Tag: behaviors

Attachment Styles & Culture: Are You Secure?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Attachment styles are psychological frameworks that describe how we form and maintain emotional bonds with others, particularly in close relationships. 

These styles are typically developed in early childhood through interactions with caregivers and can significantly influence how we relate to others throughout our lives. 

A 1986 study by Takahashi found that, when using Western attachment style classifications, double the number of Japanese infants were categorized as insecure-resistant when compared with American babies. 

This raises an important question: Are Japanese infants more prone to forming unhealthy attachments, or is the classification system skewed by ethnocentricity?

This issue highlights the need to understand cultural variations in attachment and the complexities involved in studying attachment across different cultures.

Attachment Varies by Culture

Attachment theory in psychology investigates whether attachment styles differ based on cultural practices or whether they are universal. 

According to Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory of Attachment, attachment is an inherent mechanism that ensures infants bond with their caregivers for survival. 

He argued that this attachment serves as a template, or “internal working model,” for all future relationships.

Bowlby’s theory suggests that the drive to develop a secure attachment is a biological, universal trait found in all human infants.

However, many scholars have criticized Bowlby for failing to consider cultural variations in child-rearing practices. 

These cultural differences can significantly influence attachment styles, suggesting that attachment may not be as biologically determined as Bowlby proposed. 

In cultures where different social norms around caregiving exist, attachment behaviors may reflect those norms rather than innate patterns. 

For instance, some cultures might encourage more physical closeness or independence, which could lead to different attachment behaviors.

Assessing Attachment

Mary Ainsworth’s “Strange Situation” is the primary method for assessing attachment styles in infants. 

In this procedure, an infant’s behavior is observed during a series of interactions, such as when a caregiver exits the room, when the infant is left with a stranger, and when the caregiver returns. 

Based on their responses, infants are classified into three categories: secure, insecure-avoidant, or insecure-resistant. 

While the Strange Situation has been extensively used in the U.S. and Europe, it was developed based on middle-class, Western family dynamics, which may not capture the nuances of attachment in non-Western cultures. 

For instance, behaviors classified as insecure-resistant in Japan, such as clinging to a parent, might simply reflect cultural norms of close physical proximity between mother and child.

Cross-Cultural Studies

To explore the validity of Bowlby’s claims, studies have been conducted to compare attachment styles across cultures. 

Cultural variations in attachment refer to differences in social norms around caregiving and how these influence attachment styles. 

These variations can challenge the idea that all infants form attachments in the same way. 

For example, research by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg compared attachment styles across eight countries, showing significant cross-cultural differences. 

While American infants predominantly exhibited secure attachments (as defined by Western standards), other cultures displayed different attachment patterns without negative consequences for children’s emotional development.

Cultural variations in attachment challenge the assumption that attachment styles are universal. 

We’ll explore this further next week.

Eye Contact & Culture: A Guide to Understanding Non-Verbal Communication, Part II

Posted on by Leave a comment

How important is non-verbal communication?

It turns out VERY.

A World Economic Forum article explains that non-verbal cues account for a staggering 65% of all communication. 

Among these, eye contact holds a unique and powerful role, often associated with honesty and openness.

A 2006 study found that not only does non-verbal behavior, such as eye contact, influence how truthful we perceive a message to be, but the truthfulness of the message also affects the amount of eye contact the messenger provides.

Understanding the cultural nuances of eye contact can significantly impact our interactions.

For instance, in professional settings, maintaining appropriate eye contact can enhance credibility and foster trust.

Last week, we discussed differences in eye contact norms between the East and the West.

This week, we’ll look at other cultures worldwide and their non-verbal communication norms.

Middle Eastern Cultures: Varied Interpretations

In Middle Eastern cultures, the rules around eye contact can be complex and context-dependent.

In many Arab countries, direct eye contact between individuals of the same gender is a sign of honesty and straightforwardness. 

However, eye contact between men and women who are not closely related can be considered inappropriate and disrespectful due to cultural and religious norms.

For example, in Saudi Arabia, men and women typically avoid direct eye contact in public spaces to adhere to social conventions regarding modesty and propriety. 

A study on Arab cultural communication patterns reads:

“Nonverbal communication in Arab cultural contexts can be characterized by indirect eye contact in certain contexts, expressive body language, closeness between individuals, and relaxed attitudes toward time (Feghali, 1997). Lowering one’s gaze during face-to-face interactions with the opposite sex or between children and an older adult is considered polite (Feghali, 1997).”

Understanding these nuances is crucial for respectful and effective communication in Middle Eastern contexts.

Latin American Cultures: Expressiveness = Connection

In Latin American cultures, eye contact is often more expressive and emotive. 

People from countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina use eye contact to convey warmth, friendliness, and emotional connection. 

Maintaining eye contact is seen as a way to build rapport and trust, making it an essential component of personal and professional interactions.

However, as in other cultures, there is a balance to be struck.

While eye contact is important, overly intense staring can be perceived as intrusive or aggressive.

According to this research on differences between Anglo and Latino nonverbal communication styles:

“The failure of the Latino to maintain eye contact should not be seen as expressing a lack of self-confidence. In the Latino culture direct, prolonged eye contact means you are challenging the person, that you are angry, or that you have a romantic interest in the person.”

African Cultures: Community = Context

In many African cultures, eye contact practices can vary widely depending on the community and context.

For instance, in some Sub-Saharan African societies, children are taught to lower their gaze when speaking to elders as a sign of respect, similar to East Asian norms. 

In contrast, in more urbanized settings, direct eye contact may be more common and accepted.

Understanding the cultural differences in eye contact is vital for effective communication and fostering mutual respect. 

By being aware of these norms, individuals can navigate cross-cultural interactions more smoothly, avoiding misunderstandings and building stronger, more respectful relationships.

Big Issues with Small Talk Across Cultures: Germany vs. Japan Watercooler Rules

Posted on by Leave a comment

Image credit: John Brooks

Sarah, a marketing executive from Berlin, is attending a business conference in Tokyo. 

As she enters the crowded conference hall, she spots Hiroshi, a senior executive from a leading Japanese corporation, standing alone by the refreshment table. 

Eager to make a good impression, Sarah approaches Hiroshi with a warm smile and a casual greeting.

“Guten Tag, Hiroshi! Wie geht es Ihnen?” Sarah asks (“Hello, Hiroshi! How are you doing?”), extending her hand for a shake.

Hiroshi, taken aback by Sarah’s directness and informal demeanor, hesitates before responding with a polite nod. 

“Es geht mir gut, danke,” he replies (“I’m fine, thanks”), his tone reserved and formal.

Sarah is completely bewildered by his demeanor. But unbeknownst to her, her attempt at small talk has inadvertently breached cultural norms. 

In Japanese business culture, casual inquiries about personal well-being are uncommon, especially when first meeting someone in a professional setting. 

Instead, initial interactions typically focus on exchanging business cards and discussing neutral topics related to the conference agenda.

As Sarah and Hiroshi navigate this cultural disconnect, they highlight the topic of a German study centered around chatbots. 

Chatbot Study

Researchers sought to explore how cultural differences influence small talk by using chatbots programmed to engage in culture-specific casual dialogue. 

They focused on comparing the small talk practices of Japanese and German participants, two cultures known for their distinct communication styles.

To conduct the study, researchers set up simulated conversations between pairs of German and Japanese individuals using these chatbots. 

They carefully observed and analyzed the interactions between the participants to identify cultural differences in small talk behavior. 

Based on their observations, they programmed the chatbots to reflect these cultural nuances in their dialogue.

After programming the virtual agents, the researchers asked German participants to observe pairs of German and Japanese virtual agents engaging in small talk and rate which conversations they found more appropriate or interesting. 

This allowed the researchers to gauge the participants’ perceptions of small talk behaviors across cultures.

The Results

The results of the study revealed several interesting findings. 

German observers tended to interpret the Japanese participants’ small talk style, which focused on commenting on the immediate environment and avoiding personal discussions, as “distant” and “superficial.” 

In contrast, they perceived the more familiar German tendency to discuss personal topics as indicative of greater interest in their conversation partner.

Additionally, the study highlighted cultural variations in the perceived value of small talk. 

While some cultures, like the Germans, may place importance on engaging in personal discussions as a way to express interest and build rapport, others, such as the Japanese, may prioritize maintaining a polite and respectful distance, particularly in initial interactions.

Overall, the study demonstrated how cultural misunderstandings and assumptions can arise in seemingly innocuous social situations like small talk. 

By using chatbots to simulate cross-cultural interactions, the researchers were able to shed light on the stark differences in communication styles and the importance of cultural sensitivity in social interactions.

Do You Know Yourself? Individualist vs. Collectivist Self Insight

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you see yourself?

Can you accurately self-reflect on your traits, behaviors, and ideology and use that knowledge to predict how you might behave in the future?

Do you see yourself clearly? Do you understand why you do the things you do?

And how does your culture influence that self-insight?

Over the next several weeks, we will dive headfirst into the six cultural constructs discussed in last week’s post, the first of which is individualism versus collectivism.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Individualists and collectivists often have different motivations. 

Why?

Because the societies and cultures that form these us provide us with different values, norms, dreams, desires, etc.

Individualist cultures generally prioritize personal achievement and independence.

Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, prioritize cooperation and group harmony.

These diverging priorities lead to diverging motivations.

And, according to the following study, a differing degree of self-insight.

Self-Knowledge & Culture

Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, this study by Balcetis, Dunning, and Miller examines how cultural differences influence people’s ability to predict their own behavior in situations with moral or altruistic overtones. 

The researchers found that collectivists were more accurate in their self-predictions compared to individualists. 

In three different studies, individualists overestimated their likelihood to act generously in situations involving redistributing rewards, donating money, or avoiding rude behavior, while collectivists were generally more accurate in their self-predictions. 

Both groups predicted peer behavior with similar accuracy, but even when samples were taken from the same cultural group, collectivists still demonstrated more precise self-predictions than individualists. 

This suggests that the accuracy of social insight and self-insight can be biased by culturally bound motivations.

Results, Discussed

Why do individualists have a harder time predicting their own behavior? 

One theory is that they focus on themselves too much and assume their behavior will be consistent with their personal traits, leading to inaccurate predictions. 

Individualists who are motivated to emphasize personal uniqueness tend to strive to be better than the group, and thus the best strategy for self-prediction is an internal one based on one’s dispositional nature. 

On the other hand, collectivists who prioritize fitting in with the group may be better at predicting their own behavior because they consider external factors and group behavior.

Collectivists are not motivated to emphasize personal uniqueness and instead strive to fit in with a comparison group, so the best approach to take when making predictions about the self is an external one based on distributional, group-level base rates.

Factors such as face-saving may also moderate these patterns of accuracy. 

This highlights how understanding what constitutes normative social behavior can inform personal self-understanding, but cultural differences may prevent people from knowing themselves precisely because they strive to be different from the norm or typical group member.

How to Design the Most Effective Global Virtual Team

Posted on by Leave a comment

In our increasingly international and virtual environment, working and collaborating with global teams has become commonplace.

Harvard Business Review quotes a 2018 survey of white-collar employees from 90 countries in which 89 percent said that they complete projects via a global virtual team (GVT) “at least occasionally.”

And that was pre-pandemic; I can only imagine the frequency and prevalence of working on GVTs have only increased in the last four years.

There are obvious benefits to working globally and virtually.

For instance, you have a broader scope of creative insight and perspective on a global team, and you can maximize productivity and have a flexible support structure due to teammates working in multiple time zones.

But there are also many challenges.

A study by Harvard Business Review identified some of the ways cultural differences can shape how GVTs function.

Personal Diversity & Contextual Diversity

The study evaluated the interactions and behaviors of 804 remote international 6- to 8-member teams over multiple months of business consulting projects. 

The teams relied completely on digital communication and featured members from different countries.

Two categories were tracked: personal diversity and contextual diversity.

  • Think of personal diversity as involving such characteristics as gender, age, skills, values, and language.
  • Think of contextual diversity as the environments of team members, including the countries’ political systems, their institutions, and their levels of economic development.

Task Performance & Team Climate

Task performance and team climate were also monitored and evaluated.

  • Think of task performance as the quality and timeliness of the team’s efforts, as judged by industry experts.
  • Think of team climate as team member satisfaction, team cohesion, their enjoyment of the process together, as indicated in weekly surveys.

The Results

The study found that a deep contrast in contextual diversity can be incredibly advantageous to task performance, particularly when it comes to tasks requiring creativity and problem-solving.

The varying points of view due to different backgrounds and experiences can lead to unconventional approaches and innovative solutions.

On the other hand, personal diversity was found to be disadvantageous to team climate.

Different ages, values, language levels, etc., leads to less trust, less understanding of others’ motivations, less enjoyment in working together, and less general communication.

Conflicts arise, while cohesion sinks.

How Managers Can Benefit

These takeaways can help managers design an effective global team.

Creative projects benefit from teams that are contextually diverse, so seeking out team members from diverse backgrounds and cultures can produce the unconventional approaches desired for such projects.

Projects that are routine but that need a quick turnaround would do well with a team that is low on personal diversity, but other cultural differences don’t impact the results of these types of projects as much.

In the end, building a GVT is not a science but using this data can only improve your odds of designing an effective global virtual team.

Population Thinking: How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Contributes to Cultural Theory

Posted on by Leave a comment

Charles Darwin is best known for his theories of evolution and natural selection.

But biologist Ernst Mayr asserts that Darwin’s concept of “population thinking” is his most important contribution to biology.

In the book, How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, authors Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd delve into why this is the case.

This is what they’ve found.

The Theory of Evolution Evolves Our Thinking

Prior to Darwin’s theories on evolution, species were thought to be static and unchanging.

But what Darwin found was that a fluctuating pool of inherited information was passed on across generations over time, and this information was affected by the daily events of the species’ lives, which were also changing.

The persistence of the daily events and the spread of their prevalence would produce inherent properties and traits within a species.

In line with natural selection, those traits that allowed the “survival of the fittest” were passed on to their offspring.

Not only traits, but behaviors that benefited survival – a process Darwin called “the inherited effects of use and disuse.”

In this way, the core of the evolutionary theory is grounded in population thinking, which is the crux of cultural theory.

Cultural Evolution

Culture is an acquired state of behavior, produced via social learning.

Skills, values, norms, beliefs, attitudes, customs, moral systems – these are all acquired and comprise group culture.

And they all evolve via population thinking.

Like the theory of evolution, this theory of cultural evolution delves into why some attitudes and behaviors carry on in a group and others don’t.

As with evolution, the daily lives of people in a society contribute to the process of cultural change.

For instance, a moral value might, at one point in time, appear more appealing in relation to that era’s daily life or current events, thereby spreading and persisting from person to person in a society and generation to generation in a culture.

Similarly, beliefs and behaviors that are more easily imitable and allow survival will spread, while those that might result in group criticism or early death will vanish.

Over time, the persistence of certain beliefs, skills, attitudes, etc., create observable patterns that serve as the genes of culture.

But culture can adapt in a way that genes cannot.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll talk about how population thinking is enmeshed in culture.

A Spirit Alive: Learning a Culture Through Religion Continued…

Posted on by 1 Comment

The Vatican in Rome. The Great Mosque of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The Western Wall in Jerusalem. The Golden Temple in India.

Everywhere you travel, you’re likely to find a religious site or house of worship.

Moreover, you’re likely to encounter the values and norms of that predominant religion, demonstrated in various ways.

Whether it’s the closure of shops on Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays, or the style of clothing worn, religion influences both the visual landscape and the society at large.

Despite the best efforts from some atheistic governments to destroy religion, belief has remained alive and well in the hearts and minds of many.

One example of this is in Albania.

Albania Cracks Down

Albanian Dictator Envers Hoxa tried to forcefully remove religion, forbidding rituals, destroying churches, and banning religious symbols.

I, myself, visited Albania as a journalist after Hoxa’s regime fell.

While there, I happened upon a church that the regime had converted into a “house of culture” in the mountains bordering Yugoslavia.

Someone had gone through and overturned the tombstones, but you could still see crosses littered in the stone.

But what really astounded me were the professions of faith written inside the church.

Culture and religion are so inextricably intertwined that not even a ruthless dictator could kill their spirit.

Religion is something acquired during primary socialization; it is as intimately part of us as language or diet.

Whether or not a person has faith or considers themselves religious, some of their behaviors, norms, and values are inevitably still grounded in the predominant religion of their society, regardless of secularism. Even secular societies may still celebrate Easter and Christmas.

In effect, religion influences everything, from art and history to government and education.

Clash of Civilizations

Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington used religion as a major criterion when identifying the civilizations in his landmark book, Clash of Civilizations.

He looked at Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Orthodox, and Sinic civilizations (the East Asian cultural sphere).

Although GLOBE research divided 59 countries into cultural dimensions, none of which were religious, they received similar results to Huntington, which demonstrates how the behaviors, values, and norms of a culture are defined by religion.

8 in 10 people identify with a religious group, according to PEW forum.

Our societal personalities, traditions, lifestyles, and perspectives are deeply rooted in religion. 

In this way, throughout history, societal rules and regulations have been dependent upon religion to help keep society in line. With religion as a driving factor, these rules are not simply being imposed by Man, but rather by the divine.

Next week, we’ll take a look at some research analyzing the interaction between culture and religion.

When East Meets West: Understanding the Rationale Behind Indian Norms in the Workplace

Posted on by Leave a comment

You’re a Westerner working in a cross-cultural environment in India.

As a Westerner, you prefer communication that’s direct and clear.

You see ambiguity as a stumbling block in business, so you ask direct questions and expect direct answers in return.

Your Indian colleagues, on the other hand, demonstrate some indirect behaviors that you don’t understand.

The rationale behind this style of communication is a mystery to you, and the need for managerial approval in many cases rubs you the wrong way. You see it as unnecessary micromanagement.

This is a situation in which understanding the rationale behind your colleagues’ culture will forge a better business relationship.

Harmony & Many Truths

Mr. Waseem Hussain cleared up this mysterious rationale for me.

As a bicultural professional who has grown up in Switzerland with Indian parents, he knew both sides of the coin and could bridge that cross-cultural barrier between Indian and European mentalities.

In other words, he was the best zookeeper to explain the behavior of other animals in the zoo to me, the monkey.

When I posed a question about why I couldn’t receive a clear answer to a clear issue from Indian colleagues, he replied that, in some ways, it has to do with Hinduism.

As the majority of Indians believe in many gods, the cultural rationale would be that there are many truths.

Another explanation for the rationale has to do with the cultural concept of harmony.

Say, you ask an Indian colleague to meet a 5 o’clock deadline.

Whether or not it’s possible to complete the work by that point, the colleague will tell you, “Yes, no problem.”

In reality, he may have no intention of completing the work by this deadline, but by offering the positive “yes,” he is in harmony with his Western counterpart.

A “no” means disharmony and discomfort on his part.

Universal Truth & Accountability

From the Westerner’s point of view, this behavior appears as blatant dishonesty.

You expect your colleague to abide by his word, as accountability and time sensitivity are important to your culture.

Most Western cultures are largely shaped by Christianity – that is, the belief in one god. As such, the culture’s norms and values revolve around a single universal truth.

This is one obstacle for Westerners in cross-cultural business environments: universal truths do not exist there.

You must have a higher ambiguity tolerance and be willing to accept and even adapt to foreign norms and beliefs.

Your cultural rationale is not everyone’s rationale.

Reasoning and logic are shaped by culture and evolve accordingly with the history and tradition of the people.

Unless a person is counter-culture, he will likely follow the values, norms, and beliefs of his culture’s rationale.

No assumptions should be made about a culture’s behavior being silly or illogical. Refrain from judging something you don’t understand.

As an effective manager, it is your job to find the rationale behind the behavior and accept and adapt accordingly.

In this case, adopting, for a moment, the Indian culture’s worldview – its belief in many truths and emphasis on harmony – will enable you to see the reasoning behind your colleagues’ behaviors. 

Adapting: The Second Step in Cross-Cultural Management

Posted on by Leave a comment

Over the last few weeks, we’ve laid out the first step of cross-cultural management: acceptance.

Accepting another’s culture, values, and norms as different than your own, while foregoing judgment, accepting ambiguity, tolerating actively, and explaining yourself is the best way to get your toes wet in a new culture.

But we have yet to talk about wading into the shallows of the culture in the form of adapting.

If you dig in your heels at acceptance, then your degree of cross-cultural integration is limited. 

Doing so will certainly help you blend into your host culture, particularly as a manager;  however, at some point, you will find that you must adapt to some aspects of the new culture, or you’ll be forever an outsider.

As the German manager did in his Swiss company, taking your integration a step further by altering your behavior will make the culture accept you.

This is called adapting.

Adapting

First of all, how is adapting different than adopting?

Adapting involves changing your behavior but not your values.

For instance, you are being hosted by a country that bows in greeting as opposed to shaking hands.

As a courtesy, you adapt to this behavior. You bow.

But no doubt, your values haven’t changed; shaking hands is still your preferred greeting based upon your values.

Working across cultures, you might choose to accept and adapt those behaviors whose values are valid and do not impose on your own.

After all, a change in values involves a significant life-altering transformation. More often than not, that takes time.

While such a transformation may come, depending upon how long you remain in your host country and how impacted you are by their culture, until that impact happens, small adaptions will show your hosts that you respect their culture and are making an attempt to integrate where you can.

Cost/Value

The bottom line when deciding what to adapt to and what to simply accept is drawn by the personal cost to you versus the value behavioral changes may add to your life in this new culture and your success as a manager.

Does adhering to the culture’s dress code come at a significant cost to you? Does the value of “fitting in” outweigh whatever cost that may be?

Those values and norms which are not in direct contradiction to your own culture’s should be easy enough to adapt and should be what you actively implement first.

Although the behavior may feel unfamiliar (greeting your French colleague by a kiss on both cheeks, for instance), after normal processing, such behaviors will feel more or less natural.

In fact, give it time, and you may not even notice you’ve adapted to another culture.

Next week, we’ll discuss the type of adaptions that you will notice and how to get over that discomfort. Stay tuned.

Nonverbal Communication Cues in Culture

Posted on by Leave a comment

Physical contact, personal bubble, power distance.

All of these aspects are nonverbal behavior specific to culture.

And they tend to make cross-cultural communication all the more complicated. They may even go so far as to produce misunderstandings.

Power Distance

One example of nonverbal communication that differs from your own culture is another’s power structure.

Culture views authority differently, and you must be able to adapt, as a sense of social ranking and authority enters into communication across cultures.

For example, a culture’s valuation of authority can impact the speed at which a message is delivered and answered, as well as who is the ultimate recipient.

In Sweden, there is a more decentralized authoritarian structure that aims for a participative management model.

But if you are, say, French, with a stricter authoritarian model, coming into this flatter structure would be difficult to navigate.

Your status quo is broken down. Your ethnocentric beliefs are thrown.

In order to thrive, you must be able to move past your own power structure and adapt to another’s.

Let’s look at some other nonverbal behaviors to consider.

Nonverbal Behaviors

What is an acceptable dress code in the workplace?

Is it considered rude to maintain eye contact?

What sort of personal space do you give others?

How about touching? What’s appropriate and what is not?

Each of these things is a nonverbal behavior standard to each culture. In other words, they are the norm.

Due to ethnocentrism, you’re likely comfortable in your own culture’s nonverbal communication norms and, unless the other culture’s norms are a carbon copy of your own, uncomfortable in theirs.

You may even consider another culture’s nonverbal communication cues as distasteful or wrong. And you probably can’t help but instinctively feel that way.

But you can adapt, and here’s how.

Physical Touch

Consider this: you grew up in a family that doesn’t hug often. They were loving and supportive, but they simply didn’t show it through physical touch.

You make a group of friends. They often hug you, but it makes you feel uncomfortable. You allow the gesture, but you’re stiff and formal about it. It was never part of your primary socialization, so you are reluctant to broach another’s personal space in this way and to have yours broached.

Over time, however, this familiarity becomes more and more natural with this friend group. You may start to like the feeling of connection and grow comfortable and accepting of this nonverbal behavior. You may even like it so much that you initiate, despite it not being the norm of your personal identity.

Similarly, when it comes to the norms of other cultures, you may feel that discomfort and reluctance at first to embrace certain aspects of nonverbal communication cues.

Over time, however, who knows? They may become part of you.