Low-Context
Low-context cultures typically have a high degree of diversity within the population
and tend to compartmentalize interpersonal contacts. Lack of a large pool of common
experiences means that“each time they interact with others they need detailed back-
ground information.”^48 In low-context cultures the verbal message contains most of
the information, and very little is conveyed through the context or the participant’s
nonverbal displays. This characteristic manifests itself in a host of ways. For example,
the Asian mode of communication (high-context) is often vague, indirect, and
implicit, whereas Western communication (low-context) tends to be direct and
unambiguous.“Americans depend more on spoken words than on nonverbal behavior
to convey their messages. They think it is important to be able to‘speak up’and‘say
what’s on their mind.’They admire a person who has a moderately large vocabulary
and who can express themselves clearly and cleverly....”^49 As suggested at the end of
this quote, differences in perceptions of credibility are another aspect of communica-
tion associated with these two orientations. In high-context cultures, people who rely
primarily on verbal messages for information are perceived as less credible. They
believe that silence often sends a better message than words and that anyone who
needs words does not have the requisite communication skills. As the Indonesian
proverb states,“Empty cans clatter the loudest.”Hofstede’s Value Dimensions
50Research conducted by Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede was one of the
earliest attempts to use statistical data to examine cultural values. He surveyed
more than 100,000 IBM employees from fifty countries and three geographical
regions. After careful analysis, each country and region was assigned a rank of 1
through 50 in four identified value dimensions (individualism/collectivism, uncer-
tainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity/femininity). A subsequent study
involving participants from twenty-three nations revealed a fifth dimension (long-
term/short-term orientation), and these countries were ordered 1 through 23. The
country rankings discerned through this research offer a clear picture of what is val-
ued in each culture and also help make comparisons across cultures. However, it is
important to keep in mind that Hofstede’s work measured cultural dimensions at a
national rather than an individual level,^51 which means that his value dimensions
characterize the dominant culture in thatsociety. As we have said before, within
every culture you can find individuals all along each particular value continuum.
For example, the United States is classified as a strongly individualistic country,
but you may encounter some members of the dominant U.S. culture who exhibit
strong collective tendencies. Con-
versely, in a group-oriented culture
such as South Korea or Japan, you
can find individuals who subscribe
to and assert individuality. There-
fore, in any intercultural encounter,
you must be mindful that not all
individuals adhere to the norms of
their culture.CONSIDER THIS
In an individualistic culture, people usually have many friends but
a weak sense of mutual obligation; in collectivistic cultures, peo-
ple usually have a few close friends with a strong sense of mutual
obligation.222 CHAPTER 6•Cultural Values: Road Maps for Behavior
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).