according to peter callero, what are the characteristics of individualism? check all that apply.

Anthropological notion

Characteristics of a low-context culture

Characteristics of a loftier-context civilisation

In anthropology, loftier-context culture and low-context culture are ends of a continuum of how explicit the messages exchanged in a culture are and how important the context is in communication. The continuum pictures how people communicate with others through their range of advice abilities: utilizing gestures, relations, trunk language, verbal messages, or non-exact messages.^[1] "High-" and "low-" context cultures typically refer to language groups, nationalities, or regional communities. However, the concept may as well apply to corporations, professions and other cultural groups, besides as to settings such as online and offline advice.^[2] High-context cultures oftentimes showroom less-direct verbal and nonverbal communication, utilizing small advice gestures and reading more significant into these less-direct messages.^[3] Low-context cultures do the opposite; directly verbal communication is needed to properly understand a message beingness communicated and relies heavily on explicit verbal skills.^[iv] The model of high-context and depression-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural-advice studies, simply has been criticized as defective empirical validation.^[5]

History of differing context cultures [edit]

These concepts were first introduced past the anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his 1959 book The Silent Linguistic communication. Cultures and communication in which the context of the message is of great importance to structuring deportment are referred to as high context. High-context defines cultures that are usually relational and collectivist, and which near highlight interpersonal relationships. Hall identifies high-context cultures as those in which harmony and the well-being of the group is preferred over individual achievement.^[1] In low context, communication members' communication must be more explicit, direct, and elaborate because individuals are not expected to have knowledge of each other'southward histories or background, and communication is not necessarily shaped by long-continuing relationships between speakers. Because low-context communication concerns more direct messages, the meaning of these letters is more dependent on the words beingness spoken rather than on the interpretation of more subtle or unspoken cues.^[half-dozen] A 2008 meta-analysis concluded that the model was "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped".^[v]

Characteristics of high-context and low-context cultures [edit]

Denotation and connotation [edit]

High-context cultures are related to connotation. People within high-context cultures tend to be more aware and observant of facial expressions, torso language, changes in tone, and other aspects of communication that are not direct spoken.^{[ commendation needed ]} Denotation tends to be attributed to low-context culture.^{[ citation needed ]} People in depression-context cultures communicate in a more direct way, with explicitly speaking what they desire to communicate.

Interpersonal relationships [edit]

Individualism and collectivism are related to low-context and high-context cultures, respectively. Within loftier-context cultures, people rely on their networks of friends and family, viewing their relationships as part of i large customs.^{[ citation needed ]} In low-context cultures, relationships are not viewed as important figures to identity. People within low-context cultures see their relationships much looser and the lines between networks of people are more flexibly drawn.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Examples of higher- and lower-context cultures [edit]

Cultural contexts are not admittedly "high" or "low". Instead, a comparison between cultures may discover communication differences to a greater or lesser degree. Typically a loftier-context culture will be relational, collectivist, intuitive, and wistful. They place a loftier value on interpersonal relationships and group members are a very close-knit community.^[7] Typically a depression-context culture will be less shut-knit, and so individuals communicating will have fewer relational cues when interpreting letters. Therefore, information technology is necessary for more explicit information to be included in the bulletin so it is non misinterpreted.^[eight] Not all individuals in a civilisation tin be defined by cultural stereotypes, and at that place volition be variations inside a national culture in dissimilar settings. For example, Hall describes how Japanese culture has both low- and high-context situations.^[nine] Still, understanding the wide tendencies of predominant cultures can help inform and educate individuals on how to better facilitate communication between individuals of differing cultural backgrounds.

Although the concept of high- and low-context cultures is unremarkably applied in the field of analyzing national cultures, information technology can also be used to describe scientific or corporate cultures, or specific settings such as airports or law courts. A simplified example mentioned past Hall is that scientists working in "hard scientific discipline" fields (similar chemistry and physics) tend to have lower-context cultures: considering their knowledge and models have fewer variables, they will typically include less context for each outcome they depict.^[10] In dissimilarity, scientists working with living systems need to include more than context considering in that location tin can be significant variables which bear on the inquiry outcomes.

Croucher'south study examines the exclamation that culture influences communication way (loftier/low-context) preference. Data was gathered in India, Ireland, Thailand, and the The states where the results confirm that "loftier-context nations (India and Thailand) adopt the fugitive and obliging conflict styles more than low-context nations (Ireland and the United States), whereas depression-context nations prefer the uncompromising and dominating communication manner more than high-context nations."^[eleven]

In addition, Hall identified countries such as Nihon, Arabic countries and some Latin American Countries to practice high-context civilization; "Loftier context communication carries most of its information within physical acts and features such as fugitive eye contact or even the shrug of a shoulder."^[12] On the other manus, he identified countries such as Germany, the United States and Scandinavia as low-context cultures. These countries are quite explicit and elaborate without having prior noesis to each fellow member'south history or background.

Cultures and languages are defined every bit higher or lower context on a spectrum. For example, information technology could be argued that the Canadian French linguistic communication is college context than Canadian English, but lower context than Spanish or French French. An private from Texas (a higher-context culture) may communicate with a few words or utilize of a prolonged silence characteristic of Texan English language, where a New Yorker would be very explicit (equally typical of New York Urban center English), although both speak the aforementioned language (American English) and are function of a nation (the United states of America) which is lower-context relative to other nations. Hall notes a similar deviation betwixt Navajo-speakers and English-speakers in a United States school.^[13]

Hall and Hall proposed a "spectrum" of national cultures from "High-Context cultures" to "Depression-Context Cultures.^[14] This has been expanded to further countries by Sheposh & Shaista.

Some recognized examples include: College-context culture: China, Republic of india, Korea, Japan, other Asian countries, Kingdom of saudi arabia, Islamic republic of pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Oman, and Yemen, African countries such as Tanzania, Republic of kenya, Republic of zimbabwe and Nigeria, Latin America, the Pacific islands, French republic, Greece, Finland, Republic of ireland, Italian republic, and Russia. In the United States, Native Americans and Hawaiian islanders are also considered high-context. Lower-context civilization: Usa, Federal republic of germany, Norway, Kingdom of denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and other European nations.^{[15] [16]}

Cultural context tin as well shift and evolve. For case, a study has argued that both Japan and Finland (loftier-context cultures) are becoming lower-context with the increased influence of Western European and United States civilisation.^[17]

Case studies [edit]

U.South, Red china, and Korea [edit]

This study, done by Kim Dunghoon, was to test the major aspects the loftier versus low-context culture concepts. Three samples were gathered from the U.Southward, Prc, and Korea, three different cultures. From each civilization, 96 business managers were surveyed for the American and Chinese sample and 50 managers were surveyed from Korea. According to Hall'due south theory, Chinese and Korean samples represented higher-context cultures while the American sample represents lower context. 16 items were tested in this study. Each of them covers different aspects of the high-versus low-context concept including "social orientation, responsibility, confrontation, communication, commitment, and dealing with new situations". "The results show that American, Chinese, and Korean samples were significantly different on xv of the 16 items. Out of the 15 items, 11 are significant at the .01 level, 1 at the .05 level, and 3 at the .10 level. The composite score also shows a pregnant difference among the three samples at the .01 level". The American sample scored the lowest compared to the two "Oriental samples" which is consistent with Hall's concept. Overall, this study offers more than testify supporting the high versus low-context civilization concepts with Chinese, Korean, and American test participants. The results show that in loftier-context cultures, such as Prc and Korea, people appear to exist "more socially oriented, less confrontational, and more than complacent with existing ways of living" compared to people from low-context cultures, similar America.^[xviii]

Russia and Romania [edit]

A case report was done on 30 Romanian and 30 Russian employees, to compare high- and low-context cultures, and results strongly suggested that Russia and Romania are both high-context cultures. The table shows the major differences and similarities between private queries.^[19]

Mexico and the U.S. [edit]

This report is a result of a cross-cultural examination between students from the U.s., a depression-context culture, and Mexico, a high-context culture, to study the reasons people communicate in each culture.^[20] There were 225 Mexican participants from 3 different undergraduate universities in Mexico City and 447 participants from Kent State University in the U.S.^[xx] The case study looked into civilisation daze experienced by Mexicans studying in the U.S. The hypotheses tested indicated the high-context civilisation in Mexico would provide different motives for communication when compared with the low-context culture of the U.S.

The results found that U.S. participants used communication for pleasure more oft than Mexican participants.^[twenty] Pleasure, amore and inclusion were the highest motives for communication in both cultures, and command was the lowest for both cultures.^[twenty]

Overlap and dissimilarity betwixt context cultures [edit]

The categories of context cultures are not totally split. Both often take many aspects of the other'due south cultural communication abilities and strengths into account.^[21] The terms high- and low-context cultures are not classified with strict private characteristics or boundaries. Instead, many cultures tend to have a mixture or at to the lowest degree some concepts that are shared between them, overlapping the two context cultures.^[21]

Ramos suggests that "in low context civilisation, communication members' communication must exist more explicit. As such, what is said is what is meant, and further analysis of the message is usually unnecessary."^[22] This implies that communication is quite direct and detailed because members of the culture are not expected to have knowledge of each other's histories, past feel or background. Because low-context communication concerns more direct letters, the meaning of these messages is more dependent on the words being spoken rather than on the estimation of more subtle or unspoken cues.

The Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice states that, "high context defines cultures that are relational and collectivist, and which nearly highlight interpersonal relationships. Cultures and communication in which context is of great importance to structuring deportment is referred to as loftier context."^[23] In such cultures, people are highly perceptive of actions. Furthermore, cultural aspects such as tradition, ceremony, and history are also highly valued. Because of this, many features of cultural behavior in loftier-context cultures, such every bit private roles and expectations, practise not need much detailed or thought-out caption.

According to Watson, "the influence of cultural variables interplays with other central factors – for example, social identities, those of age, gender, social class and ethnicity; this may include a stronger or weaker influence."^[24] A similarity that the ii advice styles share is its influence on social characteristics such as historic period, gender, social form and ethnicity. For example, for someone who is older and more experienced within a lodge, the need for social cues may be college or lower depending on the advice style. The same applies for the other characteristics in varied countries.

On the other paw, certain intercultural advice skills are unique for each culture and information technology is significant to note that these overlaps in communication techniques are represented subgroups within social interactions or family settings.^[25] Many singular cultures that are big take subcultures inside of them, making communication and defining them more complicated than the low-context and high-context civilisation scale.^[25] The diversity within a main culture shows how the loftier and depression scale differs depending on social settings such as school, work, dwelling, and in other countries; variation is what allows the scale to fluctuate fifty-fifty if a large civilisation is categorized every bit primarily ane or the other.^[25]

Online [edit]

Punctuation marks and emojis are more often used by high-context users than low-context users. The tools are used to institute context by calculation additional information as personal and social cues are not every bit presentable as they are in face-to-face negotiations.^[26]

Miscommunication within culture contexts [edit]

Between each type of culture context, in that location volition be forms of miscommunication considering of the difference in gestures, social cues, and intercultural adjustments; notwithstanding, it is important to recognize these differences and learn how to avoid miscommunication to benefit certain situations.^[27] Since all sets of cultures differ, peculiarly from a global standpoint where language as well creates a barrier for communication, social interactions specific to a civilization normally require a range of advisable communication abilities that an opposing civilisation may not sympathise or know about.^[28] This significance follows into many situations such equally the workplace, which can be prone to diversified cultures and opportunities for collaboration and working together.^[27] Awareness of miscommunication between high- and depression-context cultures within the workplace or intercultural communication settings advocates for nerveless unification inside a group through the flexibility and ability to empathize one another.^{[25] [27]}

How higher context relates to other cultural metrics [edit]

Diversity [edit]

Families, subcultures and in-groups typically favour higher-context communication.^[ix] Groups that are able to rely on a common background may not demand to use words as explicitly to understand each other. Settings and cultures where people come together from a wider variety of backgrounds such every bit international airports, large cities, or multi-national firms, tend to utilise lower-context communication forms.^[25]

Language [edit]

Hall links language to culture through the work of Sapir-Whorf on linguistic relativity.^[thirteen] A merchandise language will typically demand to explicitly explain more than of the context than a dialect which tin can presume a high level of shared context. Considering a low-context setting cannot rely on shared understanding of potentially ambiguous messages, low-context cultures tend to give more than information, or to exist precise in their language. In contrast, a high-context linguistic communication similar Japanese or Chinese tin use a high number of homophones simply still be understood by a listener who knows the context.^[17]

Elaborated and restricted codes [edit]

The concept of elaborated and restricted codes was introduced past sociologist Basil Bernstein in his book Class, Codes and Control. The use of an elaborated code indicates that speaker and listener do not share pregnant amounts of mutual knowledge, and hence they may need to "spell out" their ideas more fully: elaborated codes tend to exist more context-independent. In contrast, the employ of restricted codes indicates that speakers and listeners do share a great bargain of common background and perspectives, and hence much more can be taken for granted, and thus expressed implicitly or through nuance: restricted codes tend to be more context-dependent.^[29]

Restricted codes are commonly used in high-context culture groups, where group members share the same cultural groundwork and tin can easily understand the implicit meanings "between the lines" without further elaboration.^[28] Conversely, in cultural groups with low context, where people share less common knowledge or 'value individuality in a higher place group identification', elaborated codes are necessary to avoid misunderstanding.^[30]

Collectivism and individualism [edit]

The concepts of collectivism and individualism have been applied to loftier- and low-context cultures by Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede in his Cultural Dimensions Theory.^[2] Collectivist societies prioritize the group over the individual, and vice versa for individualist ones. In high-context cultures, language may be used to assist and maintain human relationship-building and to focus on process. India and Japan are typically high-context, highly collectivistic cultures, where business organization is done past building relationships and maintaining respectful communication.^[31]

Individualistic cultures promote the development of individual values and contained social groups. Individualism may lead to communicating to all people in a group in the aforementioned way, rather than offering hierarchical respect to certain members.^[32] Because individualistic cultures may value cultural multifariousness, a more explicit fashion of communicating is often required to avoid misunderstanding. Linguistic communication may exist used to attain goals or exchange data. The The states and Australia are typically low-context, highly individualistic cultures, where transparency and competition in business are prized.^[31]

Stability and immovability of tradition [edit]

Loftier-context cultures tend to be more stable, as their communication is more than economical, fast, efficient and satisfying; just these are gained at a price of devoting time into preprogramming cultural groundwork, and their loftier stability might come with a price of a high barrier for evolution.^[33] By contrast, low-context cultures tend to change more rapidly and drastically, assuasive extension^{[ definition needed ]} to happen at faster rates. This besides ways that low-context communication may neglect due to the overload of information, which makes civilization lose its screening^{[ definition needed ]} function.^[13]

Therefore, higher-context cultures tend to correlate with cultures that also take a stiff sense of tradition and history, and alter little over time.^[eighteen] For example, Native Americans in the United States have college-context cultures with a strong sense of tradition and history, compared to general American civilization. Focusing on tradition creates opportunities for higher-context messages between individuals of each new generation, and the high-context culture feeds back to the stability hence allows the tradition to exist maintained. This is in dissimilarity to lower-context cultures in which the shared experiences upon which communication is congenital can change drastically from one generation to the adjacent, creating communication gaps between parents and children, equally in the United States.^[13]

Facial expression and gesture [edit]

Culture also affects how individuals translate other people's facial expressions. An experiment performed by the Academy of Glasgow shows that unlike cultures have different understanding of the facial expression signals of the half-dozen basic emotions, which are the then-called "universal language of emotion"—happiness, surprise, fear, cloy, anger and sadness.^{[34] [35]} In high-context cultures, facial expressions and gestures take on greater importance in conveying and understanding a bulletin, and the receiver may require more than cultural context to understand "bones" displays of emotions.

Marketing and advertizing perspective [edit]

Cultural differences in advertising and marketing may also be explained through loftier- and depression-context cultures.^[36] Ane study on McDonald's online advertisement compared Japan, Communist china, Korea, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the U.s., and constitute that in high-context countries, the ad used more colors, movements, and sounds to give context, while in depression-context cultures the advertising focused more on exact information and linear processes.^[2]

Website communication [edit]

Website pattern among cross-cultural barriers include factoring in decisions about civilization-sensitive colour meanings, layout preferences, blitheness and sounds.^[37] In a instance study conducted past the It University of Copenhagen, information technology was plant that websites catering to high-context cultures tended to have more than detailed and avant-garde designs, including diverse images and animations.^[37] Low-context websites had less animation and more than stagnant images, with more details on information.^[37] The images constitute on the websites used in the study promoted individualistic and collectivist characteristics within the low-context and high-context websites, respectively. The depression-context websites had multiple images of individuals, while the high-context websites contained images and animations of groups and communities.^[37]

Limitations of the model [edit]

In a 2008 meta-assay of 224 manufactures published between 1990 and 2006, Peter Westward. Cardon wrote:

[T]he theory was never described by Hall with any empirical rigor, and no known research involving any instrument or measure of contexting validates information technology. ... Ironically, contexting is most frequently discussed in terms of directness, yet empirical studies about all fail to back up this relationship. In other words, the relationship betwixt directness and contexting based on traditional classifications of [high-context] and [low-context] cultures is particularly tenuous. Most of the contexting categories only have not been researched enough to make business firm conclusions. But the fact that contexting has not been empirically validated should not necessarily be construed as a failure of the theory. ... Nonetheless, the contexting model just cannot be described as an empirically validated model.^{[v] : 422–3}

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} Ramos, D. C. (2014). High context. In S. Thompson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diverseness and social justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Retrieved from http://db19.linccweb.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/rowmandasj/high_context/0?institutionId=6086
2. ^ ^{a b c} Wurtz, Elizabeth (November 2005). "Intercultural Advice on Web sites: A Cantankerous-Cultural Analysis of Spider web sites from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures". Journal of Computer-Mediated Advice. 11 (i): 274–299. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00313.10.
3. ^ Ramos, Carolina (2014). "Loftier Context". Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice (1st ed.).
4. ^ Ramos, Carolina (2014). "Depression Context". Encyclopedia of Multifariousness and Social Justice (1st ed.).
5. ^ ^{a b c} Cardon, Peter Due west. (Oct 2008). "A Critique of Hall'south Contexting Model". Journal of Concern and Technical Communication. 22 (4): 399–428. doi:10.1177/1050651908320361. S2CID 145808976.
6. ^ "Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice". Reference Reviews. 29 (6): 20–22. September vii, 2015. doi:10.1108/rr-06-2015-0165.
7. ^ Guffey, Mary Ellen (2009). Essentials of Business Communication. Southward-Western/ Cengage Learning.
8. ^ "Loftier and Low Context". www.culture-at-piece of work.com . Retrieved October eighteen, 2018.
9. ^ ^{a b} Hall, Edward T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. pp. 68–69. ISBN9780385124744.
10. ^ Hall, Edward T. (1989). Beyond civilization. New York: Doubleday. pp. 87–88. ISBN0385124740. OCLC 20595709.
11. ^ Croucher, Stephen M.; Bruno, Ann; McGrath, Paul; Adams, Caroline; McGahan, Cassandra; Suits, Angela; Huckins, Ashleigh (Jan 2012). "Disharmonize Styles and High–Depression Context Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension". Communication Research Reports. 29 (1): 64–73. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.640093. S2CID 143056441.
12. ^ Hall, E. T.; Hall, G. R. (1990). "Agreement cultural differences." Intercultural Press Yarmouth ME. ^{[ page needed ]}
13. ^ ^{a b c d} Hall, Edward T. (1989). Beyond civilisation. New York: Doubleday. pp. 15–16. ISBN9780385124744.
14. ^ Hall, Edward T.; Hall, Mildred Reed (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, Me.: Intercultural Printing. ISBN093366284X. OCLC 20259415.
15. ^ "Loftier-Context vs. Low-Context Cultures". 2019. doi:ten.4135/9781529702958.
16. ^ "Search Florida Libraries - Mango". matrimony.notice.flvc.org . Retrieved December 15, 2019.
17. ^ ^{a b} Nishimura, Shoji; Nevgi, Anne; Tella, Seppo. "Communication Manner and Cultural Features in High/Low Context Communication Cultures: A Case Study of Finland, Japan and Bharat" (PDF). researchgate.internet. Retrieved February 17, 2021.
18. ^ ^{a b} Kim, Donghoon (September 6, 1998). "Loftier- Versus Low-Context Culture: A Comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American Cultures". Psychology & Marketing. 15 (6): 507–521. doi:x.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199809)15:vi<507::Aid-MAR2>three.0.CO;ii-A.
19. ^ Piroşcă, Grigore. "Communicational Features in High/Low Context Organizational Civilization: A Instance Study of Romania and Russia". Valahian Journal of Economical Studies. vii (four): 7–12.
20. ^ ^{a b c d} Rubin, Rebecca B.; Collado, Carlos Fernández; Hernandez-Sampieri, Roberto (March 1992). "A cross-cultural exam of interpersonal communication motives in Mexico and The Usa". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 16 (two): 145–157. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(92)90015-M.
21. ^ ^{a b} Yarn, Douglas, ed. (2002). "low-context and high-context advice". Dictionary of Conflict Resolution . Retrieved December 9, 2018.
22. ^ Ramos, D. Carolina. "Low Context." Encyclopedia of Diverseness and Social Justice, edited by Sherwood Thompson, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1st edition, 2014. Credo Reference,
23. ^ Ramos, D. Carolina. "High Context." Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Sherwood Thompson, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1st edition, 2014. Credo Reference,
24. ^ "Communication: intercultural communication." Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies, James Watson, and Anne Loma, Bloomsbury, 9th edition, 2015. Credo Reference, https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/dictmedia/communication_intercultural_communication/0?institutionId=6086. Accessed 25 Mar. 2019.
25. ^ ^{a b c d e} Watson, James; Hill, Anne (2015). "Communication: intercultural communication". Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies (9th ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN978-1-8496-6528-5 . Retrieved September 23, 2018.
26. ^ Kersten, Gregory; Vetschera, Rudolf; Koeszegi, Sabine (2004). "National Cultural Differences in the Utilize and Perception of Net-based NSS: Does High or Low Context Matter?". International Negotiation. 9 (1): 79–109. doi:10.1163/1571806041262070. ISSN 1382-340X.
27. ^ ^{a b c} Curry, Curtis. "Managing disharmonize in global teams: 4 keys to leveraging cultural differences in diverse teams". Business concern Drove . Retrieved September 22, 2018.
28. ^ ^{a b} Barron, Jacob (April 2013). "International communication 101: staying on the right side of culture". Concern Credit (Concern Collection): 36+. Retrieved September 22, 2018.
29. ^ Bernstein, Basil (2003). Theoretical studies towards a sociolinguistics. London: Routledge. p. 58. ISBN0-415-30287-0.
30. ^ Foss, Stephen W. Littlejohn, Karen A. (2011). Theories of man communication (10th ed.). Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press. pp. 375–376. ISBN9781577667063.
31. ^ ^{a b} Lewis, Richard D. (2006). When cultures collide : leading across cultures : a major new edition of the global guide (3rd ed.). Boston: Nicholas Brealey International. pp. 436–437. ISBN1423774582. OCLC 69872214.
32. ^ "Individualism, Collectivism, High And Low Context". SlideShare. University of Montana, Undergraduate Advising Center. January 12, 2010. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
33. ^ Pirosca, Grigore (October iv, 2016). "Communicational Features in High/Low Context Organizational Civilization: A Case Study of Romania and Russia". Valahian Journal of Economic Studies. seven: 7–12.
34. ^ Chen, Chaona; Jack, Rachael E (October 2017). "Discovering cultural differences (and similarities) in facial expressions of emotion". Current Stance in Psychology. 17: 61–66. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.010. PMID 28950974.
35. ^ Jack, Rachael E.; Schyns, Philippe Grand. (July 2015). "The Human Face as a Dynamic Tool for Social Communication". Current Biology. 25 (14): R621–R634. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.052. PMID 26196493.
36. ^ Solomon, Michael; Russell-Bennett, Rebekah; Previte, Josephine (October 24, 2012). Consumer Behaviour. Pearson Higher Education AU. ISBN9781442564992.
37. ^ ^{a b c d} Wurtz, Elizabeth (November 2005). "Intercultural Communication on Web sites: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Web sites from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures". Journal of Calculator-Mediated Communication. xi (i): 274–299. doi:ten.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00313.x. ISSN 1083-6101.

Further reading [edit]

• Hall, Edward, T. Beyond Culture. Anchor Books (December 7, 1976). ISBN 978-0385124744
• Samovar, Larry A. and Richard E. Porter. Communication Between Cultures. 5th Ed. Thompson and Wadsworth, 2004. ISBN 0-534-56929-3

External links [edit]

• High and low context cultures

rogerswhistaket.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_cultures

Share this post