Essays on Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity vs Femininity as Theoretical Frameworks of Cultural Dimensions Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity vs Femininity as Theoretical Frameworks of Cultural Dimensions" is a great example of marketing coursework.   Cultural dimensions between different societies can be understood in terms of different theoretical frameworks. These include individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, pragmatic versus normative and lastly, indulgence versus restraint. All these frameworks have salient differences in terms of how they influence the behaviour of buyers, their communication styles and negotiation styles between individuals in the different regions in which they are predominant. This essay is based on how two of these theoretical frameworks: uncertainty avoidance and masculinity versus femininity, compare and contrast with each other.

As such, there are fundamental differences between uncertainty avoidance and masculinity versus femininity as theoretical frameworks of cultural dimensions. In this essay, a critical comparison of the two cultural dimensions is presented. This is done in relation to how the two dimensions influence variables on buyer behaviour, communication and negotiation styles across national borders. The paper is divided into two distinct sections. In the first one, a brief introduction to the two frameworks of cultural dimensions is presented.

In the second section, a critical comparison of the two frameworks is presented. This is done in light of how the frameworks affect business practice across different cultures. A critical comparison of the differences between the two theoretical frameworks is also done in regard to how the differences present opportunities and problems to marketing in regions where specific cultures are predominant. Discussion of uncertainty avoidance and masculinity vs femininity as cultural dimensions Uncertainty avoidance, as a theoretical framework of cultural dimensions, indicates the level to which the members of a society are able to tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede 1991, cited by Richter 2012, p.

92). In effect, the framework measures the extent to which members of a given society are threatened by situations that are unstructured, unknown and unconventional. This implies that the uncertainty avoidance index indicates the level of importance that members of a society attach to the truth in relation to other values in their lives. As such, there are fundamental differences between societies that have a high degree of uncertainty avoidance and those that have a low measure of the same.

Societies that have a high measure of uncertainty avoidance have had their members programmed to prefer structured circumstances and avoid all manner of uncertain circumstances (Ting-Toomey 2012, p. 71). In general, such societies are characterised by a strong orientation to rules as a way of avoiding uncertainty. These are important tools in such societies since they provide a way of maintaining structured circumstances and avoiding unpredictability. Also, as a way of minimising uncertainty and conflict, individuals in such cultures tend to pursue strategies that almost guarantee success regardless of whether the reward is high or low.

Emphasis is placed on purity, precision, routine and the truth. On the other hand, societies that have a low uncertainty avoidance measure tend to show tolerance for differing opinions as well as being less dependent on rules and regulations (Ting-Toomey 2012, p. 72). Since members from such cultures are ready to accept change and take risks, their culture is characterised by being less expressive and showing little anxiety as compared to that of members from high uncertainty avoidance cultures (Hofstede 1991, cited by Richter 2012, p.

93).

References

Falkenreck, C 2009, Reputation transfer to enter new B-to-B markets: measuring and modelling approaches, Springer Verlag, Kassel.

Goodrich, K & de Mooij, M 2011, ‘New technology mirrors old habits: online buying mirrors cross-national variance of conventional buying’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 23, pp. 246 – 259, viewed 28 February 2014,

Hermeking, M 2007, ‘Global internet usage, web site design and cultural communication preferences: contributions from cross-cultural marketing and advertising research’, in Amant, K 2007 Ed, Linguistic and Cultural Online Communication Issues in the Global Age, Idea Group Incorporated, London.

Lundgren, H & Walczuch, R 2003, ‘Moderated trust – the impact of power distance and uncertainty avoidance on the consumer trust formation process in e- retailing’, viewed 28 February 2014,

Mulaomerovic, E & Trappey, C V 2013, ‘The role of cultural dimensions in the acceptance of retail innovations’, viewed 28 February 2014,

Neelankavil, J P & Rai, A 2009, Basics of international business, M. E. Sharpe, New York.

Onkvist, S & Shaw, J 2008, International Marketing: Strategy and Theory, Routledge, New York.

Prime, N 2003, ‘Cultural value’, in Rugimbana R & Iwankwo, S (eds), cross-cultural marketing, South-western Cengage Learning, Mason.

Richter, T 2012, International marketing mix management: theoretical framework, contingency factors and empirical findings from world markets, Logos Verlag, Berlin.

Ting-Toomey, S 2012, Communicating across cultures, Guilford Press, New York.

Velikova, N, Dodd, T H & Wilcox, J B 2013, ‘Meat is male; champagne is female; cheese is unisex: and examination of perceived gender images of wine’, Paper presented at the 7th AWBR International Conference, viewed 28 February 2014,

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