UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI

J.P. Rizal Extension, West Rembo, Makati City

MODULE 4: Week 5: Cross-Cultural Communication Theories

I. Intended Learning Outcomes
At the end of Module 4, the students are able to:
1. Examine the theories of cross-cultural communication;
2. Indicate the significance of these theories in cross-cultural communication;
3. Apply these theories in cross-cultural communication encounters.

II. Introduction

It is now Module 4 learners! At this point, you will be studying the different theories
of cross-cultural communication. Additionally, you will specify the importance of these
theories and look at how can these be useful in cross-cultural communication situation.

III. Content
A. Theories in Cross-Cultural Communication

Theories of Cross-Cultural Communication

By Open Library, Pressbooks

Cross-cultural communication theories explain phenomena related to cross-cultural

research. Cross-cultural research compares and contrasts people's communication
across diverse cultures and explains the consequences of these differences.

1. Hofstede
Social psychologist Geert Hofstede (Hofstede, 1982, 2001, 2005) is one of the most
well-known researchers in cross-cultural communication and management. His
website offers useful tools and explanations about a range of cultural dimensions that
can be used to compare various dominant national cultures. Hofstede’s theory
places cultural dimensions on a continuum that range from high to low and really
only make sense when the elements are compared to another culture. Hofstede’s
dimensions include the following:

• Power Distance: High-power distance means a culture accepts and expects a

great deal of hierarchy; low-power distance means the president and janitor
could be on the same level.

• Individualism: High individualism means that a culture tends to put individual

needs ahead of group or collective needs.

• Uncertainty Avoidance: High uncertainty avoidance means a culture tends to

go to some lengths to be able to predict and control the future. Low uncertainty
avoidance means the culture is more relaxed about the future, which
sometimes shows in being willing to take risks.

1
 UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
J.P. Rizal Extension, West Rembo, Makati City

• Masculinity: High masculinity relates to a society valuing traits that were

traditionally considered masculine, such as competition, aggressiveness, and
achievement. A low masculinity score demonstrates traits that were
traditionally considered feminine, such as cooperation, caring, and quality of
life.

• Long-term orientation: High long-term orientation means a culture tends to take

a long-term, sometimes multigenerational view when making decisions about
the present and the future. Low long-term orientation is often demonstrated in
cultures that want quick results and that tend to spend instead of save.

• Indulgence: High indulgence means cultures that are OK with people indulging
their desires and impulses. Low indulgence or restraint-based cultures value
people who control or suppress desires and impulses.

These tools can provide wonderful general insight into making sense of
understanding differences and similarities across key below-the-surface cross-
cultural elements. However, when you are working with people, they may or may
not conform to what’s listed in the tools. For example, if you are Canadian but grew
up in a tight-knit Amish community, your value system may be far more collective
than individualist. Or if you are Aboriginal, your long-term orientation may be far
higher than that of mainstream Canada. It’s also important to be mindful that in a
Canadian workplace, someone who is non-white or wears clothes or religious
symbols based on their ethnicity may be far more “mainstream” under the surface.
The only way you know for sure is to communicate interpersonally by using active
listening, keeping an open mind, and avoiding jumping to conclusions.

2. Trompenaars
Fons Trompenaars is another researcher who came up with a different set of
cross-cultural measures. A more detailed explanation of his seven dimensions of
culture can be found at this website (The Seven Dimensions of Culture, n.d.), but
we provide a brief overview below:

• Universalism vs. Particularism: the extent that a culture is more prone to apply
rules and laws as a way of ensuring fairness, in contrast to a culture that looks
at the specifics of context and looks at who is involved, to ensure fairness. The
former puts the task first; the latter puts the relationship first.

• Individualism vs. Communitarianism: the extent that people prioritize individual

interests versus the community’s interest.

2
 UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
J.P. Rizal Extension, West Rembo, Makati City

• Specific vs. Diffuse: the extent that a culture prioritizes a head-down, task-
focused approach to doing work, versus an inclusive, overlapping relationship
between life and work.

• Neutral vs. Emotional: the extent that a culture works to avoid showing emotion
versus a culture that values a display or expression of emotions.

• Achievement vs. Ascription: the degree to which a culture values earned

achievement in what you do versus ascribed qualities related to who you are
based on elements like title, lineage, or position.

• Sequential Time vs. Synchronous Time: the degree to which a culture prefers
doing things one at time in an orderly fashion versus preferring a more flexible
approach to time with the ability to do many things at once.

• Internal Direction vs. Outer Direction: the degree to which members of a culture
believe they have control over themselves and their environment versus being
more conscious of how they need to conform to the external environment.

Like Hofstede’s work, Trompenaars’s dimensions help us understand some of

those beneath-the-surface-of-the-iceberg elements of culture. It’s equally
important to understand our own cultures as it is to look at others, always being
mindful that our cultures, as well as others, are made up of individuals.

3. Ting-Toomey
Stella Ting-Toomey’s face negotiation theory builds on some of the cross-cultural
concepts you’ve already learned, such as, for example, individual versus collective
cultures. When discussing face negotiation theory, face means your identity, your
image, how you look or come off to yourself and others (communicationtheory.org,
n.d.). The theory says that this concern for “face” is something that is common
across every culture, but various cultures—especially Eastern versus Western
cultures—approach this concern in different ways. Individualist cultures, for
example tend to be more concerned with preserving their own face, while collective
cultures tend to focus more on preserving others’ faces. Loss of face leads to
feelings of embarrassment or identity erosion, whereas gaining or maintaining face
can mean improved status, relations, and general positivity. Actions to preserve or
reduce face is called facework. Power distance is another concept you’ve already
learned that is important to this this theory. Most collective cultures tend to have
more hierarchy or a higher power distance when compared to individualist cultures.
This means that maintaining the face of others at a higher level than yours is an
important part of life.

3
 UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
J.P. Rizal Extension, West Rembo, Makati City

This is contrasted with individualist cultures, where society

expects you to express yourself, make your opinion known, and look out for
number one. This distinction becomes really important in interpersonal
communication between people whose cultural backgrounds have different
approaches to facework; it usually leads to conflict. Based on this dynamic, the
following conflict styles typically occur:

• Domination: dominating or controlling the conflict (individualist approach)

• Avoiding: dodging the conflict altogether (collectivist approach)
• Obliging: yielding to the other person (collectivist approach)
• Compromising: a give-and-take negotiated approach to solving the conflict
(individualist approach)
• Integrating: a collaborative negotiated approach to solving the conflict
(individualist approach)

Another important facet of this theory involves high-context versus low-context

cultures. High-context cultures are replete with implied meanings beyond the
words on the surface and even body language that may not be obvious to people
unfamiliar with the context. Low-context cultures are typically more direct and tend
to use words to attempt to convey precise meaning. For example, an agreement
in a high-context culture might be verbal because the parties know each other’s
families, histories, and social position. This knowledge is sufficient for the
agreement to be enforced. No one actually has to say, “I know where you live. If
you don’t hold up your end of the bargain, …” because the shared understanding
is implied and highly contextual. A low-context culture usually requires highly
detailed, written agreements that are signed by both parties, sometimes mediated
through specialists like lawyers, as a way to enforce the agreement. This is low
context because the written agreement spells out all the details so that not much
is left to the imagination or “context.”

4. Horizontal and Vertical Cultural Context

The horizontal/vertical distinction is also conceptually related to personal values
such as power, achievement, self-direction, and conformity (e.g., Schwartz &
Bilsky, 1987, 1990). The horizontal/vertical distinction emerges from the
observation that American or British individualism differs from, say, Swedish or
Danish individualism in much the same way that Korean or Japanese collectivism
differs from the collectivism of the Israeli kibbutz.

4
 UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
J.P. Rizal Extension, West Rembo, Makati City

In vertical, individualist societies or cultural contexts (VI; e.g., United States, Great
Britain, France), people tend to be concerned with improving their individual status
and standing out—distinguishing themselves from others via competition,
achievement, and power. In contrast, in horizontal, individualist societies or cultural
contexts (HI; e.g., Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia), people prefer to view
themselves as equal to others in status. Rather than standing out, the focus is on
expressing one’s uniqueness and establishing one’s capability to be successfully
self-reliant (Triandis & Singelis, 1998).

In vertical, collectivist societies or cultural contexts (VC; e.g., Korea, Japan, India),
people focus on complying with authorities and on enhancing the cohesion and
status of their in-groups, even when that entails sacrificing their own personal
goals. In horizontal, collectivist societies or cultural contexts (HC; exemplified
historically by the Israeli kibbutz), the focus is on sociability and interdependence
with others within an egalitarian framework (see Erez & Earley, 1987).

5. Expectancy Violations Theory

Expectancy violations theory by Judee K. Burgoon (EVT; Burgoon, 1993; Burgoon
& Jones, 1976) is an interpersonal communication theory that makes the
counterintuitive claim that violations of expectations are sometimes preferable to
confirmations of expectations. It also distinguishes between positive and negative
violations. Whereas most advice for communicators is to avoid violations of
expectations, EVT proposes that positive violations can produce desirable results.

5
 UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
J.P. Rizal Extension, West Rembo, Makati City

EVT was initially formulated to account for the communicative effects of proxemics
violations during interpersonal and group interaction. Proxemics refers to the
organization, use, and interpretation of space and distance. Hall (1959), an
anthropologist, had designated proxemics as one of the “hidden dimensions of
culture,” a sort of “silent language” that is used universally across cultures and
expresses well-understood messages within a culture. EVT arose out of an effort
to reconcile conflicting views of proxemics in human interactions. Over the course
of almost 40 years, the theory has evolved, been extended to other nonverbal
behaviors, and applied to contexts ranging from interviews and interpersonal
conversations to message comprehension and persuasive discourse to marital
interactions, conflict and deception.

6. Communication Accommodation Theory

Communication accommodation is a communication theory which emphasis the
adjustments that people does while communicating. Howard Giles, the professor
of communication at the University of California, developed the theory which is and
according to him is when people try to emphasis or minimize the social difference
between the others whom they interact with. The factors that lead to the
accommodation activity are adjustments which can be through verbal
communication or through gestures. The theory was evolved from speech
adjustment theory, which demonstrates the value of psychological concepts to
understand the dynamics of speech. But the theory encompasses more fields such
as non-verbal and gestures.

Communication accommodation theory elaborates the human tendency to adjust

their behavior while interacting. The reason behind this behavior is explained as to
control the social differences between the interactants (refers to the close relations
between each other with their communication). People accommodate their
communication activities to get approval and to set a positive image in front of the
interactant. The environment in which they are interacting also affects the
communication behavior.

There are two types of accommodation process explained in this theory

• Convergence– convergence is a process where people tend to adapt the

other person’s communication characteristics to reduce the social
differences
• Divergence-the process contradicts the method of adaptation and in this
context the individual emphasize is on the social difference and nonverbal
differences between the interactants.

6
 UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
J.P. Rizal Extension, West Rembo, Makati City

The two processes usually are dependent on the characteristics of the interactant.
People accommodated their communication while interacting with a person who has
higher standards and other characteristics which they believe is better than them. And
the divergent exhibits an opposite characteristic as it emphasizes the difference
among the close relations with each other. Communication accommodation theory is
influenced by social psychology and is guided by four major assumptions:

• While communicating there will be similarity and difference in the speech and
behavior. The characteristics that people exhibit are based on our experiences
and the cultural backgrounds that we grew up in.
• A conversation is evaluated by understanding the perception of the speech and
behavior of the other. Through evaluation people decides to accommodate and
fit in.
• The social status and belonging is determined by language and behaviors.
While people communicate they tend to accommodate the behaviors of those
who are in the higher social status than them.
• Norms guide the accommodation process which varies in the degree of
appropriateness. Norms define the behaviors of people and they are expected
to act accordingly.

IV. Assessment
Activity 1
• Creative Storytelling: Choose a theory and creatively (draw, cut out pictures, etc.)
relate a personal experience that shows the application of the chosen theory.
Activity 2
• Fill out the table of theories and tell the significance of each theory in your own cross-
cultural communication journey.

V. References
Gudykunst, William B. (2003). Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication. Sage Publication:
California, USA
Olds College. (n.d.). Theories of Cross-Cultural Communication. Open Library: Pressbooks.
Retrieved from
https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/profcommsontario/chapter/cross-cultural-
communication/
Shavitt et al. (2006). The Horizontal/Vertical Distinction in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 16(4), 325–356. Retrieved from
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.640.6964&rep=rep1&type=p
df