research – Success Across Cultures

English vs. Chinese Small Talk: How Do A Culture’s Power & Social Distance Influence Conversation

20. April 2024by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Two linguistically diverse worlds – English and Chinese – with two distinctly different views on social hierarchy.

How does small talk differ across these cultures?

This study, published in Acta Linguistica Academica, An International Journal of Linguistics, dissected the layers of communication within these distinct linguistic and cultural contexts.

All through small talk.

Why Small Talk?

Often dismissed as trivial banter, small talk can reveal insights into the socio-cultural fabric of a society.

Yet, analyzing small talk in English or Chinese in isolation risks oversimplifying it.

Instead, this group of researchers adopted a contrastive pragmatic approach to discern the subtle differences and shared conventions that shape small talk in these languages.

Why English & Chinese?

English, as a global lingua franca, boasts a multitude of variations and customs, making it challenging to discuss small talk without overlooking its complexities.

A contrastive analysis, therefore, offered a nuanced understanding of small talk’s conventionalized traits in English.

While East Asian languages, like Chinese, may be subject to relative non-linguistic terms like ‘low-/high-involvement cultures’ or ‘collectivity/individuality’, the researchers try to avoid that and, instead, use a bottom-up, language-centered approach.

By juxtaposing data from these linguistically distant cultures, the cultural ecosystems and the dynamic between language, culture, and communication were brought into greater contrast.

What are the Findings?

In English discourse, researchers found a tendency for speakers to default to speech acts like Greet, How-are-you, and Welcome as a precursor to small talk, particularly in ordinary situations.

However, as scenarios become increasingly extraordinary, English speakers deviate from routine, often initiating small talk with Requests for information, indicative of a shift in conversational norms.

Contrastingly, Remark was the predominant speech act of Chinese Small Talk, even in extraordinary contexts, underscoring its perceived linguistic necessity.

A Remark, as defined by the study, is:

“A typically Phatic speech act through which the speaker shows himself favorably disposed towards his addressee.”

Remark’s prevalence highlights the verbosity of Chinese Small Talk compared to the concise nature observed in English discourse.

Requests for Information

Further analysis uncovers intriguing differences in the use of Requests for information.

While prevalent in English discourse, they are predominantly confined to non-personal settings, indicative of a reluctance to delve into personal matters.

In contrast, Chinese speakers utilize Requests for information, often formulated as quasi-Remarks, regardless of setting, reflecting a distinct cultural approach to information exchange.

Moreover, the study’s investigation challenges simplistic intercultural arguments, revealing the influence of social distance and power dynamics on small talk in both English and Chinese contexts.

Notably, the presence of Remarks in English discourse is contingent upon power dynamics, highlighting the contextual sensitivity inherent in linguistic interactions.

As the study delves into increasingly extraordinary scenarios, a clear divergence emerges between English and Chinese small talk practices.

While Chinese speakers maintain routine regardless of context, English speakers demonstrate adaptability, deviating from conventions in extraordinary situations.

These differences in small talk reveal the dynamics of each culture as related to delving into personal disclosures, as well as the degree to which social and power distance impact small talk.

Building Bonds Across Borders: The Crucial Role of Trust in Cross-Cultural Negotiations

22. March 2024by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Who do you trust? And why?

The answer may be partially rooted in your culture.

Through two eye-opening experiments in a study on cross-cultural differences in trust, researchers examined how people from different cultures build trust with strangers.

They focused on Americans and Japanese, expecting their trust-building methods to differ.

And they were right.

American vs. Japanese Trust

For Americans, trust was thought to come from shared group memberships, while for Japanese, it was about having direct or indirect connections with others.

The results confirmed these ideas.

In both experiments – one involving questions and the other a money-sharing game – Americans trusted people from their in-group more.

But for the Japanese, something interesting happened: when there was a chance of having an indirect connection with someone outside their group, their trust increased even more than for Americans.

These findings show how cultural backgrounds shape the way we trust others.

For Americans, it’s about being part of the same group, while for Japanese, it’s more about having connections, even if they’re not direct.

Understanding these differences is crucial for better communication and relationships across cultures.

And for negotiations.

Understanding the Significance of Trust

In cross-cultural negotiations, trust goes beyond mere reliance on promises or assurances; it reflects a deep-seated belief in the integrity, credibility, and goodwill of one’s counterparts.

Trust fosters open communication, facilitates collaboration, and enhances the likelihood of reaching mutually satisfactory outcomes.

Without trust, negotiations may stall, misunderstandings may arise, and relationships may falter.

Strategies for Building Trust Across Cultural Divides

Think about what you learned in the earlier study.

Before negotiations commence, you might consider researching how the culture views trust and attempting to adapt to that view.

For instance, let’s say you’re a businessperson from the United States negotiating a deal with a company based in Japan.

In American culture, trust might be primarily based on shared goals or business interests.

However, in Japanese culture, trust is often built through personal connections and relationships.

To adapt to the Japanese cultural sense of trust, you might prioritize building rapport and establishing personal connections before diving into business discussions.

This could involve taking the time to engage in small talk, showing genuine interest in your Japanese counterparts’ backgrounds and interests, and demonstrating respect for their cultural norms and customs.

By understanding and adapting to the Japanese view of trust, you can lay the foundation for a more productive and harmonious negotiation process, ultimately increasing the likelihood of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement.

We’ll discuss more strategies for building trust next week.

Communication, Preparation, & Stress Management: 3 Pillars of Negotiation Across 3 Cross-Cultural Studies

1. March 2024by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Two business executives, Mark and Hiroshi, sit across from each other in a Tokyo boardroom, their respective companies poised to enter into a pivotal partnership.

As the negotiation unfolds, cultural missteps trip up the veneer of professionalism.

Mark approaches negotiations with a directness honed by years of business dealings in the West, while Hiroshi, rooted in the traditions of Japanese culture, communicates with subtlety and nuance, often unspoken.

Their initial exchanges are cordial but tense due to the cultural chasm separating them.

However, as the negotiation progresses, something remarkable happens.

Despite the language barriers and divergent communication styles, Mark and Hiroshi seek common ground.

And they’re able to find it based on their knowledge of effective communication, cultural awareness, and stress management in cross-cultural negotiations in accordance with this groundbreaking research, shared by Harvard.

Effective Communication

A recent series of studies by esteemed researchers reveals invaluable insights for negotiators navigating diverse cultural exchanges.

One study illuminates the pivotal role of effective communication in cross-cultural negotiations.

Their findings underscored that communication quality significantly impacts negotiation outcomes, with cross-cultural pairs often facing lower-quality communication compared with their same-culture counterparts.

However, those cross-cultural pairs who overcame communication barriers achieved better outcomes than their same-culture counterparts, leveraging their differences to reach more creative agreements.

Stereotyping Pitfalls

In another fascinating study, researchers delved into how negotiators prepare for talks with counterparts from different cultures.

Surprisingly, the research uncovered a tendency among negotiators to overemphasize cultural differences, leading them to expect counterparts to negotiate based on stereotypes.

This inclination, while well-intentioned, can inadvertently pave the path to misunderstandings and culture clashes.

Stress Management

Further research examined the impact of stress on cross-cultural communication.

It was found that negotiators grappling with extreme demands on their attention are prone to succumb to cultural stereotypes, potentially impeding effective communication and negotiation outcomes.

These studies reveal the importance of striking a balance between acknowledging cultural differences and treating counterparts as individuals.

While cultural awareness forms the bedrock of successful negotiations, delving deeper into counterparts’ professional backgrounds, personalities, and negotiating experiences fosters deeper understanding and rapport on an individual level.

Additionally, mitigating stress at the bargaining table serves as a potent antidote against succumbing to cultural stereotypes, creating space for more thoughtful and effective communication.

The Universal Language of Music: A Study of Shared & Divergent Emotions Across Cultures

2. February 20242. February 2024by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Music holds a unique position in the human experience.

It transcends language and culture to evoke emotions that resonate deep within us.

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined music’s impact on our bodies and emotions and investigated its universal appeal and divergence across different cultures.

Mapping Sensations Across Borders

Music has long been recognized for its ability to elicit emotion and bodily responses, from foot tapping to goosebumps.

But what exactly drives these sensations, and are they consistent across cultures?

Drawing participants from both Western and East Asian cultures, the study included a range of musical preferences and sensitivities.

By analyzing responses to a curated selection of songs, researchers sought to uncover patterns in bodily sensations and emotional experiences evoked by different types of music.

The study revealed striking similarities as well as divergent experiences in the way individuals from distinct cultural backgrounds responded to music.

Despite differences in musical preferences and exposure, participants reported consistent emotional experiences and bodily sensations across various genres and styles of music.

Amidst this harmony of emotions, a notable discrepancy emerged concerning familiarity with the music.

As one might expect, Western participants exhibited a greater familiarity with Western songs, whereas East Asian participants demonstrated a stronger connection to music from their own cultural sphere, reflecting the influence of exposure and upbringing on musical preferences.

Visualizing Musical Effects

Through the use of bodily sensation maps (BSMs), researchers were able to visualize how different musical attributes, such as tempo, rhythm, and melody, influenced participants’ subjective experiences.

Sad or tender melodies elicited sensations primarily in the head and chest regions, with Western participants particularly experiencing the haunting effects of melancholic tunes in their gut.

Conversely, danceable and joyful melodies induced sensations distributed across the body, with a concentration of effects in the limbs, reflecting the infectious energy of upbeat rhythms.

Notably, music categorized as aggressive triggered sensations pervading the entire body, with a heightened intensity in the head region.

This visceral response underscores the profound impact of music on our physiological state, eliciting a holistic bodily experience that mirrors the emotional intensity of the composition.

East Asian participants exhibited more consistent activation in the head, legs, and arms across different musical categories, suggesting a nuanced sensitivity to the varied aspects of music.

Conversely, Western participants reported a more uniform sensation concentrated in the chest area, particularly pronounced in response to melancholic or tender melodies, reflecting cultural differences in emotional expression and bodily awareness.

Despite these variations, the study revealed a remarkable convergence in the association between musical features and emotional dimensions across cultures.

Musical attributes such as slight harmonic changes, low roughness, and clear keys were consistently linked to emotions of tenderness and sadness, while complex rhythms and unclear keys evoked feelings of scariness or aggressiveness.

Implications and Future Directions

Whether it’s Beethoven’s symphonies or traditional Chinese melodies, the language of music speaks to us all in ways that defy cultural divides.

These findings not only underscore the universal language of music but also highlight its profound impact on our emotional and physical well-being.

By understanding the connection between music, emotions, and bodily sensations, we can gain deeper insights into the human experience and potentially utilize the therapeutic power of music to promote healing and connection across communities.

The Americans: What is the ‘American’ Identity According to Tight Versus Loose Cultures?

5. January 2024by J. WittwerLeave a comment

When you hear the term ‘Americans,’ what do you picture?

A multicultural tapestry of people of different races?

Or a homogenous group of white folk?

How Americans identify ‘the American’ may depend on whether they come from a tight or loose culture.

Implicit Associations

This research delves into the association between cultural tightness–looseness and implicit bias related to American identity.

Leveraging two expansive datasets, the study scrutinized the implicit links between American and ethnic identities, focusing on Asian or European Americans and Native or White Americans.

What sets this research apart is the integration of state-level indicators encompassing cultural tightness–looseness, conservatism, openness to experience, and the proportion of Asian or Native residents.

Tightness and looseness of culture has to do with the tolerance and social norms.

For reference, the study states that

“Tighter cultures have stricter social norms and little tolerance for deviance from normative standards, while looser cultures are characterized by fluid societal expectations and tolerance for a wider range of opinions, attitudes, and behaviors.”

Based on this description, you might assume that tighter cultures would have a more Eurocentric normative standard of what it means to be American, while looser cultures would have a more inclusive view.

And you’d be right in that hypothesis.

The American

Through meticulous multilevel modeling analyses, researchers found this hypothesis to be correct.

Their holistic approach reveals that, within tighter states, the implicit definition of Americanness aligns rigidly with Eurocentric norms, strengthening associations with White identities while relatively excluding Asian and Native Americans.

In contrast, looser states embrace a more flexible normative landscape, fostering a broader and more inclusive American identity.

Implicit Bias

Venturing into uncharted territory, the research challenges prevailing perspectives on implicit biases.

While previous studies hinted at a generalized prejudice perspective, this research underscores the need to differentiate implicit biases rather than assume a unified construct.

Across diverse implicit associations, cultural tightness–looseness emerges as a consistent and generalized predictor, highlighting its broad impact on various facets of societal perceptions.

The study delves into the potential shades of cultural tightness–looseness, acknowledging that its influence may not be universal.

It prompts speculation about boundary conditions, suggesting that the impact of cultural tightness may be more pronounced when implicit biases have normative foundations or implications.

This perspective encourages a deeper exploration of specific mechanisms shaping these cultural variations.

Contrary to expectations, the relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and implicit biases is not uniform among different ethnic groups within the same state, sparking intriguing questions about underlying mechanisms and moderation effects.

While the study acknowledges important limitations, such as its correlational nature and the need for more fine-grained analyses across smaller entities, it stands as a pioneering effort in unraveling the interaction between cultural context and individual implicit associations.

Culture Wars: How Tightness & Looseness Create Different Cultural Dynamics Across the 50 States

15. December 2023by J. WittwerLeave a comment

If you’re from the U.S., what do most people identify with your state?

Are its citizens stereotypical “celebrity-worshipping leftists”?

Are they “elitist yuppies”?

Are they “country bumpkins” of middle America?

Stereotypes abound, and these stereotypes are often based on the culture that exists at the state level.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve looked at tightness and looseness of national cultures.

But every nation has subcultures and regional cultures.

This study delves into the tightness-looseness of the 50 United States.

And what researchers find is a spectrum – some states lean towards tightness, marked by strictly enforced rules and minimal tolerance for deviation, versus those who embrace looseness, with fewer rules and a more accommodating stance towards deviation.

This study delves deep into the roots of theory, reinforcing the idea that tightness–looseness is not just happenstance.

Instead, it’s a thoughtful adaptation to the nuances of local environments.

The Study

In their examination of tightness–looseness – i.e., the intensity of punishment and permissiveness within a social system – researchers created a comprehensive set of potential indicators and refined them to form a composite index comprising nine key items.

This index encapsulates four facets of punishment strength, incorporating factors such as the legality of corporal punishment in schools, historical execution rates, the prevalence of student punishment, and the severity of penalties for marijuana-related offenses.

Two additional dimensions delve into permissiveness, encompassing the accessibility of alcohol and the legality of same-sex civil unions.

Institutions reinforcing moral order and constraining behavior are assessed through state-level measures of religiosity and the percentage of individuals with no religious affiliation.

The final indicator, reflecting looseness, gauges the percentage of the total population that is foreign, offering insights into the degree of international diversity and cultural amalgamation within a state.

The study then ranked the states from tight to loose based on these indicators.

The Results Are In…

The top 10 tightest states (from highest to lowest):

Mississippi
Alabama
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Louisiana
Kentucky
South Carolina
North Carolina

And the top 10 loosest states (from highest to lowest):

California
Oregon
Washington
Nevada
Maine
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Hawaii
New Hampshire
Vermont

According to the study,

“tightness–looseness can account for the divergence of substance abuse and discrimination rates between states such as Hawaii and Ohio, reliably predicts the psychological differences in conscientiousness and openness between Colorado and Alabama, helps to explain the contrasts in creativity and social organization between Vermont and North Dakota, and provides some understanding concerning the dissimilarity in insularity and resistance toward immigration between Arizona and New York.”

Culture Wars

In essence, this research draws up the fascinating landscape of cultural dynamics across the 50 states of the United States using the tightness-looseness dichotomy.

The study sheds light on the divergence in substance abuse and discrimination rates, the psychological disparities in conscientiousness and openness, and the contrasts in creativity and social organization among states.

Breaking new ground, this challenges the conventional focus on tightness-looseness only at the national level.

The findings underscore the predictive and explanatory power of tightness-looseness across diverse levels of analysis, paving the way for future research to extend this exploration into organizational and community realms.

While the correlational nature of the research precludes definitive causal inferences, the results align with tightness-looseness theory and broader eco-cultural approaches to understanding cultural differences.

The study proposes that local environments, shaped by natural disasters, resource scarcity, and other threats, drive the adaptation of cultural norms, behavioral patterns, and psychological traits.

Tightness emerges as an adaptive response in high-threat environments, fostering norms, impulse control, and orderliness.

Conversely, low-threat environments cultivate looseness, promoting openness and flexibility.

Unveiling significant policy implications, the research illuminates the contrasting outcomes associated with tight and loose states.

Tight states boast greater social stability and self-control but also exhibit lower sex equality, increased discrimination, and decreased innovation.

In contrast, loose states exhibit higher social disorganization and drug use but also embrace creativity, cultural openness, and greater happiness.

This nuanced perspective offers insights into what has been coined as “culture wars” between states, not just explaining their existence but also delving into their maintenance and psychological roots.

Attitude & Behavior in the Workplace: How Does Tightness/Looseness of Culture Apply?

1. December 2023by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Do you find the overall morale of your work team to be positive or negative?

How do you navigate it?

And have you ever considered whether the tightness/looseness in your company culture or societal culture might impact these attitudes?

In recent weeks, we’ve talked about tightness and looseness in culture and how this can affect innovation.

Today, we’ll be looking at another study examining tightness/looseness in the workplace to see how it can benefit morale, management policies, and behaviors.

The Study

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of perceived cultural tightness at the work unit level on individual-level outcomes, both positive and negative.

This understanding can be used to enhance management policies.

The research delves into the influence of perceived T-L culture at the work unit level on various individual-level factors, including stress, intention to leave, organizational deviance, job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment.

Utilizing cross-sectional data gathered from 417 participants across 57 preexisting work units in diverse Italian organizations, participants were presented with 10 statements that they were asked to agree/disagree with.

These statements include:

In my work unit, there are many social norms that must be strictly followed
In my work unit, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will strongly disapprove
In my work unit, there are clear and well-defined rules that must be respected
In my work unit, it is not allowed to break the existing norms

The results from multilevel analysis indicate a significant and positive association between perceived cultural tightness at the unit level and individual-level job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment.

Conversely, this perceived tightness is significantly and negatively linked to individual-level stress, intention to leave, and organizational deviance.

These findings imply that fostering a culture of tightness within organizations can positively shape employee attitudes and behaviors.

Confirming the researchers’ hypotheses, the results revealed that perceived cultural tightness at the unit level exhibited a positive association with job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment.

Conversely, it displayed a negative association with perceived stress, turnover intentions, and organizational deviance.

Interpreting the Results

Based on the research, this study found that fostering a tight culture could be beneficial for leaders to cultivate positive attitudes within work units.

However, the suitability of a tight culture depends on individual characteristics and cultural diversity within work units, necessitating attention from HR managers and leaders.

Achieving a “person-group fit,” where the T-L culture aligns with employees’ mindset and individual characteristics, could promote positive attitudes and behaviors.

Interestingly, in loose societies, organizations may witness more positive workplace attitudes within loose culture work units.

However, the study did not find significant curvilinear effects, suggesting a need for further investigation, especially in creative, design, or high-tech settings.

Future

The study suggests examining creativity at work, especially given prior results on cultural T-L and creativity.

Exploring moderators of the relationship between tight culture and creativity, such as regulatory focus theory, could provide valuable insights.

Future research should extend the examination of these effects to the organizational level, considering that work unit culture is influenced by the larger organizational and national culture.

Investigating interactions between the T-L culture of the country and that of the organization or work unit in promoting workplace outcomes is recommended.

Overall, these findings contribute to a deeper understanding of T-L effects in real working environments.

Diversity is an Asset: How Tightness/Looseness of Culture Impacts Innovation

17. November 2023by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Do you feel more creative when you are given rules to follow or no rules at all?

Does freedom inspire or limit you?

Today, we’ll delve into a study regarding the degree of tightness and looseness in cultures and how that impacts innovation.

But first, let’s identify what tightness/looseness in culture means.

Defining Tightness/Looseness

As you may have guessed, the “tightness” or “looseness” of a culture is related to its hierarchical structures and social norms.

Witkin and Berry define it as the

“degree of hierarchical structure among sociocultural elements in a society”

While Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver define it as

“the strength of social norms and degree of sanctioning within societies.”

In other words, loose cultures allow flexible and informal social norms, while tight cultures maintain order, coordination, and control.

Why is Impact Innovation?

For decades, scholars in management and economics have examined the connections between innovativeness and economic performance, often concentrating on conventional “hard factors” such as research and development investments or educational initiatives.

However, in an era of globalization where cultural dynamics play an increasingly crucial role, the impact of cultural characteristics on innovativeness has been relatively overlooked.

In this study, researchers employ various econometric models to examine the associations between cultural tightness and looseness and national innovativeness.

The Study

In line with the theoretical framework, researchers used the Global Innovation Index and the rank cultural tightness–looseness combination index.

They identified a significant positive association between cultural looseness, as measured by the Global Innovation Index (Uz (2015a)), and national innovativeness.

However, this correlation did not hold when using data provided by Gelfand et al. (2011a).

Researchers concluded that the higher number of surveyed countries, larger sample sizes, and a focus on specific tolerance in Uz’s (2015a) study provide a more comprehensive and accurate representation of cultural tightness-looseness, enhancing the reliability of estimation models.

Diversity is an Asset

The study’s interpretation of the results reveals a significant positive connection between innovativeness and cultural looseness when tightness-looseness is measured as a spread of norms.

This suggests that societal pluralism and diversity of opinions contribute to innovativeness.

However, cultural looseness does not equate to high individual tolerance in general; rather, it signifies the endurance of varying degrees of specific tolerance of controversial issues within an open society.

These findings align with studies at different levels, indicating that diversity, when managed constructively, serves as an asset for innovativeness rather than an obstacle.

This study emphasizes the importance of balancing diversity with participatory safety to enhance team identity and foster creativity.

The cultural values of a society, as reflected in its approach to innovation, play a crucial role in shaping its economic and creative landscape.

Recognizing the paradoxical nature of cultural looseness—simultaneously allowing individual freedom and embracing culture-specific norms—can provide valuable insights into fostering societal innovativeness.

Social Value Orientation & Culture: Does Your Social Predisposition Outrank Your Cultural Values?

27. October 2023by J. WittwerLeave a comment

Social interactions are influenced by the exchange between an individual’s cultural inclinations, be they horizontal or vertical individualism and collectivism, their inherent traits, and the surrounding context.

One pivotal trait at the center of this dynamic is the individual’s Social Value Orientation (SVO).

SVO represents a person’s general predisposition towards competition (proself) or cooperation (prosocial) in the realm of social exchanges.

This study, encompassing 1032 participants, explores the relationship between SVO and an individual’s personal cultural tendencies of horizontal/vertical individualism and collectivism, within the backdrop of two distinct cultural settings: the United States, characterized as a vertical individualist setting, and South Korea, marked by its vertical collectivistic backdrop.

The researchers’ hypotheses centered on the alignment between an individual’s value orientation and their corresponding personal cultural tendencies, accounting for the cultural setting.

They posited that each value orientation would correspond with the congruent personal cultural tendency in a given setting, and this association would be context-specific, with SVO playing a more prominent role in settings where cultural themes were less dominant.

Let The Games Begin

A decomposed games measure identified whether individual participants were prosocial, individualistic, or competitive.

The behavioral measure consists of nine “games” through which this assignment is made.

The study also measured the participant’s inclination toward horizontal/vertical individualism and collectivism.

For example, participants were asked to rate their feelings about statements like “I enjoy being unique and different from others in many ways” (horizontal individualism) or “I enjoy working in situations involving competition with others” (vertical individualism).

Likewise, they rated prosocial statements like “The well-being of my co-workers is important to me” (horizontal collectivism) and “I would do what would please my family, even if I detested that activity” (vertical collectivism).

After collecting data from these games and questionnaires, this is what the study found.

The Findings

The findings highlighted intriguing patterns.

Across both settings, proself individuals exhibited a stronger endorsement of vertical individualistic values, while prosocial individuals leaned more towards horizontal collectivistic values.

However, the influence of SVO diverged across the two cultural contexts.

In the United States, prosocial individuals exhibited a more robust inclination towards horizontal collectivism compared to their proself counterparts.

In contrast, in the South Korean context, prosocial individuals displayed a lesser affinity for horizontal individualism.

These outcomes bear significant theoretical implications and open avenues for further exploration.

What This Means

Delving deeper into these revelations makes it more apparent that individuals are not solely products of their cultural inclinations or personal traits; rather, it is the dynamic give-and-take of these factors that ultimately shapes their social interactions.

The results of this study underscore the coaction of cultural tendencies, dispositional traits, and context in shaping social behavior.

They also highlight the significance of context-specific considerations in understanding the nuances of human behavior, emphasizing the need for a more holistic and multifaceted approach to comprehend the exchange of cultural influences, personal traits, and context in shaping our interactions.

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

13. October 202313. October 2023by J. WittwerLeave 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.