Lecture 3

Relationship patterns and styles of conversation

1. Relationship patterns

2. Conversation style

One of the most important elements that influences intercultural communication is the interaction style with others. In various cultures people like to know where they stand in relation to others, their social obligations to others, expectations from others, and the role they play in relationships. All these elements guide their interaction and shape communication style. In the associative style of communication the focus is on the context of the communication (e.g., psychological, relational, situational, environmental, and cultural) that dictates rules of behavior in a specific situation: where, with whom and how to communicate in particular situations, what should be said and how it should be said. In the contextual style of communication the focus is on the status and social roles that people play in relationships with each other. For example, Japanese, Chinese, and Indians emphasize the social role or the community to which a particular person belongs. Their style of communication is formal and focused on status differences (Lustig & Koester, 1993). In China, Korea, and Japan, dress, manners, and self presentation

depend on social status differences.

Eastern cultures employ lineality in interpersonal relations and follow strict rules of hierarchical society (Kluckhohn &Strodtbeck, 1961). The focus of social relations is on obedience and loyalty to authority, submission to elders or superior positions, feelings of duty, responsibility, respect, and desire to comply. Confucianism teaches that the superiority of higher status cannot be challenged (Leung, 1991). Eastern cultures are more conforming and people depend more on each other (Doi, 1981). Yau (1988) noted that values important for the Chinese are deference to age and authority. Eastern cultures also emphasize collaterality in interpersonal relations, which is characterized by the ‘‘social order which results from laterally extended relationships’’ (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961, p. 18), group consensus, group harmony, and concern for the welfare of others. Group orientation and connections are important for the Chinese (Yau, 1988). The Chinese are very socially and psychologically dependent on others (Hsu, 1953, 1971, 1972, 1981). Similarly, Philippino culture emphasizes the importance of being together, emotional closeness with the family, and friendly relations (Bulatao, 1962; Jocano, 1966; Hollnsteiner, 1963). In collateral cultures the style of communication is group-oriented.

In the highly individualistic Western cultures such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada the focus is on individual rights and needs, and control over one’s own destiny. Importance is attached to freedom, autonomy, initiative, achievement, financial security, the right to private life, and personal opinion (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Social ties are loose. The style of communication is more personal and casual. On the other hand, in highly collectivistic cultures such as Guatemala, Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, and Panama in South America, and Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and Singapore in Asia, societies are ‘‘we’’ oriented and individuality is discouraged. The social ties are tight. The in-group members are expected to look after the other members. The communication style is grouporiented.

Some cultures are characterized by a high degree of authoritarianism. Members of these cultures believe in authoritarian leaders and authoritarian social relationships (e.g., Arab countries). They follow strict community rules, the advice of elders, and requests of supervisors. People in these cultures strongly believe that some of them are born to lead and others are born to follow. For example, in Chinese culture deference to authority is considered to be a virtue (Ettenson & Wagner, 1991). The Chinese give an unquestioning respect to parents and the elderly through understanding and expectations of authority (Huyton, 1991). Also, Philippinos and Vietnamese are submissive to authority and desire to comply (Forrest, 1971; Hare & Peabody, 1971).

In personal cultures the emphasis is on the individual, who is the center of action and discussion. The style of communication is informal and less status oriented (Lustig & Koester, 1993).

In the formal cultures of Asia and Europe, all human behavior is performed according to strict social rules, positions, and seniority. Second names and titles are always used in face-to-face encounters to identify people and their positions in society. Japan, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, and Germany belong to highly formal cultures (Dodd, 1998). These cultures are very concerned about the status differences among people, and their language system requires distinction based on people’s degree of social dominance. In Japan, for example, there is a distinction between the omote (public, formal) and ura (private, informal) style of interaction (Okabe, 1983). On the other hand, in informal cultures, such as Australia and the United States, little attention is paid to formal rules, and people have a more casual approach to social relations.

In formal cultures, such as Japan, Thailand, and Korea, bowing and presenting business cards are appropriate forms of greeting. A handshake is appropriate when greeting an American or European. In Europe, addressing other people by their second names and professional titles, such as ‘‘Dr.’’ or ‘‘Mr.,’’ is expected. In contrast, informal Australians and Americans refer to people by their first names. This, in turn, may be regarded as superficial and impolite by many European and Asian nationalities.

In Asian cultures the appropriate and formal address forms are very finely differentiated, according to social status, age and gender.

In some cultures social bonds between people are strong, whereas in others they are weak. Members of the individualistic cultures who focus on their own success and are concerned only with the self experience weak social ties. On the other hand, members of the collectivistic cultures who are concerned about the implications of their behavior for others, harmony in relations with others, and both self- and otherface maintenance, experience strong social ties (Hui & Triandis, 1986; Kim & Gudykunst, 1988).

The strength of social bonds determines the way people understand and develop friendships. The understanding of friendship in various cultures differs. For example, individualistic Americans treat friendships as superficial and without obligations, whereas Chinese understand friendships in terms of mutual obligations and reciprocation (Wei, Crompton, & Reid, 1989). There are also differences in displaying affiliation.

In South America, Latin America, Southern Europe, Arab countries and the Mediterranean region people display a high degree of affiliation. In Japan, China, the United States, Canada, and Northern Europe people display a low level of affiliation (Andersen, Lustig, & Andersen, 1990).

Intercultural communication also differs depending on orientation toward human nature (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). Western societies that perceive man as good trust each other, whereas Eastern societies that believe that man’s nature is good or bad (and often evil) do not trust each other.