Essays on High Context Culture and Low Context Culture Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "High Context Culture and Low Context Culture" is a good example of marketing coursework.   Different cultural backgrounds tend to make people communicate in different ways. It is from this point of departure that analysis of the different cultural context; low and high contexts are worth studying. To conceptualise this, this paper analyses the cultural features of various countries in different aspects and their influence on other cultures. To underscore the thesis statement, Hofstede (2003)defines culture as “ the complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, morals, art and any other habit and capabilities acquired by man as a member of society” (p.

35). On a similar note, Bearden et al. (2006) look at context as a case where the surrounding is having a relationship with event or situation. High context (HC) culture and Low context (LC) culture Blodgett (2008) proposed the classification of cultures into low and high context cultures in a view to comprehend the differences in cultural aspects and communication. In reference to his research low context is a culture in which situations are spelt out fully and in the clearest manner possible.

The considerable dependence on the said and written aspects of the cultures and the explicitness within which all the things are placed separate it out as a low context. On the other hand, Blodgett (2008) sees high context culture as a case where the communicators assume greatly the views and the knowledge possessed by players thus leading to a more implicit communication among the players. He adds that indirect communication can cause a breakdown in communication among the players depending on the degree of assumption. Hofstede’ s five dimensions of culture Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) It refers to the extent to which people feel scared or threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid these situations (Sojka et.

al. , 2005). This dimension allows people to minimise the occurrence of an unusual situation and to proceed by planning and implementing laws, rules and regulations. Individualism– collectivism In individualistic societies, people only look at their personal achievements and their families while in the collectivist scenario, individuals act as members of a group with people having extended families which offer protection with an expectation of loyalty (Kapoor eta l., 2003). Power distance (PDI) PDI means the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions expect an unequal distribution of power (Kapoor et al. , 2003).

This dimension focuses on the effects of power inequality and authority relations in a given society. At organizations levels, PDI has a bearing on hierarchy Long term orientation (LTO) and Short term orientation Long term oriented societies attach more value to the future in terms of the society’ s time horizon including the capacity for adaptation and persistence saving (Bearden et al. , 2006). In short term oriented societies; the importance is attached to the past and present including respect for tradition, steadiness and reciprocation. Masculinity– femininity This refers to the distribution of emotional roles between the genders; male and female.

Masculine culture values have been experienced in competitiveness, ambition, power and assertiveness while feminine cultures put more emphasis on quality of life and relationships.

References

1.0. References

Bearden, W and Money, B (2006).A measure of long-term orientation: Development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (4): 456-467.

Blodgett,J and Rose,G (2008).A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25(6) 339-349.

Bochner,S and Hesketh, B (2002).Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 25(2): 253-257.

Butler, J. and Boehringer, K. (2005). Communication apprehension and cultural context: A

comparison of communication apprehension in Japanese and American students. North American Journal of Psychology, 7(2), 247–252.

Donthu, N and Yoo,B (2003).Cultural influences on service quality expectations. Journal of

Service Research (2) 178-185.

Dorfman, P and Howell, P (2004).Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership

patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management (3) 127-150.

Earley, P (2006).Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste.

Journal of International Business Studies 37 (6):922-931

Erez, M (2006). Culture, self-identity and work. New York: Oxford University Press.

Everdingen, Yand Waarts, E.(2003). The effect of national culture on the adoption of

innovations. Mark Lett 14(3):217–32.

Hall, E. and Hall, M. (2002). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French and

Americans. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.

Hofstede, G (2005). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Hofstede, G (2003). Culture’s consequences. Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and

organizations across nations.2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kapoor, S. and Hughes, P (2003). The relationship of individualism- collectivism in India and

the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 683–700.

Mazzon,J (2007).Value segmentation. A model for measurement of values and value systems.

Journal Consumer Research 18(2): 208-218

Pheng, L and Yuquan, S. (2002). An exploratory study of Hofstede's cross-cultural Dimensions

in construction projects. Journal Management Decision; 40(1):7–16.

Richardson, R and Smith, S (2007). The influence of high/low-context culture and power

distance on choice of communication media: Students’ media choice to communicate with professors in Japan and America. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 31, 479–501.

Sojka, J and Tansuhaj, P (2005) Cross-cultural consumer research: a twenty-year review. In:

Mcalister Leigh, Rothschild Michael, editors. Advances in consumer research, vol. 22. Ann Arbour, MI: Association for Consumer Research. p. 461–74.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us