Halls Cultural Context

The main difference between high-context and low-context cultures lies in how they approach
communication and the reliance on contextual cues versus explicit verbal communication:

1. **Communication Style**:

- High-context cultures rely heavily on implicit communication, where much of the message is
conveyed through context, nonverbal cues, and shared understandings. Communication is often
indirect and relies on subtle cues.

- Low-context cultures emphasize explicit communication, where messages are conveyed directly
through words rather than relying heavily on context or nonverbal cues. Communication tends to be
more direct and to the point.

2. **Use of Context**:

- In high-context cultures, understanding the context of a situation is crucial for interpreting

messages accurately. Cultural norms, social status, and relationships heavily influence
communication.

- Low-context cultures place less emphasis on context and rely more on the literal meaning of
words. Contextual understanding is still important but may not be as central to communication as in
high-context cultures.

3. **Nonverbal Communication**:

- Nonverbal cues such as body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice play a significant role
in high-context cultures.

- While nonverbal communication is still present in low-context cultures, it tends to be less

prominent compared to verbal communication.

4. **Group Harmony vs. Individualism**:

- High-context cultures prioritize maintaining group harmony and preserving relationships. Conflict
may be avoided or addressed indirectly to preserve social cohesion.

- Low-context cultures often prioritize individual needs and goals over group harmony. Individuals
may speak up assertively to express their opinions or preferences.

5. **Task Orientation vs. Relationship Orientation**:

- Low-context cultures are often more task-oriented, focusing on achieving goals and completing
tasks efficiently.
 - High-context cultures may prioritize relationship-building and maintaining social connections over
task accomplishment.

These differences in communication style and cultural values can significantly impact how people
from different cultures interact and understand each other, making cross-cultural communication
awareness essential for effective global interactions.

Hofstede’s cultural Dimension

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory is a framework developed by Dutch social psychologist Geert
Hofstede to understand cultural differences between countries. It identifies six dimensions along
which cultures can be compared:

1. **Power Distance Index (PDI)**: This dimension measures the extent to which less powerful
members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. In societies with high
power distance, there is a greater acceptance of hierarchy and authority, whereas in low power
distance societies, there is a more egalitarian distribution of power.

2. **Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV)**: This dimension reflects the degree to which individuals in
a society are integrated into groups. In individualistic cultures, there is a focus on personal
achievement, independence, and individual rights, while in collectivistic cultures, there is an
emphasis on group cohesion, loyalty, and harmony.

3. **Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS)**: This dimension describes the distribution of roles between
genders in a society. Masculine cultures tend to value competitiveness, assertiveness, and
achievement, while feminine cultures prioritize cooperation, modesty, and caring for others.

4. **Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)**: This dimension measures the extent to which members
of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. Cultures with high uncertainty
avoidance have strict rules and norms to reduce uncertainty and prefer structured situations, while
cultures with low uncertainty avoidance are more tolerant of ambiguity and are open to change.

5. **Long-Term Orientation vs. Short-Term Orientation (LTO)**: This dimension reflects the degree
to which a society values long-term traditions and values over short-term goals and gratification.
Cultures with a long-term orientation prioritize perseverance, thriftiness, and respect for tradition,
while cultures with a short-term orientation focus more on immediate results, personal stability, and
fulfilling social obligations.

6. **Indulgence vs. Restraint (IND)**: This dimension describes the extent to which a society allows
for gratification of basic human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Cultures with high
 indulgence tend to be more relaxed and tolerant of gratification, while cultures with high restraint
have stricter social norms and control over gratification.

Hofstede's dimensions provide a useful framework for understanding cultural differences and their
implications for various aspects of social, organizational, and international behavior. They are widely
used in cross-cultural studies and management practices to facilitate effective communication,
collaboration, and adaptation in multicultural contexts.

Horizontal Collectivist (HC)

Vertical Collectivist (VC)
▪ Rank and status among members
▪ Obedience to authority
▪ Sacrifice of self
Vertical Individualist (VI)
▪ Members are equal
▪ No hierarchy
▪ Decisions based on consensus
Horizontal Individualist (HI)

▪ Each individual considered unique ▪ Each individual considered unique

▪ Each individual is to others ▪ All members are equal
TRAIT ERA

1. **Trait Stability**: Personality traits were seen as enduring characteristics that remain consistent
over time and across different situations.

2. **Trait Hierarchy**: Traits were believed to be organized hierarchically, with broad, overarching
traits comprising more specific, lower-level traits.

3. **Trait Measurement**: Researchers aimed to develop reliable methods to measure personality

traits, such as self-report questionnaires or observer ratings.

4. **Trait Universality**: There was an assumption that personality traits were universal across
cultures and applicable to all individuals, reflecting fundamental aspects of human nature.

5. **Trait Predictiveness**: Personality traits were thought to predict behavior and outcomes across
various situations, allowing researchers to anticipate how individuals would respond.

6. **Trait Heritability**: Some researchers proposed that personality traits had a heritable
component, suggesting that certain traits could be passed down through genetic
inheritance.

These assumptions shaped research and theory during the trait era, contributing to a better
understanding of personality. However, contemporary perspectives in personality
psychology acknowledge the dynamic, context-dependent nature of personality and the
importance of cultural variability in trait expression.

BEHAVIOURAL ERA

During the Behavior Era in psychology, which emerged in the mid-20th century, there was a shift
from focusing on internal traits to observable behaviors. Key points include:

1. **Observable Behavior**: Emphasis on studying behaviors that could be objectively observed and
measured.

2. **Behaviorism**: Dominant school of thought rejecting the study of internal mental states,
focusing solely on observable behaviors and their environmental determinants.

3. **Stimulus-Response Associations**: Behavior influenced by environmental stimuli, shaped

through reinforcement and punishment.
4. **Operant Conditioning**: B.F. Skinner's work showed behaviors could be shaped through
reinforcement and punishment, leading to behavior modification techniques.

5. **Experimental Methods**: Use of experiments to study behavior in controlled settings,

manipulating variables to observe effects.

6. **Applications**: Applied to therapy (behavior therapy) and education (behavioral teaching

strategies).

7. **Critiques and Evolution**: Criticized for narrow focus and neglect of cognitive processes,
leading to integration with cognitive approaches.

Overall, the Behavior Era marked a significant shift towards empirical study of observable behavior
and its environmental influences, laying groundwork for subsequent developments in
psychology.

Power

Consequences- resistance, commitment, compliance

Distribution – even distribution, resentful, passive -aggressive, retaliate

Culture-

Resources of power

. The first three sources of individual power—legitimate, reward, and coercive—are position powers

The last two sources of power—expert and referent—are more personal; they are based on who the
person is rather than the position he holds.