Tag: equality

Horizontal/Vertical Cultures & Advertising: Does Status, Pleasure, or Relationships Appeal to Your Culture?

Posted on by Leave a comment

The glossy page of an in-flight magazine shows an ad of a woman running while clutching a sleek new mobile phone.

Several passersby turn to watch her run past.

The ad reads “Turning heads with America’s Slimmest Phone!”

Does this ad appeal to you?

Would it appeal generally to the people of your culture?

While it’s not uncommon to encounter advertisements promising to elevate a consumer’s status and leave a lasting impression on others, the role of culture in shaping the resonance of such appeals cannot be understated. 

The degree to which such advertisements motivate consumers may vary depending on the cultural context.

This study set out to explore the influence of culture on the use of persuasive appeals highlighting the allure of status benefits and various other advantages.

The Study’s Hypotheses

The study’s hypotheses stem from a nuanced consideration of cultural distinctions, particularly the contrast between horizontal cultures, which value equality, and vertical cultures, which emphasize hierarchical structures. 

The researchers argued that this cultural distinction offers a unique lens through which to make predictions, revealing insights not traditionally associated with broader cross-cultural differentiations between individualism and collectivism.

The delineation between vertical cultures and horizontal cultures offers a fresh perspective on the prevalence and content of advertising appeals. 

The Study

Through a comprehensive content analysis encompassing 1,211 magazine advertisements across five diverse countries (Denmark, Korea, Poland, Russia, and the United States), researchers uncovered distinct patterns in ad content that underscore the significance of this cultural distinction.

In their in-depth examination, they delved into these ad content patterns and their implications. 

They undertook a comparative analysis, pitting the predictions derived from the vertical/horizontal cultural distinction against those derived from the broader individualism-collectivism framework, ultimately subjecting these predictions to empirical testing.

Notably, the analysis revealed variations in the emphasis on status benefits and uniqueness benefits within advertisements, mirroring the countries’ categorization as vertical or horizontal cultures.

The Results

The study’s comprehensive analysis of magazine advertisements spanned several countries, each representing distinct cultural orientations, including VI (United States), HI (Denmark), and VC (Korea, Russia, Poland).

Researchers noted a distinct emphasis on status-related benefits within advertising appeals in countries aligned with VC cultures, which includes Korea, Russia, and Poland, as well as the VI culture in the United States. 

This emphasis encompassed depictions of luxury, references to prestige, impressing others, prominence, affiliations with high-status groups (e.g., ivy league graduates), endorsements by high-status individuals (e.g., celebrities), and other forms of distinction (e.g., “award-winning”). 

This focus on status benefits corresponded with the cultural profiles of these countries. 

Notably, in all VC societies examined, status benefits emerged as a dominant theme in advertising, often overshadowing appeals emphasizing pleasure, uniqueness, or relationships. 

In stark contrast, the emphasis on pleasure appeals was preferred in the HI culture of Denmark.

Uniqueness-related appeals, which included elements of differentiation, self-expression, self-reliance, and novelty, were also more prominent in HI cultures compared to VI and VC cultures. 

These appeals portrayed the product as a means of self-expression, aligning with cultural contexts emphasizing individuality, distinctiveness, and self-reliance.

Notably, although both the United States and Denmark are categorized as individualistic societies, their advertisements significantly differed in their emphasis on uniqueness and status, reflecting the nuances of their vertical and horizontal cultural values. 

These patterns were not anticipated by conventional analyses based on the broader individualism-collectivism classification.

As expected, the prevalence of ads emphasizing pleasure benefits largely corresponded to the individualism-collectivism orientation of the society. 

These appeals, which cater to personal hedonic goals valued in individualistic cultures, were more prevalent in individualistic societies than in collectivistic ones, with the contrast between HI and VC cultures proving particularly significant.

However, no significant differences emerged across individualistic and collectivistic cultures in regard to relationship appeals, which focused on sociability, nurturing, warmth, and belongingness. 

Overall, the study found that the conventional individualism-collectivism framework falls short in predicting the prevalence of such appeals, making the horizontal/vertical cultural distinction a valuable addition to cross-cultural theory and research.

Culture & Loneliness: Are You More Prone to Loneliness Due to Your Culture?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Does your culture make you lonely?

A study on loneliness and horizontal/vertical individualism and collectivism sought to uncover whether or not culture plays a role in feelings of loneliness.

The study represents a multinational exploration into the intricate dynamics of self-reported loneliness, taking into account the various dimensions of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism, while also considering the influence of age and gender across 28 distinct countries. 

As previously discussed, individualism-collectivism serves as a cultural dimension that illuminates an individual’s place within their social context. 

On a societal level, cultures characterized by high individualism typically feature individuals who perceive themselves as independent agents, valuing autonomy and personal freedom. 

Conversely, cultures marked by high collectivism emphasize group identity, harmony, and shared objectives, prioritizing the collective over personal achievement and goals. 

On an individual level, those with an individualistic orientation tend to define their self-concepts independently of the group, whereas collectivists perceive themselves as integral parts of their affiliated social groups, placing great importance on relationships within these groups.

Hypothetically, applying these self-construals to the concept of loneliness, it becomes plausible that individuals who adopt a more individualistic perspective, distancing themselves from the in-group, may be more prone to experiencing loneliness. 

Conversely, collectivists, who define themselves in relation to others, might have a lower propensity for loneliness. 

But is this what the research found?

The Study

Researchers explored the landscape of loneliness, considering the dimensions of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism, while also accounting for age and gender effects across 28 diverse countries. 

Their analysis yielded noteworthy results, shedding light on how these cultural dimensions influence self-reported loneliness.

For specific country samples, they observed distinct patterns. 

Horizontal-individualism displayed significant negative predictor weights in countries such as Brazil, Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Ukraine, and the overall sample. 

This suggests that individuals who reported feeling less autonomous and more unequal were more likely to endorse higher loneliness levels.

On the other hand, vertical-individualism exhibited significant positive predictor weights in the total sample, including Brazil, Japan, Russia, and Spain. 

These findings implied that those who felt more autonomous and unequal were more inclined to endorse loneliness-related items.

Turning to horizontal-collectivism, they found significant negative regression predictor weights in the overall sample, including Russia, Japan, and the United States. 

This indicated that individuals who perceived themselves as equal to others and as part of a community were less likely to report loneliness.

Conversely, vertical-collectivism displayed significant positive predictor regression weights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Croatia, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, and the overall sample. 

This suggests that those who felt unequal to others, despite a sense of belonging to a community, were more likely to experience higher levels of loneliness.

These findings align with previous hypotheses related to individualism and loneliness, suggesting that value orientations linked to equality versus dominance play a crucial role in shaping an individual’s sense of connectedness. 

The concept of social inequality, whether within an individualistic or collectivistic framework, emerged as a critical factor in understanding loneliness. 

In societies marked by social inequality, feelings of distance from others, even within one’s own group, may contribute to loneliness, particularly in collectivist settings.

Moreover, the study hints at the relationship between social dominance orientation and loneliness, as individuals in more unequal societies may experience a sense of threat and strained self-esteem, potentially leading to loneliness. 

These intriguing results underscore a noteworthy pattern: individuals who prioritize egalitarian social relationships tend to report lower levels of loneliness, whereas those who embrace individuality and competitiveness are more likely to endorse loneliness-related items. 

These findings hold significance for professionals and researchers working with lonely individuals, emphasizing the critical role of perceived cultural influences in understanding and addressing this complex emotional state.

Breaking Down the Barriers of Ethnocentricity: Accepting, Adapting, or Adopting Culture

Posted on by Leave a comment

In the West, particularly in America, equality is highly valued.

Being as such, although gender equality is not exactly level anywhere in the world, when entering into cultures where that disparity is even greater than one’s own (Islamic cultures, for instance), a Westerner’s moral nerve is struck.

In another vein, consider a Westerner entering into a culture with a strictly set social caste system. This, too, strikes a nerve, regarding this value of equality.

When a culture’s values or norms contradict another’s deeply-ingrained values, reserving judgment often proves difficult.

Now, imagine a company wanting to do business in a culture in which their values are opposed.

Last week, we talked about how a culture’s social environment can influence everything from gender roles to social mobility and nepotism in the workplace.

This week, we’ll discuss how to break down the barriers of ethnocentricity.

Morality & Ethnocentricity

When contrasted with your own ethnocentric values, social structures in the workplace can be difficult to get on board with.

Why?

Because, as mentioned above, they hit a moral nerve.

An enormous social divide must be bridged in order for a company to work across cultures of disparate values, and in order for the individuals in these businesses to be willing to overlook their own ethnocentricity and avoid criticizing the opposite culture’s fundamental beliefs.

While the broader company may have an easier time looking the other way, the cross-cultural divide may not be as easy to bridge for the individuals working for these companies.

Although these individuals may not be expected to accept the other culture’s values, succeeding cross-culturally in a business setting requires restraint in projecting one’s own values onto the issues at hand.

So, how to show that restraint when your moral nerve is struck?

Be Aware & Proceed with Caution

As we’ve discussed in this blog, the volume of one’s awareness must be turned up several decibals when working cross-culturally.

Being aware of cultural differences, especially the subtle ones, is essential to breaking down the barriers of ethnocentricity. And that means being aware of both the differences and the nuances behind these differences.

After awareness comes a choice: what reaction do you want to have toward these differences?

Here are the only choices if you hope to succeed:

  • Accept the differences without criticizing or condemning them.
  • Adapt your behavior to the cultural difference.
  • Adopt your host culture’s values.

Needless to say, condemning the differences will get you nowhere. If you are doing business in another culture, you can’t expect that culture to shapeshift around you. The culture may evolve in its own time and become more aligned with your cultural values, but it’s not going to change for you.

With these three choices in mind, next week we’ll talk more specifically about how you can use these tactics to react to cultural differences in a diplomatic manner, avoid breaking an ankle on your own tripwire of ethnocentricity, and successfully work across cultures.