One of the most important factors in our understanding of communication is culture. Each of us has grown up in a unique cultural environment, and this culture has shaped how we communicate. Culture is so ingrained in who we are that we often don’t even recognize our own culture. In this chapter, we will explore culture and its impact on interpersonal communication.

What is Culture?

When people hear the word “culture,” many images often come to mind. Perhaps you immediately think of attending the ballet, an opera, or an art museum. Other people think of traditional dress like that seen from Mexico in the picture at the top of the chapter. However, the word “culture” has a wide range of meanings for many people. For example, when you travel to a new country (or even a state within your own country), you expect to encounter different clothing, languages, foods, rituals, etc. The term “culture” is a highly debated concept among academics. In 1952, A. L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions for the word “culture.” Culture is often described as “the way we do things.”^[1] In their book, the authors noted, “Considering that concept [of culture] has had a name for less than 80 years, it is not surprising that full agreement and precision has not yet been attained.”^[2] Kroeber and Kluckhohn predicted that eventually, science would land on a singular definition of culture as it was refined through the scientific process. Unfortunately, the idea of a single definition of culture is no closer to becoming a reality today than it was in 1952.^[3]

For our purposes, we are going to talk about culture as “a group of people who through a process of learning are able to share perceptions of the world which influences their beliefs, values, norms, and rules, which eventually affect behavior.”^[4] Let’s break down this definition. First, when we talk about “culture,” we are starting off with a group of people. One of the biggest misunderstandings that newcomers to cultural studies have is that an individual can have their own personalized culture. Culture is something that is formed by the groups with which we grow up and are involved throughout our lives.

Second, we learn about our culture. In fact, culture becomes so ingrained in who we are that we often fail to recognize our own culture and its daily impact on us. Just like language, everyone is hardwired to learn culture. The culture we pick up is ultimately a matter of the group(s) we are born into and raised in. Just like a baby born to an English-speaking family isn’t going to magically start speaking French out of nowhere, neither will a person from one culture accidentally adopt another culture.

Third, what we learn ultimately leads to a shared perception of the world. All cultures have stories that are taught to children that impact how they view the world. If you are raised by Jewish or Christian parents/guardians, you will learn the creation story in the Bible. However, this is only one of many creation myths that have abounded over time in different cultures:

• The Akamba in Kenya say that the first two people were lowered to earth by God on a cloud.
• In ancient Babylon and Sumeria, the gods slaughtered another god named We-ila, and out of his blood and clay, they formed humans.
• One myth among the Tibetan people is that they owe their existence to the union of an ogress, not of this world, and a monkey on Gangpo Ri Mountain at Tsetang.
• The Aboriginal tribes in Australia believe that humans are the descendants of gods.^[5]

Ultimately, which creation story we grew up with was a matter of the culture in which we were raised. These different myths lead to very different views of the individual’s relationship with both the world and with their God, gods, or goddesses.

Fourth, the culture in which we are raised teaches us our beliefs, values, norms, and rules. Beliefs are assumptions and convictions held by an individual, group, or culture about the truth or existence of something. For example, in all of the creation myths discussed in the previous paragraph, these are beliefs that were held by many people at various times in human history. Next, we have values, which are essential and lasting principles or standards held by a culture regarding desirable and appropriate courses of action or outcomes. This definition is a bit complex, so let’s break it down. When looking at this definition, it’s important first to highlight that different cultures have different perceptions related to both courses of action or outcomes. For example, in many cultures throughout history, martyrdom (dying for one’s cause) has been something deeply valued. As such, in those cultures, putting oneself self in harm’s way (course of action) or dying (outcome) would be seen as both desirable and appropriate. Within a given culture, there are guiding principles and standards that help determine what is desirable and appropriate. In fact, many religious texts describe martyrdom as a holy calling. Within these cultures, martyrdom is highly valued. Next, within the definition of culture are the concepts of norms and rules. Norms are informal guidelines about what is acceptable or proper social behavior within a specific culture. Rules are the explicit guidelines (generally written) that govern acceptable or proper social behavior within a specific culture. With rules, we have clearly concrete and explicitly communicated ways of behaving, whereas norms are not concrete, nor are they explicitly communicated. We rarely know a norm exists within a given culture unless we violate the norm or watch someone else violating the norm. The final part of the definition of culture, and probably the most important for our purposes, particularly in the context of interpersonal communication, is that these beliefs, values, norms, and rules govern how people behave.

Co-cultures

Besides a dominant culture, most societies have various co-cultures—regional, economic, social, religious, ethnic, and other cultural groups that exert influence in society. Other co-cultures develop among people who share specific beliefs, ideologies, or life experiences. For example, within the United States we commonly refer to a wide variety of different cultures: Amish culture, African American culture, Buddhist Culture, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersexed, asexual, and two-spirited (LGBTQIA2S+) culture. With all these different cultural groups, we realize that just because individuals belong to a cultural group, that does not mean that they are all identical. For example, African Americans in New York City are culturally distinct from those living in Birmingham, Alabama, because they also belong to different geographical co-cultures. Within the LGBTQIA2S+ culture, the members who comprise the different letters can have a wide range of diverse cultural experiences within the larger community itself. As such, we must always be careful to avoid generalizing about individuals because of the co-cultures they belong to.

Co-cultures bring their unique sense of history and purpose within a larger culture. Co-cultures will also have their holidays and traditions. For example, one popular co-cultural holiday celebrated in the United States is Cinco de Mayo. Many U.S. citizens think that Cinco de Mayo is a Mexican holiday. However, this is not a Mexican holiday. Outside of Puebla, Mexico, it’s considered a relatively minor holiday even though children do get the day off from school. One big mistake many U.S. citizens make is assuming Cinco de Mayo is Mexican Independence Day, which it is not. Instead, El Grito de la Indepedencia (The Cry of Independence) is held annually on September 16 in honor of Mexican Independence from Spain in 1810. Sadly, Cinco de Mayo has become more of an American holiday than it is a Mexican one. Just as an FYI, Cinco de Mayo is the date (May 5, 1862) observed to commemorate the Mexican Army’s victory over the French Empire at the Battle of Puebla that conclude the Franco-Mexican War (also referred to as the Battle of Puebla Day). We raise this example because the larger culture often co-opts parts of a co-culture and attempts to adapt it into the mainstream. During this process, the meaning associated with the co-culture is often twisted or forgotten. If you need another example, think of St. Patrick’s Day, which evolved from a religious celebration marking the death of St. Patrick on March 17, 461 CE, to a day when “everyone’s Irish” and drinks green beer.

Microcultures

The last major term we need to explain regarding culture is microculture. A microculture, sometimes called a local culture, refers to cultural patterns of behavior influenced by cultural beliefs, values, norms, and rules based on a specific locality or within an organization. “Members of a microculture will usually share much of what they know with everyone in the greater society but will possess a special cultural knowledge that is unique to the subgroup.”^[6] If you’re a college student and you’ve ever lived in a dorm, you may have experienced what we mean by a microculture. It’s not uncommon for different dorms on campus to develop their own unique cultures that are distinct from other dorms. They may have their own exclusive stories, histories, mascots, and specializations. Perhaps you live in a dorm that caters to honors students or pairs U.S. students with international students. Perhaps you live in a dorm that is allegedly haunted. Maybe you live in a dorm that values competition against other dorms on campus, or one that doesn’t care about the competition at all. All these examples help individual dorms develop unique cultural identities.

We often refer to microcultures as “local cultures” because they do tend to exist among a small segment of people within a specific geographical location. There’s considerable research on the topic of classrooms as microcultures. Depending on the students and the teacher, you could end up with radically different classroom environments, even if the content is the same. The importance of microcultures stems from Abraham Maslow’s concept of the need for belonging. We all feel the need to belong, and these microcultures give us that sense of belonging on a more localized level.

For this reason, we also often examine microcultures that can exist within organizational settings. One common microculture that has been discussed and researched is the Disney microculture. Employees (oops! We mean cast members) who work for the Disney company quickly realize that there is more to working at Disney than a uniform and a name badge. Disney cast members do not wear uniforms; everyone is in costume. When a Disney cast member is interacting with the public, then they are “on stage;” when a cast member is on a break away from the public eye, then they are “backstage.” From the moment a Disney cast member is hired, they are required to take Traditions One and probably Traditions Two at Disney University, which is run by the Disney Institute (http://disneyinstitute.com/). Here is how Disney explains the purpose of Traditions: “Disney Traditions is your first day of work filled with the History & Heritage of The Walt Disney Company, and a sprinkle of pixie dust!”^[7] As you can tell from the very beginning of the Disney cast member experience, Disney attempts to create a very specific microculture that is based on all things Disney.

The Function of Culture

Culture serves multiple important functions in shaping how we perceive ourselves, others, and the world around us. One of culture’s most significant roles is providing us with a sense of identity and belonging through our membership in various cultural groups, which directly affects our self-worth and confidence in intercultural interactions. Culture also supplies us with cognitive shortcuts, such as stereotypes—generalized beliefs about social groups that can be both helpful and harmful in our communication with others. Culture establishes norms and standards that we often assume are universal, leading to ethnocentric viewpoints that judge other cultures against our own cultural framework. Understanding these cultural functions is crucial for effective intercultural communication, as they shape our perceptions, expectations, and behaviors when interacting with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Collective Self-Esteem

Henri Tajfel originally coined the term “collective self” as “that aspect of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.”^[8] Jennifer Crocker and Riia Luhtanen took Tajfel’s ideas one step further. They discussed them as an individual’s collective self-esteem, or the aspect of an individual’s self-worth or self-image that stems from their interaction with others and evaluation of their various social groups.^[9] Based on their research, Crocker and Luhtanen found four different factors related to an individual’s collective self-esteem: private collective esteem, membership esteem, public collective esteem, and importance to identity.

The first factor of collective self-esteem is the individual’s private collective esteem, or the degree to which an individual positively evaluates their group. Every individual belongs to a wide range of groups, and we can evaluate these groups as either positive or negative. Imagine you’ve been brought up in a community where gang membership is a very common practice. You may have been forced into gang life at a very early age. Over time, you may see an array of problems with gangs, so you may start to devalue the group. Here, you would have low private collective esteem.

The second factor of collective self-esteem is membership esteem, which is the degree to which an individual sees themself as a “good” member of a group. Maybe you’ve belonged to a religious organization your entire life. Over time, you find yourself wondering about the organization and your place within the organization. Perhaps you view yourself as having ideas and opinions that differ from the organization’s, or perhaps your behavior outside of religious services does not align with the organization’s values. Here, you may see yourself as a “bad” member of this organization, so your membership esteem would be lower than someone who sees themselves as a “good” member of this organization.

The third factor of collective self-esteem is public collective self-esteem, or the degree to which nonmembers of a group evaluate a group and its members either positively or negatively. Maybe you’re a lesbian college student at a very progressive institution where students overwhelmingly support LGBTQIA rights. In this case, the collective views the group that you belong to positively.

The final factor of collective self-esteem is importance to identity, or the degree to which group membership is important to an individual. As mentioned earlier, we all belong to a wide range of cultural groups. Some of these groups are near and dear to us, while others are ones we don’t think about very often, so they just aren’t very important to us. For example, if you’re someone who has always lived in Charleston, South Carolina, then being a member of the Southerner cultural group may be a very important part of your identity. Suppose you ended up leaving the South and moving to Oregon. In that case, this “southerner” label may take on even more meaning for you and become an even stronger identity marker because your immediate cultural group no longer surrounds you.

A wealth of research has been conducted on the importance of collective self-esteem for individuals. For example, if you compare your cultural group as being better than other cultural groups, then you will experience more positive emotions and self-evaluations.^[10] However, the opposite is also true. Individuals who compare their cultural groups to those cultural groups that are perceived as “better-off,” tend to experience more negative emotions and lower self-evaluations. An individual who is a member of a group that is looked down upon by society will face an internal battle as they grapple with these negative emotions and subsequent lower self-evaluations because of their membership within a cultural group.

You may wonder how this ultimately affects interpersonal communication. Research has examined how an individual’s collective self-esteem affects their interpersonal interactions.^[11] The researchers found that “during interactions in which multicultural persons felt that their heritage culture was being positively evaluated, they were more likely to perceive the interaction as intimate, they disclosed more and perceived their interaction partner as more disclosing, they enjoyed the interaction more, and they were more likely to indicate that they felt personally accepted.”^[12] Individuals with high collective self-esteem had more favorable interactions with people of differing cultures. Individuals who had low levels of public collective self-esteem recalled fewer intimate social interactions with people from different cultures. As you can see, cultural self-esteem is a crucial factor in our intercultural interactions with others. For this reason, understanding how we view our cultural identities becomes very important because it can predict the types of intercultural interactions we will ultimately have.

Stereotyping

Stereotypes are “a set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a social group.”^[13] Many people immediately hear the word “stereotype” and cringe because it’s often filled with negative connotations. However, not all stereotypes are necessarily wrong or bad. Some stereotypes exist because they are accurate.^[14] Often groups have real differences, and these differences are not bad or wrong; they just are. Let’s look at a real stereotype that plays out. When people hear the words “flight attendant,” they generally associate females with the term. In fact, in the 1980s only 19% of flight attendants were male, and today 26% of flight attendants are male.^[15] Are all flight attendants female? Obviously, not; however, the majority of flight attendants are female. We call these types of jobs sex-segregated because the jobs are held overwhelmingly by one biological sex or the other when there is no real reason why either sex cannot be effective within the job. However, many also hold the stereotype that flight attendants are all young. Although this was historically true, the ages of flight attendants has changed: 16-24-year-olds (4.9%), 25-34-year-olds (16.8%), 35-44-year-olds (29.7%), 45-54-year-olds (28.2%), and 55+ year-olds (21.4%).

As you can see, the overwhelming majority of flight attendants are 35 years of age or older. Almost half of flight attendants today are over 45 years of age. Here, the stereotype of the young flight attendant doesn’t align with reality.

There can be two distinctly different stereotypes that people hold: cultural and personal. Cultural stereotypes are beliefs possessed by a larger cultural group about another social group. In contrast, personal stereotypes are those held by an individual and do not reflect a shared belief with their cultural group(s). With cultural stereotypes, cultural members share a belief (or set of beliefs) about another cultural group. For example, maybe you belong to the Yellow culture and perceive all members of the Purple culture as lazy. Often, the stereotypes we hold about other groups (e.g., the Purple People) originate from being taught them from a very young age. Maybe you had an unpleasant experience with a Purple Person being lazy at work, and in your mind, you decide all Purple People must behave like that. In either case, we have a negative stereotype about a cultural group, but how we learn these stereotypes is very different.

Now, even though some stereotypes are accurate and others are inaccurate, it does not mitigate the problem that stereotypes cause. Stereotypes cause problems because people use them to categorize others in snap judgments based solely on group membership. Going back to our previous example, if you run across a Purple person in your next job, you’ll immediately see that person as lazy without having any other information about that person. When we use blanket stereotypes to make a priori (before the fact) judgments about someone, we distance ourselves from making accurate, informed decisions about that person (and their cultural group). Stereotypes prejudice us into looking at all members of a group as similar and ignoring the unique differences among individuals. Additionally, many stereotypes are based on ignorance about another person’s culture.

In a study presented at the International Communication Association, researchers examined the way Muslim women are stereotypically presented in media images as opposed to the way Muslim women choose to portray themselves when posting images under the hashtag #Muslimwomen. When Muslim women portrayed themselves in images, they selected images in which they were engaged in sports, panel discussion, displaying fashion choices or makeup, and smiling faces. The women chose to post images with or without scarves or niqabs or hijabs. When compared to Western media images, stereotyped images often depict Muslim women as victims with a narrow range clothing  in subservient roles. The researchers concluded that when Muslim women select their own images the images reflect a sense of agency and subjectivity as opposed to media images depicting them as oppressed objects who are victims. ^[16]

Try this exercise: picture someone named Mel. OK, now picture someone named Hillary. What did the people you pictured look like? The immediate impressions we get in our minds occur because of the stereotypes we associate with these words. One of our authors has a cousin named Melanie, who is often called Mel by the family, and our coauthor had a close male friend in college named Hillary. This simple exercise demonstrates how often and easy it is for stereotypes to enter our heads.

Culture as Normative

Another function of culture is that it helps us establish norms. Essentially, one’s culture is normative,^[17] or we assume that our culture’s rules, regulations, and norms are correct and those of other cultures are deviant, which is highly ethnocentric. The term ethnocentrism can be defined as the degree to which an individual views the world from their own culture’s perspective while evaluating other cultures according to their own culture’s preconceptions, often accompanied by feelings of dislike, mistrust, or hate for cultures deemed inferior. We all live in a world where we are raised in a dominant culture. Because we are raised in a specific dominant culture, we judge other cultures based on what we’ve been taught within our own culture. We also believe our own culture is right, moral, ethical, and legal. When a culture appears to waiver from what our culture has taught is right, moral, ethical, legal, etc., we judge those cultures as inferior.

One problem many American tourists face when traveling abroad is not knowing the laws of other nations and assuming their “normal” behavior will be tolerated in other countries the following table is a list of some crimes you may have committed today if you were visiting somewhere outside the United States.

One that may surprise you is the use of the “peace” sign in the UK. The simple gesture of pointing your index finger and middle finger in the shape of the letter “V” carries a dual meaning, contingent upon the orientation of your hands. When the palm faces outward, away from the body, it signifies “V for Victory” or peace, a universally recognized gesture popularized by figures such as Winston Churchill. Conversely, when the palm faces inwards, toward the body, with the back of the hand visible, it transforms into a highly offensive insult akin to the middle finger in other cultures. This “two-fingered salute” conveys contempt or derision, with its origins as a vulgar gesture in the British Isles dating back to at least the early 20th century. Although not typically resulting in severe legal consequences for a casual, isolated instance, its use in public can be viewed as a form of disorderly conduct. Suppose you flash the “V” sign while committing another act of aggression (such as during a road rage altercation). In that case, the sign can be deemed threatening or abusive, which may constitute a public order offense leading to fines or, in more serious confrontational scenarios, further legal charges. The ‘Hook ’em Horns’ gesture is a distinctive hand sign used by University of Texas supporters to celebrate the Longhorns and pay tribute to their mascot, Bevo. The sign was also used as a sign of alleged Satanic worshippers during the 1980s, and several U.S. citizens were arrested for using the sign outside Vatican City. In other parts of Italy, the gesture also explains that someone’s wife is engaging in an extramarital affair with another man (but in a much cruder fashion).^[18]

At the same time, ethnocentrism isn’t 100% a horrible thing either. Shortly after 9-11, a flag shortage occurred in the United States because people wanted to display their unity and pride during those awful days after the atrocities that occurred on U.S. soil. Patriotism is a milder form of ethnocentrism. The fact that we view ourselves as “American” is even somewhat ethnocentric because technically, there are three rather large countries that are all in North America and 13 in South America. By definition, we’re all Americans. However, U.S. citizens have clung to the title “American” without ever giving thought to the other countries that exist on these two continents. Here’s another interesting fact. I was recently surfing the Internet looking for uses of the word “American” for this chapter. Here is one I found from a protester in Alabama: “We live in America. We speak American.” I’ll give the speaker the benefit of the doubt and believe she meant U.S. citizens speak English, which is true for most citizens in the United States (78.3% according to U.S. Census data from 2021)^[19] However, more people in North and South America do not speak English when compared to those who do.

Cultural Characteristics and Communication

In any major area of academic study, there are luminaries one should understand. A luminary is an expert who sheds light on a subject and inspires and influences others’ work in that area. In this section, we’re going to examine three important luminaries who have helped shape our understanding of culture and intercultural communication: Edward T. Hall, Geert Hofstede, and Stella Ting-Toomey.

Edward T. Hall

One of the earliest researchers in the field of cultural differences and their significance to communication was Edward T. Hall. His book, Beyond Culture, is still considered one of the most influential books in the field of intercultural communication.^{[20] [21]} According to Hall, all cultures incorporate both verbal and nonverbal elements into communication. In his 1959 book, The Silent Language, Hall states, “culture is communication and communication is culture.”^[22] In the previous chapter, we talked about the importance of nonverbal communication. We also mentioned that nonverbal communication isn’t exactly universal. Some gestures can mean wildly different things in different parts of the world. President George H. Bush once held up his hand in a “V” for Victory salute to an Australian audience, only to find out later that this was the equivalent of the middle finger in the United States. President Nixon did the same thing, exiting an airplane in Brazil, flashing his famous “OK” sign with his thumb and forefinger forming a circle, but this is actually the “middle finger” in that culture. Obviously, these two incidents have gone down in the annals of presidential history as cultural faux pas. Still, they illustrate the importance of knowing and understanding gestures in differing cultures because we do not all interpret nonverbal behavior the same way.

One of Hall’s most essential contributions to the field of intercultural communication is the idea of low-context and high-context cultures. The terms “low-context culture” (LCC) and “high-context culture” (HCC) were coined by Hall to describe the differences in communication styles across cultures. In essence, “in LCC, meaning is expressed through explicit verbal messages, both written and oral. In HCC, on the other hand, intention or meaning can best be conveyed through implicit contexts, including gestures, social customs, silence, nuance, or tone of voice.”^[23] Table 6.2 further explores the differences between low-context and high-context cultures. In Table 6.2, we broke down issues of context into three general categories: communication, cultural orientation, and business.

You may wonder, by this point, how low-context and high-context cultures differ across different countries. Figure 6.1 illustrates some patterns of context that exist in today’s world.^[24]

Geert Hofstede

Another very important researcher in culture is Geert Hofstede, a man by that name. Starting in the 1970s, Geert became interested in how people from different cultures approach work. His interests ultimately culminated in his 1980 publication Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values where he explained some basic cultural differences.^[25] Over the years, Geert has fine-tuned his theory of culture, and the most recent update to his theory occurred in 2010.^[26] In Geert’s research examining thousands of workers from around the globe, he has noticed a series of six cultural differences: low vs. high power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, low vs. high uncertainty avoidance, long-term vs. short-term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint. Let’s look briefly at each of these.

Low vs. High Power Distance

The first of Geert Hofstede’s original dimensions of national cultures was power distance, or the degree to which those people and organizations with less power within a culture accept and expect that power is unequally distributed within their culture. To determine power differences within a culture, Hofstede originally could examine cultural value survey data that had been collected by IBM. Over the years, Hofstede and his fellow researchers have regularly collected additional data from around the world to make his conceptualization of six cultural differences one of the most widely studied concepts of culture. With power distances, these differences often manifest themselves within a single culture, such as class, education, occupations, and healthcare. With class, many cultures have three clear segments: low, middle, and upper. However, the concepts of what is low, middle, and upper can have enormous differences. For example, the median income for the average U.S. household is $51,100.^[27] When discussing household incomes, we use the median (middlemost number) because it’s the most accurate representation of income. According to a 2013 report from the U.S. Census Bureau (using income data from 2012), here is how income inequality in the United States ;ooks:

Households in the lowest quintile had incomes of $20,599 or less in 2012. Households in the second quintile had incomes between $20,600 and $39,764, those in the third quintile had incomes between $39,765 and $64,582, and those in the fourth quintile had incomes between $64,583 and $104,096. Households in the highest quintile had incomes of $104,097 or more. The top 5 percent had incomes of $191,157 or more.^[28]

However, income is just one indicator of power distance within a culture. Another aspect of power distance is the ability or the right to access education within a society. Other indicators of power distances can include: health care (who gets it and what type), occupations (what kinds of jobs are available to different segments of society), governmental influence (who can and who can’t create political outcomes), etc. According to Hofstede’s most recent data, the five countries with the highest power distances are: Malaysia, Slovakia, Guatemala, Panama, and the Philippines.^[29] The five countries with the lowest power distances are Austria, Israel, Denmark, New Zealand, and Switzerland (German-speaking part). Notice that the United States does not make it into the top five or the bottom five. According to Hofstede’s data, the United States ranks 16th from the bottom in terms of power distance, placing us in the bottom third. When it comes down to it, despite the issues we have in our country, the power disparity is not nearly as significant as it is in many other parts of our world.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

The United States is number one on individualism, according to Hofstede’s data.^[30] Americans are individualistic. We think of ourselves as individuals rather than as a collective group. Most Asian countries are considered collectivistic cultures because these cultures are group-focused. Collectivistic cultures tend to consider actions that might impact the entire group rather than specific group members.

In an individualistic culture, there is a prevailing belief that one can do as they please and follow their dreams or passions. In an individualistic culture, if someone asked what you do for a living, they would answer by saying their profession or occupation. However, in collectivistic cultures, a person would answer in terms of the group, organization, and/or corporation they serve. Moreover, in a collectivistic culture, there is a prevailing belief that one should prioritize the group’s interests. Collectivistic cultures emphasize the group’s potential for growth and productivity. Collectivists are more likely to focus their attention on others than themselves as an individual.

Masculinity vs. Femininity

The notions of masculinity and femininity are often misconstrued to be tied to their biological sex counterparts, female and male. For understanding culture, Hofstede acknowledges that this distinction ultimately has a lot to do with work goals.^[31] On the masculine end of the spectrum, individuals are focused on items like earnings, recognition, advancement, and challenge. Hofstede also refers to these tendencies as being more assertive. Femininity involves characteristics such as maintaining a good working relationship with one’s manager and coworkers, cooperating with others at work, and achieving security (both in one’s job and family). Hofstede refers to this as being more relationally oriented. Admittedly, in Hofstede’s research, there is a difference between females and males on these characteristics (females are more relationally oriented and males are more assertive), which is why Hofstede went with the terms masculinity and femininity. Ultimately, we can define these types of cultures in the following way:

A society is called masculine when emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with quality of life.

A society is called feminine when emotional gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with quality of life [emphasis in original].^[32]

The top five most masculine countries are Slovakia, Japan, Hungary, Austria, and Venezuela (the United States ranks 19th out of 76); whereas, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, the Netherlands, and Denmark represent the most feminine countries. As you can imagine, depending on the type of culture you live in, you will have wildly different social interactions with other people. There’s also a massive difference in the approach to marriage. In masculine cultures, women are the caretakers of the home, while men are expected to be healthy and wealthy. As such, women are often placed in a subservient position to their husbands and are socially identified by them. For example, an invitation to a party would be addressed to “Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.” In feminine cultures, men and women are held to the same standards, and their relationships should be based on mutual friendship.

Low vs. High Uncertainty Avoidance

The next category identified by Hofstede involves the concept of uncertainty avoidance.^[33] Life is full of uncertainty. We cannot escape it; however, some people are more prone to becoming fearful in situations that are ambiguous or unknown. Uncertainty avoidance then involves the extent to which cultures are afraid of ambiguous and unknown situations. People in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance can view this ambiguity and lack of knowledge as threatening, which is one reason people in these cultures have higher levels of anxiety and neuroticism. In fact, within the latest edition of the book examining these characteristics, Hofstede and his colleagues title the chapter on uncertainty avoidance as “What is Different is Dangerous,” highlighting the threat factor that people in high uncertainty avoidance cultures feel.^[34] Cultures at the high end of uncertainty avoidance include Greece, Portugal, Guatemala, Uruguay, and Belgium Flemish; whereas, cultures at the low end of uncertainty avoidance include Singapore, Jamaica, Denmark, Sweden, and Hong Kong. The United States ranks 64^th out of 76 countries analyzed (Singapore was number 76). From an interpersonal perspective, people from high uncertainty avoidant cultures are going to have a lot more anxiety associated with interactions involving people from other cultures. There tend to be higher levels of prejudice and higher levels of ideological, political, and religious fundamentalism, which does not allow for any debate.

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

Besides the previous characteristics, Hofstede identified a fifth characteristic of cultures, which he termed long-term and short-term orientation. Long-term orientation focuses on the future, rather than the present or the past. As such, there is a focus on both persistence and thrift. The emphasis on endurance is vital because being persistent today will help you in the future. The goal is to work hard now so you can reap the benefits later. The same is true of thrift. We want to conserve our resources and underspend to build a financial cushion for the future. Short-term oriented cultures, on the other hand, tend to focus on both the past and the present. In these cultures, there is a high respect for the past and the various traditions that have contributed to the greatness of that culture. Additionally, there is a strong emphasis on “saving face,” which we will discuss more in the next section, fulfilling one’s obligations today, and enjoying one’s leisure time. At the long-term end of the spectrum are countries like China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan; whereas, countries like Pakistan, Czech Republic, Nigeria, Spain, and the Philippines are examples of short-term. The United States ranked 31 out of 39, with Pakistan being number 39. Interpersonally, long-term oriented countries were more satisfied with their contributions to “Being attentive to daily human relations, deepening human bonds in family, neighborhood and friends or acquaintances” when compared to their short-term counterparts.^[35]

Indulgence vs. Restraint

The final characteristic of cultures is a new one first reported on in the 2010 edition of Cultures and Organizations.^[36] The sixth cultural characteristic is called indulgence vs. restraint, which examines issues of happiness and well-being. According to Hofstede and his coauthors, “Indulgence stands for a tendency to allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Its opposite pole, restraint, reflects a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict social norms [emphasis in original].”^[37] The top five on the indulgence end are Venezuela, Mexico, Puerto Rico, El Salvador, and Nigeria, whereas those on the restraint end are Pakistan, Egypt, Latvia, Ukraine, and Albania. The United States is positioned toward the indulgence end of the spectrum and ranks #15, alongside Canada and the Netherlands. Some interesting findings associated with indulgence include experiencing higher levels of positive emotions and recalling those emotions for longer periods. Individuals from more indulgent cultures are more optimistic, while their restrained counterparts are more likely to be cynical. People in more indulgent countries are happier than their restrained counterparts, and individuals within indulgent cultures exhibit lower rates of cardiovascular problems commonly associated with stress. Ultimately, individuals from indulgent cultures are more extraverted and outgoing overall, whereas those from restrained cultures are more neurotic. From years of research examining both extraversion and neuroticism, we know that extraverted individuals have more successful interpersonal relationships than those who are highly neurotic. Ultimately, research examining these differences has shown that people from indulgent countries are more open to other cultures, more satisfied with their lives, and are more likely to communicate with friends and family members via the Internet while interacting with more people from other cultures via the Internet as well.

Stella Ting-Toomey

In 1988, intercultural communication researcher Stella Ting-Toomey developed face-negotiation theory to help explain the importance of face within interpersonal interactions.^[40] The basic idea behind face-negotiation theory is that face-saving, conflict, and culture are all intertwined. In the most recent version of her theory, Stella Ting-Toomey outlines seven basic factors of face-negotiation theory:

1. People in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations.
2. The concept of face is especially problematic in emotionally vulnerable situations (such as embarrassment, requests, or conflict situations) when the communicators’ identities are called into question.
3. The cultural variability dimensions of individualism-collectivism and small/large power distance shape the orientations, movements, contents, and styles of facework.
4. Individualism-collectivism shapes members’ preferences for self-oriented facework versus other-oriented facework.
5. Small/large power distance shapes members’ preferences for horizontal-based facework versus vertical-based facework.
6. The cultural variability dimensions, encompassing individual, relational, and situational factors, influence the use of specific facework behaviors in particular cultural contexts.
7. Intercultural facework competence refers to the optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills in managing vulnerable identity-based conflict situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively.^[41]

Foremost, communication and face are highly intertwined concepts; therefore, when approaching an intercultural encounter, it is essential to remember the interrelationship between the two. As far as Ting-Toomey’s theory goes, she takes this idea one step further to understanding how face and communication ultimately enable successful intercultural conflict management. Face-negotiation theory is ultimately concerned with three different faces: self-face (concern for our face), other-face (concern for another person’s face), and mutual-face (concern for both interactants and the relationship).^[42] As you can see from Ting-Toomey’s last assumption in her theory above, individuals who are competent in facework can recognize when facework is necessary and then handle those situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively. As such, facework should be viewed as a necessary component for understanding any form of interpersonal interaction but is especially important when examining interpersonal interactions that occur between people from differing cultural backgrounds.

Improving Intercultural Communication Skills

Effective intercultural communication is not an innate ability but a set of skills that can be developed and refined through intentional practice and self-awareness. As our world becomes increasingly interconnected, the ability to navigate cultural differences successfully has become essential for personal and professional success. Two key approaches can significantly enhance our intercultural communication competence: developing cultural intelligence through systematic learning and behavioral adaptation, and engaging in culturally mindful interactions that emphasize present-moment awareness and non-judgmental openness. By cultivating these skills, we can transcend surface-level cultural encounters to foster meaningful relationships across cultural boundaries, mitigate misunderstandings, and cultivate more inclusive environments where diverse perspectives are valued and respected.

Become Culturally Intelligent

One of the latest buzzwords in the business world is “cultural intelligence,” which was initially introduced to the scholarly community in 2003 by P. Christopher Earley and Soon Ang.^[48] In the past decade, a wealth of research has been conducted examining the importance of cultural intelligence during interpersonal interactions with people from other cultures. Cultural intelligence (CQ) is defined as an “individual’s capability to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity.”^[49]

Four Factors of Cultural Intelligence

In their original study on the topic, Earley and Ang proposed that cultural intelligence is comprised of four distinct factors: cognitive, motivational, metacognitive, and behavioral dimensions. Before continuing, take a minute and complete the Cultural Intelligence Questionnaire.

Cognitive CQ

Cognitive CQ involves knowing different cultures (intercultural knowledge). Many types of knowledge about a culture can be relevant during an intercultural interaction: rules and norms, economic and legal systems, cultural values and beliefs, the importance of art within a society, etc. All of these different areas of knowledge involve facts that can help you understand people from different cultures. For example, in most of the United States, maintaining eye contact is very important when talking to someone. You may have even been told by someone to “look at me when I’m talking to you” if you’ve ever gotten in trouble. However, this isn’t consistent across different cultures at all. Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, and Native American cultures often view direct eye contact when talking to someone superior as a sign of disrespect. Understanding how eye contact is perceived across cultures can help you better interact with people from diverse cultural backgrounds. Probably one of the best books to read for insight into how to communicate effectively in another culture is Terri Morrison and Wayne A. Conaway’s book, Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands: The Bestselling Guide to Doing Business in More than 60 Countries.^[50]

Motivational CQ

We have motivational CQ, which refers to the degree to which an individual desires to engage in intercultural interactions and can easily adapt to different cultural environments. Motivation is the key to effective intercultural interaction. You can have all the knowledge in the world, but if you are not motivated to have successful intercultural interactions, you will not have them.

Metacognitive CQ

Metacognitive CQ involves being consciously aware of your intercultural interactions in a manner that enables you to have more effective interpersonal experiences with people from diverse cultures (intercultural understanding). All of the knowledge about cultural differences in the world will not be beneficial if you cannot use that information to understand and adapt your behavior during an interpersonal interaction with someone from a different culture. As such, we must continually learn about cultures, but also be prepared to adjust our understanding of people and their cultures through our interactions with them.

Behavioral CQ

Behavioral CQ is the next step following metacognitive CQ, which involves behaving in a manner consistent with what you know about other cultures.^[51] We should never expect others to adjust to us culturally. Instead, culturally intelligent people realize that it’s best to adapt our behaviors (verbally and nonverbally) to bridge the cultural gap between people. When we go out of our way to be culturally intelligent, we encourage others to do the same.

As you can see, becoming a truly culturally intelligent person requires considerable effort. As such, it’s essential to invest time in developing your cultural intelligence if you are to be an effective communicator in today’s world.

Engaging Culturally Mindful Interactions

Admittedly, being culturally competent requires a significant amount of work and practice. Even if you’re not completely culturally competent, you can engage with people from other cultures mindfully. As discussed in Chapter 1, Shauna Shapiro and Linda Carlson introduced us to the three-component model of mindfulness: attention, intention, and attitude.^[53]

First, when engaging with people from other cultures, we need to be fully present in the moment and not dwell on previous interactions with individuals from that culture or potential future interactions. Instead, it’s essential to focus on the person you are interacting with. You also need to be aware of any stereotypes and prejudices you may hold about people from a different culture. Don’t try to find evidence to support or negate these stereotypes or prejudices. If you focus on evidence-finding, you’re just trying to satisfy your thoughts and feelings and not mindfully engaging with this other person. Also, if you find that your mind is shifting, recognize the shift and allow yourself to re-center on your interaction with the other person.

Second, enter an intercultural interaction with a clear intention. If your goal is to learn more about that person’s culture, that’s a great intention. However, that may not be the only intention we have when interacting with someone from another culture. For example, you may interact with someone from another culture because you’re trying to sell them a product you represent. If your primary intention is sales, then be aware of your intention and don’t deceive yourself into thinking it’s something more altruistic.

Lastly, approach all intercultural interactions with the right attitude. Remember, the goal of being mindful is to be open, kind, and curious. Although we often discuss mindfulness in terms of how we can be open, kind, and curious with ourselves, it’s also important to extend that same framework when we are interacting with people from other cultures. Much of a mindful relationship is about embodying the right attitude during our interactions with others. If you need a refresher on building the right attitude during your interactions, go back and look at Daniel Siegel’s COAL Jon Kabat-Zinn’s Seven Attitudes for Mindfulness discussed in Chapter 1.

Overall, the goal of mindful intercultural interactions is to be present in the moment in a non-judgmental way. When you face judgments, recognize them, and ask yourself where they have come from. Interrogate those judgments. Don’t judge yourself for having these ideas. If we have stereotypes about a specific culture, it’s essential to acknowledge those stereotypes, challenge them, understand their origins, and evaluate their factual accuracy.

For example, imagine you’re talking to someone from the Republic of Kiribati. Chances are, you’ve probably never heard of the Republic of Kiribati, but it’s a real country in Oceania. But let’s say all you know about the people from the Republic of Kiribati is that they like European-style football. During your interaction, you say, “So, what’s your favorite football team?” In this moment, you’ve taken the one stereotype you had and used it to help engage in an interaction. However, if the person comes back and says, “I really don’t care. Sports aren’t my thing.” How do you respond? First, recognize that you attempted to use a stereotype that you had and call it out for what it was. That doesn’t make you a bad person, but we must learn from these encounters and broaden our worldviews. Second, call out the stereotype in your mind. Before that moment, you may not have even realized that you had a stereotype of people from the Republic of Kiribati. Labeling our stereotypes of other people is important because it helps us recognize them faster, the more we engage in this type of mindful behavior. Third, figure out where that stereotype came from. Maybe you had been in New Zealand and saw a match on the television and saw the Kiribati national football team. In that one moment, you learned a tiny bit about an entire country and pocketed it away for future use. Sometimes it’s easy to figure out where our stereotypes originated. Still, sometimes these stereotypes are so ingrained in us through our own culture that it’s hard to really determine their origin. Last, it’s time to realize that your stereotype may not be that factual. At the same time, you may have found the one resident of the Republic of Kiribati who doesn’t like football. We can often make these determinations by talking to the other person.

It’s also important to be mindfully open to the other person’s stereotypes of people within your own culture. For example, someone from the Republic of Kiribati may have a stereotype that Americans know nothing about football (other than American football). If you’re a fan of what we in the United States call soccer, then you correct that stereotype or at least provide that person a more nuanced understanding of your own culture. Sure, American football is still the king of sports in the United States, but media trends for watching football (soccer) are growing, and more and more Americans are becoming fans.

Chapter Wrap-Up

In this chapter, we began by discussing the meaning of the word “culture,” while also considering the concepts of co-culture and microcultures. We then examined the critical functions that culture plays in our daily lives. Next, we discussed the intersection of culture and communication. Last, we concluded this chapter by discussing how you can enhance your intercultural communication skills.

Chapter Exercises

Real-World Case Study

Roy and Jalissa originally met in graduate school. On the first day Jalissa walked into grad school, she was glad to see someone her age, who was older than the average student in the class. Even though Roy was White and Jalissa was African American, the two immediately felt drawn to each other. Before they knew it, Jalissa and Roy were inseparable. Jalissa’s husband started to get jealous of Roy until he met Roy and realized that Roy was gay.

Over the years, the two graduated and went to different jobs that were close to each other. Roy and Jalissa would still get together regularly and go shopping, to the movies, and have dinner, etc. The two of them considered themselves as highly culturally intelligent people. Jalissa was a Dean of Diversity at a liberal arts college, and Roy taught cultural studies at a large research university. The two often had pet names for each other that people outside of their relationship could view as racist or homophobic, but they knew the spirit behind their pet names was meant in jest and not ignorance, ethnocentrism, or fear.

One day Roy and Jalissa were hanging around in a store when Roy found an African Mask. Roy grabbed the mask, walked up behind Jalissa, and shouted, “Abugga bugga!” Jalissa turned around and laughingly slapped Roy on the arm, responding, “You White racist cracker!” Jalissa looked at an older White woman standing in the row, completely startled, and she just burst out laughing and Roy joined right in.

1. Was Roy culturally intelligent? Why?
2. Was Jalissa culturally intelligent? Why?
3. Was this interpersonal interaction mindful? Why?

End-of-Chapter Assessment

1. Milagros belongs to a very distinct South American tribe. Bravery is very important in her tribe. From an early age, all boys and girls are taught that bravery is akin to being a member of the tribe. Furthermore, people who are not brave are often banished from the tribe. For this tribe, what does bravery represent?
   1. a rule
   2. a norm
   3. a value
   4. a belief
   5. a worth
2. African Americans; Bisexuals, Gays, and Lesbians; Irish Americans, Southerners are all examples of what?
   1. dominant cultures
   2. co-cultures
   3. subcultures
   4. microcultures
   5. collaborative cultures
3. As a transgendered individual, Melanie realizes that many people in her dominant culture do not understand, agree with, nor support transgendered individuals and causes. Which facet of collective self-esteem does this represent?
   1. private collective esteem
   2. membership esteem
   3. public collective esteem
   4. importance to identity
   5. other esteem
4. The degree to which an individual views the world from their own culture’s perspective while evaluating other cultures according to their culture’s preconceptions often accompanied by feelings of dislike, mistrust, or hate for cultures deemed inferior?
   1. ethnocentrism
   2. stereotypes
   3. prejudice
   4. discrimination
   5. cultural annoyance
5. Juan’s culture is marked by expensive houses, fast cars, rich food, and all the luxuries one could desire. Which of Hofstede’s cultural differences does Juan’s culture represent?
   1. individualism
   2. high power distance
   3. masculinity
   4. short-term orientation
   5. indulgence