Cultural Values
Intercultural Communication—COM 372
John R. Baldwin
Department of Communication
Illinois State University
jrbaldw@ilstu.edu
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
Dr. William Gudykunst
• 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?
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
Emic
Studies behavior from
within system
Examines only one
culture
Structure discovered
by analyst
Criteria relative to
internal
characteristics
“Cultural”
Communication
Etic
Studies 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 Dimensions
High & Low Context
(E. T. Hall)
Low Context
High Context
http://www.genderwork.com/images/orgdev_heads.gif
Value Dimensions
Hofstede’s Dimensions
Individualism/
Collectivism
Power Distance
Uncertainty Avoidance
Masculinity/ Femininity
Long/Short-term value
orientation
How might these dimensions
impact business or class setting?
Individualism/Collectivism
Power Distance
Uncertainty Avoidance
Masculinity/Femininity
Value Dimensions
Collectivistic
Venezuela
Costa Rica
Hong Kong
Jamaica
Argentina
Malaysia
Mexico
Turkey
India
Japan
Germany
Italy
Denmark
Individualistic
Low Power
Distance
United
States
High Power
Distance
Individual- vs. Cultural-Level
Variables
Cultural Level
Individual Level
Individualism/
collectivism
Self-construal
(Inter/Independent)
Egalitarianism (cf
group/ individual power)
Tolerance for ambiguity
Power distance
Uncertainty avoidance
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
C
Human
Nature
PersonNature
Time
Evil
Good
Good + Evil
Subject
Harmony
Master
Past
Present
Future
Activity
Being
Being-inbecoming
Doing
Relational
Lineality
Collaterality
Individual’m
Specific Values
(Vander Zanden, 1965; Patai, 1976)
“American” Values
Materialism
Success
Work & Activity
Progress
Rationality
Democracy
Humanitarianism
Middle Eastern Values
Hospitality
Generosity
Courage
Honor
Self-Respect
ValuesCommunication
“American”
Communication
Direct
“Elaborated”
Informal
Low context
Less differentiated
codes
Middle Eastern
Communication
Indirect
Emphatic
Formality
High context
More differentiated
codes
American & Chinese Communication
(Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998)
American
Communication
 What is said
 “I” focus
 Impolite talk
 Direct talk
 Assertive speech
 Self-enhancing talk
 Public personal
questions
 Expressive speech
Chinese
Communication
 What is not said
 “We” focus
 Polite talk
 Indirect talk
 Hesitant speech
 Self-effacing talk
 Private personal
questions
 Reticent speech
Influences on values
• Protestant Heritage
hard work
• Immigration; England, Europe, “Melting Pot”
pragmatism
• Frontier heritage
the rugged individual
• The heritage of business
entrepreneurs as heroes
American Proverbs
A penny saved is a penny
Cleanliness is next to
earned
godliness
Look out for
Number One!
Far Eastern Communication
Confucianism & Communication
(Yum, 1991)
East Asian
North American
•Process orientation
(expressive)
•Differentiated linguistic
codes
•Indirect
•Receiver-centered
•Outcome orientation
(instrumental)
•Less differentiated
codes
•Direct communication
•Sender-centered
Confucianism & Relationships
(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
German & American
Managers’ Communication
American
German
 Business is
impersonal
 Need to be liked
 Assertiveness, Direct
Confrontation, Fair
Play
 Discussion
 Business is not as
impersonal
 Need to be credible
 Assertiveness,
Sophistication,
Direct Confrontation
• 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]
German
Swiss
Assertiveness
Dynamism
Confrontation
Hierarchy
Authority
Self-Reliance
Provincialism
Polite Behavior
Reserve, Discretion
Compromise
Democracy
Consensus
Conformity
Cosmopolitanism
Both
Quality (Perfectionism)
Security
Reliability
Inflexibility
Social Order & Rules
Formality
Seriousness
Any questions?
•
•
•
•
John R. Baldwin
Fell 451
438-7969
jrbaldw@ilstu.edu
But….just call me John… 