude and authoritarianism. This suggests that residents of the north- ern United States are less authoritarian and more tolerant of ambiguity than those 95 Ne Zeta a96 (Chapter 4 + Cultural Cues in the southern United States. Northern US. cultures, like their international counterparts, may have to be less autocratic and more cooperative to ensure col- laboration and survival in harsher climates. ‘The United States scores slightly lower than the median on the PDI, indi- cating lesser status differentials than many countries but more inequality than many others. Cultures differ in terms of how status in acquired. In many coun- tries, such as India, one’s status is historically ascribed according to class. In the United States, however, power and status are typically achieved through mone- tary success and manifested by conspicuous material displays of materialism (An- dersen & Bowman, 1990). ‘The population of a country or a culture may be another predictor of power distance. Generally, larger cultures score higher on the PDI (Lustig & Koester, 1993). As the size of any group increases, it becomes unwieldy and difficult to ‘manage informally. This is even true of larger classrooms, larger governments, and larger organizations. In larger aggregations, informal relationships must yield to formal rules, bureaucracies, and hierarchical relationships. For cultures with large populations to function effectively, social and political hierarchies must be created, causing the power-distance factor to increase, The fact that most low- power-distance countries are small, well-managed democracies is probably not coincidental. Power distance affects the nonverbal behavior of a culture. In high-PDI cul- tures such as India, with its rigid caste system, interaction among the classes is severely limited, More than 20 percent of India’s population are identified as “un- touchables”; these individuals languish at the bottom of India’s five-caste system (Chinoy, 1967). Any contact with untouchables by members of other castes is strictly forbidden and considered “polluting,” Certainly, tactile communication between castes is greatly curtailed in Indian culture. High-PDI countries with less rigid stratification than India may still prohibit free interclass dating, marriage, and contact—opportunities that are taken for granted in low-PDI countries. Low-PDI countries are much more likely to permit nonverbal communication of all types, including liberal interpersonal association, close interpersonal distances, and greater tactile contact and visual exchanges. Civilizations with large power discrepancies produce different kinesic be- havior. High-PDI cultures foster and encourage emotions that underscore status differences. In high-PDI cultures, people are expected to show only positive emo- tions to others with high status and to display negative emotions to others with low status (Matsumoto, 1991; Porter & Samovar, 1998). According to Andersen and Bowman (1990), the bodily tension of subordinates is more obvious in power- discrepant relationships. Similarly, Andersen and Bowman (1990) report that in power-discrepant circumstances, subordinates smile more in an effort to appease superiors and appear polite. The ever present smiles on many Asians’ faces con- stitute a culturally inculcated behavior of appeasing superiors and smoothing social relations; this nonverbal behavior is in keeping with a high-PDI cultural profile,Dimensions of Culture Vocalic, or paralinguistic, cues also vary according to the power-distance dimension of a given culture. Citizens of low-PDI cultures are generally less aware that vocal loudness may be offensive to others. American vocal tones are often perceived as noisy, exaggerated, and childlike (Condon & Yousef, 1983). Lomax (1968) has shown that in countries where political authority is highly centralized, singing voices are tighter and the voice box is more closed; by contrast, more permissive societies produce more relaxed, open, and clear sounds. Uncertainty Orientation People in all cultures face change, unpredictability, and uncertainty. Uncertainty orientation is a cultural predisposition toward risk and ambiguity (Hecht, Ander- sen, & Ribeau, 1989). Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance dislike ambiguity and uncertainty and believe that certain rules and beliefs will reduce uncertainty; at the individual level, this predisposition is often called tolerance or intolerance for ambiguity (Martin & Westie, 1959). People with an intolerance for ambiguity or with high levels of uncertainty avoidance want clear, black-and-white answers, fear change, and dread the future. People with a high tolerance for ambiguity and with low levels of uncertainty avoidance are more tolerant, accept ambiguous answers, see many shades of gray, and embrace future change. Hofstede (1982) demonstrates that a country’s uncertainty avoidance is highly correlated with a high incidence of neuroticism and anxiety in its population. High uncertainty avoidance is negatively correlated with risk-taking and positively correlated with fear of failure. Countries vary greatly in their tolerance for uncertainty. In some cultures, freedom leads to uncertainty, which leads to stress and anxiety. Hofstede (1982) ‘maintains that intolerance of ambiguity and dogmatism are primarily a function of the uncertainty-avoidance dimension rather than the power-distance dimen- sion, According to Hofstede (1982), the nine countries with the highest levels of uncertainty avoidance are (in order) Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Japan, Yugosla- via, Peru, Argentina, Chile, and France (Figure 4.6); this list is dominated by southern European and South American countries. The nine countries with the highest levels of uncertainty tolerance are (in order) Singapore, Denmark, Swe- den, Hong Kong, Ireland, Great Britain, India, the Philippines, and the United States; this list is dominated by northern European and Southeast Asian cul- tures. Hofstede (1982) also reports that Catholic countries are high in uncertainty avoidance, whereas Protestant, Hindu, and Buddhist countries tend to be more accepting of uncertainty; Eastern religions and Protestantism tend to be less “absolute” than Catholicism. Andersen, Lustig, and Andersen (1990) report that intolerance for ambiguity is much higher in the southern United States than in the north; this tendency reflects the international pattern of tolerance at higher latitudes. Fewer studies have examined the uncertainty dimension of nonverbal be- havior than the other dimensions of culture. However, some research has shown 9798 United States Chapter 4 + Cultural Cues Gre Bain ireland France Portugal spain wm [a Uncertainty-Tolerant Cultures LUncertainty-Avoidant Cultures (12 highest countries, in order) (12 highest countries, in order) 1. Singapore 7. India 1.Greece 7. Argentina 2. Denmark 8 Philippines 2.Portugal 8 Chile 3. Sweden 9, United States 3.Belgium 9. France 4.Hong Kong 10. Canads Japan 10. Spain 5 lreland 11, South AMtica 5. Yugoslavia 11. Turkey 6. Great Britain 12, New Zealand 6. Peru 12, Mexico, FIGURE 4.6 Uncertainty orientations of selected countries (Hofstede, 1982). that emotional displays are associated with uncertainty avoidance. Hofstede (1982) maintains that uncertainty-avoidant countries tend to display emotions more than do uncertainty-tolerant countries. Furthermore, he reports that uncertainty- avoidant countries are less tolerant in their attitudes toward young people and their emotional displays. According to Gudykunst and Kim (1992), when consen- sus or uniformity breaks down in high-uncertainty-avoidant countries, people become upset and show their emotions more than do residents of uncertainty- tolerant countries, who are more likely to tolerate change or nonconformity. Residents of high-uncertainty-avoidant cultures, such as Greece or France, are most likely to experience and exhibit stress and anxiety cues (Hofstede, 19825 see Chapter 7 for a complete discussion of these behaviors). Certainly, disagreement and nonconformity are not appreciated in high- uncertainty-avoidant countries. Moreover, such cultures seem to prefer verbal behavior over nonverbal behavior. Indeed, Hofstede (1982) reports that in high- uncertainty-avoidant countries, rituals are created to provide “pseudocertainty,” or the illusion of certainty. Such cultures place great importance on memos and reports and structured information collection and dissemination procedures— all with the intent of creating the illusion, if not the reality, of certainty.Dimensions of Culture Similarly, nonverbal behavior is more likely to be codified and rule- governed in high-uncertainty-avoidant countries. This means that kinesic and proxemic behaviors, for example, follow a strict set of rules and rituals, Such a profile seems to fit a high-uncertainty-avoidant country like Japan but remains to be tested and is somewhat speculative. Hofstede (1982) found that high- tuncertainty-avoidant nations report more stylized and ritualized behavior, so we should expect nonverbal behavior to be more proscribed in these cultures. When communicating with people from a high-uncertainty-avoidant country such as Japan or France, Americans may come across as excessively unconventional and lacking in manners; at the same time, Americans may view their Japanese or French counterparts as too controlled and rigid (Lustig & Koester, 1993). High Context Versus Low Context Context is the final important dimension of intercultural communication. Con- text provides situational or environmental cues that frame any communication and influence its meaning (see Chapter 3 for more about the contextual codes of nonverbal communication). E. T. Hall (1976, 1984) has described high- and low- context cultures in considerable detail. “A high context (HIC) communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very litte isin the coded, explicit, transmitted parts of the message” (Hall, 1976, p. 93). Lifelong friends often use high-context, or implicit, messages that are nearly impossible for an outsider to understand. The situation itself, a smile, or a glance provides implicit meaning that does not need to be articulated. “In a high-context culture, much more is taken for granted and assumed to be shared, and consequently the overwhelming preponderance of messages are coded in such a way that they don’t have to be explicitly and verbally transmitted” (Lustig & Koester, 1993, p. 133). In high-context situations or cultures, information is gleaned from the environment, the context, the situ- ation, and from nonverbal cues that give the message meaning in the absence of explicit verbal utterance. Low-context messages are just the opposite of high-context messages; most of the information is provided in the explicit code (Hall, 1976). Low- context messages must be elaborated, clearly communicated, and highly spe- cific. Unlike personal relationships, which tend to utilize high-context message systems, institutions such as courts of law and formal systems such as math- ematics and computer language require explicit, low-context message systems (E.T. Hall, 1984). Ina high-context country, the power structure is well known, and people behave with great deference toward their superiors. By contrast, in a low-context culture, people are oblivious to the power structure until they are told who is powerful and who is not. In a high-context culture, a negative facial expression or lack of enthusiasm may signal the cancellation of a business deal, whereas written notification would be required in the same case in a low-context culture. 99[i Low context Cultures [EB High-Context Cultures (6 lowest countries, in order) (@ highest countries, in order) 1.Germany 5. Norway 1.China 5. Native Americans Switzerland 6. Finland 2. Japan 6. African Americans 3. United States. 7. Denmark 3, South Korea. 7. Mexican Americans 4: Sweden 8. Canada 4 Taiwan 8, Latinos FIGURE 4.7 High-context versus low-context rankings of selected countries and groups. Cultures vary considerably in the degree of context used in communication. ‘As shown in Figure 4.7, the lowest-context cultures are Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Canada (Hall, 1976, 1984; Gudykunst & Kim, 1992). These cultures are preoccupied with specifics, details, literalness, and precise time schedules at the expense of context. They utilize behavior systems built around Aristotelian logic and linear thinking (E. T. Hall, 1984). These cultures also tend to be pathologically verbal, that is, they may miss subtle cues from other people or from the environment that are more mean- ingful than words (see Chapter 1 for more on the differences between verbal and nonverbal communication). Countries that exhibit characteristics of both high- context and low-context message systems include France, Great Britain, and Italy (Gudykunst & Kim, 1992); these countries are somewhat less explicit than far- northern European and Scandinavian cultures. The highest-context cultures are found in Asia. China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are extremely high-context cultures (Eliot, Scott, Jensen, & McDon- ough, 19825 Gudykunst & Kim, 19925 E. T. Hall, 1976, 1984). Native Americans, ‘African Americans, Mexican Americans, and Latinos are also fairly high-context groups (Lustig & Koester, 1993). Usually, language implies an explicit messageDimensions of Culture system, but the Chinese language is unique in that it is an implicit, high-context system. To use a Chinese dictionary, one must understand thousands of charac ters, which change meaning when used in varying combinations with other char- acters. Pethaps the best example of high-context communication is the Japanese tea ceremony, in which every behavior of both the host and the guests is carefully prescribed. The tea “ceremony is a highly scripted and ritualized experience that is almost incomprehensible to those who have not been trained to understand the meanings of even the most subtle behaviors” (Lustig & Koester, 1993, p. 132). According to Jandt (1995), in the tea ceremony “nothing is spoken; all meanings are in context. A typical response from a low-context observer is ‘hurry up and drink your tea’” (p. 203) Asian cultures are so reliant on context partly because they have been highly influenced by Buddhism, which places a high value on silence, lack of emotional expression, and the unspoken, nonverbal parts of communication (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989; McDaniel & Andersen, 1998). Americans frequently complain that the Japanese never “get to the point,” yet they fail to recognize that high-context cultures rely on the context and setting and let the point evolve (E. T. Hall, 1984). In a recent study of airport departures, McDaniel and Andersen (2998) found Asians to be the least tactile of any cultural group on earth. The influences of Confucianism and Buddhism and the value placed on context rather than on emotional expression probably explain this finding. Native American cultures with ancestral migratory roots in East Asia are remarkably similar to contemporary Asian cultures in several ways, especially in their use of high context communication (E. T. Hall, 1984). Before meeting with a small group of native Americans on their reservation near my home in Southern California, I instructed my Anglo-American friends to sit silently and not make a lot of idle small talk. Complying with my instruc- tions, my friends and I sat in a circle under a pepper tree and listened to the wind and the birds before the meeting commenced. From our perspective, consider- able time passed (probably only about five minutes). The Native Americans sub- sequently welcomed us back to the reservation for other ceremonies, projects, and meetings. By observing their high-context rules for communication, we had gained their trust. Not surprisingly, most Latin American cultures, a fusion of Iberian (Por- tuguese-Spanish) and Native American traditions, are also high-context cultures. Eastern Mediterranean (including Greece and Turkey) and Arab cultures tend to fall under the high-context category as well. Obviously, communication is quite different in high- and low-context cul- tures. First, explicit forms of communication such as verbal codes are more prevalent in low-context cultures such as the United States and northern Eu- rope, Research by Ting-Toomey (1991) shows that U.S. respondents are more likely to express love overtly and explicitly through verbal communication than are French or Japanese respondents, These findings are consistent with low- 101102 Chapter4 + Cultural Cues context communication patterns. People from low-context cultures are often per- ‘ceived as excessively talkative, belaboring of the obvious, and redundant. People from high-context cultures may be perceived as nondisclosive, wasteful of time, sneaky, and mysterious. Second, high-context cultures do not value verbal com- munication as highly as low-context cultures. Elliot et al. (1982) found that more- verbal people were perceived as more attractive by people in the United States (a low-context culture), but that less-verbal people were perceived as more attractive in Korea (a high-context culture). Third, high-context cultures are more likely to tune into and utilize nonverbal communication. Low-context cultures, particu- larly men in low-context cultures, fail to perceive as much nonverbal communi- cation as members of high-context cultures. Nonverbal communication provides the context for all communication (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 19675 see also Chapter 3), but people from high-context cultures are particularly affected by these contextual cues. Thus, facial expressions, tension, movements, speed of in- teraction, location of interaction, and other subtle “vibes” are likely to be per- ceived by and have more meaning for people from high-context cultures. Finally, people in high-context cultures expect more from their interaction partners than do people in low-context cultures (Hall, 1976): people in high-context cultures expect their interaction partners to pick up on unarticulated feelings, subtle ges- tures, and environmental cues, which people from low-context cultures simply do not process. Unfortunately, both cultural extremes fail to recognize these basic differences in behavior, communication, and context and are quick to misattri- bute the causes for their behavior. The Practical Benefits of Understanding Intercultural Communication Differences ‘Simply reading about these six cultural dimensions of nonverbal communication will not ensure intercultural communication competence. Combining research- based knowledge from intercultural articles and courses with actual encounters with people from other cultures is the best way to gain intercultural communi- cation competence. International travel, even travel within the United States, pro~ vvides an opportunity to gain perspective on one’s own behavior and the behavior of others that will help lead to intercultural communication competence. ‘A full, practical understanding of the dimensions along which cultures differ, as well as knowledge of how specific communication acts differ cross- culturally, has several practical benefits. First, such knowledge will highlight and challenge assumptions about our own behavior. The structure of our own behav- jor is invisible and taken for granted until it is exposed and challenged through actual intercultural encounters. Indeed, Hall (1976) stated that diversity in inter- ethnic communication can be a source of strength and self-discovery.‘The Practical Benefits of Understanding Intercultural Communication Differences International tourism, migration, study, and business has greatly increased intercultural encounters, Second, this chapter should convince you that conclusions about the non- verbal communication of people from other cultures are generalizd observations, not ironclad rules. No dictionary or code of intercultural behavior exists. You cannot read people like books, not even people from your own culture. However, understanding that another person is from a masculine, collectivist, or high- context culture may help shape your perception of her or his behavior as less confusing, more interpretable, and less bizarre. Finally, understanding intercultural communication and actually engag- ing in intercultural encounters are bound to reduce ethnocentrism and make strangers from other cultures seem less threatening. Fear is often based on igno- rance and misunderstanding. In your future life, T guarantee that you will con- tinue to meet and communicate with many people from other cultures than your own. Learn from these differences. Intercultural diversity is a source of joy and optimism about the number of possible ways to be human. 103104 Chapter 4 + Cultural Cues Summary The diversity of U.S. culture requires that Americans understand intercultural communication in order to communicate effectively. Differences in language are only the tip of the intercultural iceberg; many of the most important cultural differences are in nonverbal communication. ‘The codes of nonverbal communication, discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, are used differently by people in various cultures. Chronemically, the more devel- oped cultures, such as countries in Europe and North America, employ mono- chronic time, a time orientation in which one thing gets done at a time and time | is treated like a commodity. People in lesser-developed countries do not struc- ture time so rigidly; such cultures employ polychronic time, a time orientation that emphasizes informality and multiple simultaneous activities. Proxemically, j people from cooler, northerly climates tend to be more distant and remote inter- personally, whereas people from tropical regions tend to prefer closer interper- sonal distances. Kinesically, cultures differ as greatly in their use of emblems (gestures with verbal meanings) as in their languages. People in warmer climates use more expressive gestures and movements than do people in cooler climates. Haptic behavior varies dramatically from one culture to the next; for example, Asian cultures engage in very little touch, whereas Mediterranean cultures em- ploy a great deal of touch in their interpersonal interactions. The physical ap- pearance of people around the world in terms of hair, clothing, artifacts, and body decorations is extremely varied. Cultures also differ greatly in their use of oculesics. For example, many Mediterranean cultures use much more direct eye contact than do Americans or Asians. Vocalics also shows considerable cultural variation in intonation, loudness, pitch, and tone. In terms of olfactics, Ameri- cans are much more tuned in to smell than are most of the world’s people. Nonverbal differences across cultures center on six dimensions of human behavior. Cultures differ in immediacy, the degree to which nonverbal behavior communicates warmth, closeness, and availability for communications. Cultures high in immediacy—contact cultures—stand close to each other, touch more, | and are generally more expressive. Cultures low in immediacy—noncontact | cultures—tend to stand farther apart, touch less, and manifest less nonverbal expressiveness. Individualistic cultures value independence and privacy and ‘manifest these values in their nonverbal behavior. Conversely, collectivist cultures | value interpersonal connection and group behavior and reflect these values in their nonverbal behavior. Gender orientation is the degree to which a culture | emphasizes typically masculine traits or typically feminine traits. The nonverbal behavior of a masculine culture emphasizes assertiveness, competitiveness, and | ambitiousness. Cultures that are more feminine exhibit nonverbal behavior that stresses equality, nurturance, emotionality, and compassion. Cultures also differ in power distance, the degree to which wealth and prestige are equally or un- = A.Summary equally distributed in a culture, High-power-distance cultures have more formal, hierarchical relationships and show only positive emotions to authority figures. Low-power-distance cultures exhibit nonverbal behavior that is more informal and not structured along class lines. Uncertainty orientation is a cultural predis- position toward risk and ambiguity. Uncertainty-avoidant cultures are more con- trolled and ritualized in their behavior but exhibit more nonverbal emotional displays when under stress. Uncertainty-tolerant cultures tend to exhibit fewer prescribed nonverbal behaviors and greater tolerance toward young people and their emotional displays. Context is the final dimension of intercultural com- munication. In low-context cultures, verbal communication is emphasized and nonverbal communication is more informal. In high-context cultures, nonverbal ‘communication is highly stylized and replete with meaning. 105