2. Cultural Values Intercultural Communication—COM 372 John R. Baldwin Department of Communication Illinois State University jrbaldw@ilstu.edu

3. But first…Some review

4. 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: _________

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.)

8. 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

9. The Notion of Cultural Difference

10. Value Dimensions High & Low Context (E. T. Hall ) Low ContextHigh Context

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

13. Value Dimensions Individualism/ Collectivism Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Masculinity/ Femininity Long/Short-term value orientation Hofstede’s Dimensions

14. How might these dimensions impact business or class setting? Individualism/CollectivismPower Distance Uncertainty AvoidanceMasculinity/Femininity

15. Value Dimensions Japan Collectivistic Individualistic Low Power Distance High Power Distance Jamaica Mexico Turkey India Argentina Denmark Germany United States Italy Venezuela Malaysia Hong Kong Costa Rica

16. Individual- vs. Cultural-Level Variables Cultural LevelIndividual Level Individualism/ collectivism Self-construal (Inter/Independent) Power distanceEgalitarianism (cf group/ individual power) Uncertainty avoidanceTolerance for ambiguity Masculinity/femininityIndividual-level M/F (androgyneity)

17. Value Dimensions Parson’s Pattern Variables Affectivity  Affect Neutrality Universalism  Particularism Diffuseness  Specificity Ascription  Achievement Instrumental Orientation  Expressive Orientation

18. Value Dimensions Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck’s Value Dimensions OrientationABC Human Nature EvilGoodGood + Evil Person- Nature SubjectHarmonyMaster TimePastPresentFuture ActivityBeingBeing-in- becoming Doing RelationalLinealityCollateralityIndividual’m

19. 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

20. Values  Communication “American” Communication  Direct  “Elaborated”  Informal  Low context  Less differentiated codes Middle Eastern Communication  Indirect  Emphatic  Formality  High context  More differentiated codes

21. 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

22. 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

23. American Proverbs God helps those Who help themselves Early to bed, early to rise… makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise When the going gets tough… the tough get going Cleanliness is next to godliness Every problem has a solution Idle hands are the devil’s workshop A penny saved is a penny earned Time is money Look out for Number One!

24. Far Eastern Communication East AsianNorth American Process orientation (expressive) Differentiated linguistic codes Indirect Receiver-centered Outcome orientation (instrumental) Less differentiated codes Direct communication Sender-centered Confucianism & Communication (Yum, 1991)

25. East AsianNorth 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)

26. German & American Managers’ Communication AmericanGerman  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

27. 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)

28. SWISS & GERMANS: [Kopper, 1993] German Assertiveness Dynamism Confrontation Hierarchy Authority Self-Reliance Provincialism Swiss Polite Behavior Reserve, Discretion Compromise Democracy Consensus Conformity Cosmopolitanism Both Quality (Perfectionism) Security Reliability Inflexibility Social Order & Rules Formality Seriousness

29. Any questions? John R. Baldwin Fell 451 438-7969 jrbaldw@ilstu.edu But….just call me John…