Cultural Values Intercultural Communication—COM 372 John R. Baldwin Department of Communication Illinois State University [email protected].

Cultural ValuesIntercultural Communication—COM

372

John R. Baldwin

Department of Communication

Illinois State University

[email protected]

But first…Some review

History of ICC: The Beginnings(Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990)

• The Foreign Service Institute

• E.T. Hall and others

• Linguistics and Anthropology

• Influences of E.T. Hall– From single culture interaction – From general study practical specifics – From anthropology communication tips– Comm as patterned, learned, analyzable– Aspects of training: – From foreign service to broader audience

• That is, the original focus was: _________

History of ICC: By Decade• 1940s-1950s: Birth of ICC• 1960s: Silence• 1970s: Research

(atheoretical) • 1980s: Theory (1983, 1988,

1995, 2005)• 1990s: Debate, diversity,

disintegration?• 2000s: Expanded envelopes

Q: Which are more scientific, humanistic, or critical?

Q: Which represents the field today?

Dr. William Gudykunst

Cultural Filters: Rules & Stuff Rules: A prescription for what we can, cannot,

should or should not do, but without a moral component. (If you violate this, you’re weird)

Norms: A prescription with a moral component: If you do this, you’re bad.

Mores: // Norms

Taboos: A very strong norm

Laws: A norm that is strong enough to be “codified” by legal sanction

• Values: Something an individual or group holds to be important

• Beliefs: A mental construct that links two ideas together (e.g., Beyoncé // good singer; world // mostly round)

• Attitudes: Disposition to react toward something in a certain way (e.g., like/dislike)

• Worldview: A specific set of beliefs pertaining to the relationship between humans and larger elements around them (nature, divinity, etc.)

Ways to Study Values

EmicStudies behavior from within systemExamines only one cultureStructure discovered by analystCriteria relative to internal characteristics“Cultural” Communication

EticStudies behavior from outside of system

Examines many cultures (comparing)

Structure created by analyst

Criteria considered absolute, universal

Cross-Cultural Communication

The Notion of Cultural Difference

Value DimensionsHigh & Low Context

(E. T. Hall)

Low Context High Context

http://www.genderwork.com/images/orgdev_heads.gif

Value Dimensions

Individualism/ Collectivism

Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance

Masculinity/ Femininity

Long/Short-term value orientation

Hofstede’s Dimensions

How might these dimensions impact business or class setting?

Individualism/Collectivism Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance Masculinity/Femininity

Value Dimensions

Japan

Collectivistic

Individualistic

Low Power Distance

High Power Distance

JamaicaMexico

Turkey

IndiaArgentina

Denmark

Germany

United States

Italy

Venezuela

MalaysiaHong Kong

Costa Rica

Individual- vs. Cultural-Level Variables

Cultural Level Individual LevelIndividualism/ collectivism

Self-construal

(Inter/Independent)

Power distance Egalitarianism (cf group/ individual power)

Uncertainty avoidance Tolerance for ambiguity

Masculinity/femininity Individual-level M/F (androgyneity)

Value Dimensions

Parson’s Pattern Variables

Affectivity Affect Neutrality

Universalism Particularism

Diffuseness Specificity

Ascription Achievement

Instrumental Orientation

Expressive Orientation

Value Dimensions

Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck’s Value Dimensions

Orientation A B CHuman Nature

Evil Good Good + Evil

Person-Nature

Subject Harmony Master

Time Past Present Future

Activity Being Being-in-becoming

Doing

Relational Lineality Collaterality Individual’m

Specific Values(Vander Zanden, 1965; Patai, 1976)

“American” ValuesMaterialismSuccessWork & ActivityProgressRationality DemocracyHumanitarianism

Middle Eastern ValuesHospitalityGenerosityCourageHonorSelf-Respect

ValuesCommunication

“American” Communication

Direct“Elaborated”InformalLow contextLess differentiated

codes

Middle Eastern Communication

IndirectEmphaticFormalityHigh contextMore differentiated

codes

American & Chinese Communication

(Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998) American Communication

What is said “I” focusImpolite talkDirect talkAssertive speechSelf-enhancing talkPublic personal

questionsExpressive speech

Chinese Communication

What is not said “We” focusPolite talkIndirect talkHesitant speechSelf-effacing talkPrivate personal

questions Reticent speech

Influences on values

• Protestant Heritagehard work

• Immigration; England, Europe, “Melting Pot” pragmatism

• Frontier heritage the rugged individual

• The heritage of business entrepreneurs as heroes

American Proverbs

God helps those

Who help themselves

Early to bed, early to

rise…makes a man healthy,

wealthy, and wiseWhen the going gets

tough…

the tough get going

Cleanliness is next to godliness

Every problem has a

solution

Idle

han

ds a

re th

e de

vil’s

works

hop

A penny saved is a penny earned

Tim

e is

mon

ey

Look out for Number One!

Far Eastern Communication

East Asian North American

•Process orientation (expressive)•Differentiated linguistic codes•Indirect •Receiver-centered

•Outcome orientation (instrumental)•Less differentiated codes•Direct communication•Sender-centered

Confucianism & Communication (Yum, 1991)

East Asian North American

•Particularistic•Long-term, asymmetrical reciprocity•Sharp in/out-group distinctions•Informal intermediaries•Personal/public relationships overlap

•Universalistic•Short-term, symmetrical reciprocity•In/out group distinction not sharp•Contractual intermediaries•Personal/public relationships more separate

Confucianism & Relationships (Yum, 1991)

German & American Managers’

CommunicationAmerican German Business is

impersonal Business is not as

impersonal Need to be liked Need to be credible Assertiveness, Direct

Confrontation, Fair Play

Assertiveness, Sophistication, Direct Confrontation

Discussion • Besprechung

Informal Culture Formal Culture

German and American Values(Reynolds, 1984)

• The study: 10 universities

• Lots of participants (why?)

• Closed-ended survey: Rokeach Value Survey– Instrumental Values: the “end” desired– Terminal Values: the “means to the end”

(desirable characteristics in a person)

• The findings (see overheads)

SWISS & GERMANS:[Kopper, 1993]

GermanAssertivenessDynamismConfrontationHierarchyAuthoritySelf-RelianceProvincialism

SwissPolite BehaviorReserve, DiscretionCompromiseDemocracyConsensusConformityCosmopolitanism

BothQuality (Perfectionism)

SecurityReliability

InflexibilitySocial Order & Rules

FormalitySeriousness

Any questions?

• John R. Baldwin

• Fell 451

• 438-7969

• [email protected]

But….just call me John…