COM 272 Foundations of Intercultural Communication Cultural Values

1
COM 272Foundations of Intercultural
CommunicationCultural Values

• John R. Baldwin
• jrbaldw_at_ilstu.edu

2
2 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

3
Value Dimensions

• Kluckhohn Strodtbecks Value Dimensions

Orientation A B C
Human Nature Evil Good Good Evil
Person-Nature Subject Harmony Master
Time Past Present Future
Activity Being Being-in-becoming Doing
Relational Lineality Collaterality Individualm
4
Value Dimensions
High Low Context (E. T. Hall)
Low Context High Context
Meaning is in the explicit code Meaning is embedded in the communicators (e.g., role, situation, relationship)
5
http//www.genderwork.com/images/orgdev_heads.gif
6
(No Transcript)
7
Hofstedes Dimensions

• Individualism/ Collectivism
• Power Distance
• Uncertainty Avoidance
• Masculinity/ Femininity
• Long-Term Orientation
• Indulgence / Restraint
• Monumentalism / Self-Effacement

8
Value DimensionsHofstede, 1984
Collectivistic
Venezuela
Costa Rica
Hong Kong
Malaysia
Mexico
Jamaica
Turkey
Argentina
India
Japan
Germany
Italy
Denmark
United States
Individualistic
Low Power Distance
High Power Distance
9
A video example

• How do you see the different aspects of
  Hofstedes dimensions or High-Low context
  communicated in this video (Iron Silk)

10
A longer case study

• Which of Hofstedes values do you see through
  behavior communication?
• Kluckhohn Strodtbecks value orientations? (ch.
  4)
• Social relations orientation?
• What similarities and differences b/t SangWoo
  grandmother (if their behavior represents their
  culture?

11
Thinking about Hofstede

• Exercise Resource Pack pp. 61-62
• Discussion consider this and your own
  answers/scores to pp. 57-60
• Strengths and limitations?

12
Evaluting Hofstedes dimensions
Strengths Limitations

13
BRAKE!
14
Announcements

• Cultural Bias due Monday (not Wed)
• Work on/think about final projects

15
GLOBE Application!

• What is GLOBE?
• How does it change/modify/add to previous sets of
  dimensions?
• What are the benefits of the GLOBE measure? (p.
  138)
• T/F Quiz p. 63

16
Applying everything

• What recommendations would you make for travelers
  to _______ based on tables 5.2 and 5.4?
• Resource Pack, p. 65

17
Value Dimensions

• Parsons Pattern Variables

18
U.S. and Middle Eastern Communication(Vander
Zanden, 1965 Patai, 1976)

• American Values
• Materialism
• Success
• Work Activity
• Progress
• Rationality
• Democracy
• Humanitarianism

• Middle Eastern Values
• Hospitality
• Generosity
• Courage
• Honor
• Self-Respect

19
U.S. and Middle Eastern Communication(Vander
Zanden, 1965 Patai, 1976)

• American
• Communication
• Direct
• Elaborated
• Informal
• Low context
• Less differentiated codes

• Middle Eastern Communication
• Indirect
• Emphatic
• Formality
• High context
• More differentiated codes

20
American Chinese Communication (Gao
Ting-Toomey, 1998)

• American Communication
• What is said
• q I focus
• q Impolite talk
• q Direct talk
• q Assertive speech
• q Self-enhancing talk
• q Public personal questions
• q Expressive speech

• Chinese Communication
• What is not said
• We focus
• q Polite talk
• q Indirect talk
• q Hesitant speech
• q Self-effacing talk
• q Private personal questions
• q Reticent speech

21
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
22
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
23
Any questions?

• John R. Baldwin
• Fell 451
• 438-7969
• jrbaldw_at_ilstu.edu