Tag: social norms

Misspeaks in Small Talk: How to Talk Small Across Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Picture this: you’re at a bustling international conference, surrounded by professionals from all corners of the globe. 

As you navigate the sea of faces, you strike up a conversation with a colleague from Japan. 

You’re eager to make a good impression, but as the conversation unfolds, you find yourself struggling to find common ground.

You can tell your colleague is uncomfortable.

Maybe you spoke too personally too soon.

This scenario highlights the sometimes delicate nature of small talk across cultures. 

What may be considered polite and engaging in one culture could be perceived as intrusive or off-putting in another. 

In this blog post, we’ll unravel the mysteries of small talk in cross-cultural interactions.

The West

In Western cultures, small talk often revolves around neutral topics such as the weather, sports, or current events. 

For instance, in the United States, it’s common to initiate conversations with casual remarks like, “How’s the weather treating you today?” or “Did you catch the game last night?” 

These topics serve as safe conversational starters, allowing individuals to ease into interactions without delving into more personal matters right away.

The East

On the other hand, in many Eastern cultures, small talk tends to be more reserved and indirect, focusing on topics that preserve harmony and respect. 

In Japan, for example, small talk often centers around polite greetings and expressions of gratitude. 

Initiating conversations with phrases like “How are you?” or “Thank you for your time” demonstrates respect for social norms and etiquette.

The Middle East

In some cultures, such as those in the Middle East, small talk may involve more personal inquiries about family, health, or well-being. 

For instance, in countries like Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, it’s common for individuals to inquire about each other’s families or offer blessings for good health and prosperity.

The Missteps & Misspeaks

Though small talk can serve as a tool to build rapport, it can also present cultural pitfalls if not approached with sensitivity and awareness. 

For instance, in China, discussing topics related to politics, religion, or personal finances may be considered taboo, as they can potentially lead to conflict or discomfort. 

Similarly, in some cultures like Finland or Sweden, excessive small talk may be perceived as insincere or intrusive, as these societies value directness and authenticity in communication.

Navigating these cultural boundaries requires a keen understanding of local customs and norms. 

By observing and adapting to the small talk conventions of different cultures, individuals can bridge cultural divides, foster connections, and build trust in their interpersonal interactions.

Irish Exit Versus Midwest Goodbye: How Do You Take Leave?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you prefer to slip out of the party without anyone noticing?

Or is your departure a big production?

Our preferred manner of taking leave can speak volumes about social norms and interpersonal dynamics. 

From the brisk Irish exit to the prolonged Midwest goodbye, each culture exhibits distinctive practices that have become stereotypes. 

So, before we bid farewell, let’s uncover the unspoken customs that shape our social exits.

Irish Goodbye

The Irish goodbye, also widely known as the “French exit,” is a social departure strategy characterized by slipping away from a gathering or event without bidding farewell or announcing one’s departure. 

Unlike the customary practice of saying goodbye to each person individually, the Irish goodbye involves leaving discreetly, often to avoid prolonged farewells or awkward conversations. 

The tactic is appreciated by those who prefer a quiet exit, finding conventional goodbyes time-consuming or uncomfortable. 

While some view it as a breach of social etiquette, others see it as a pragmatic and considerate way to make an exit without disrupting the flow of an event. 

The Irish goodbye exemplifies a subtle and understated departure, embodying a balance between social grace and personal convenience in navigating social situations.

The title of this departure style suggests an association with Irish social customs…although that may just be assumed. 

In my research, I’ve found that these terms – Irish goodbye, French exit – may have been invented as insults.

The British are said to have invented “French Leave” to criticize the French, with whom they’ve historically butted heads, while funnily enough, the French call the same act “to leave the English way.”

In Germany, it’s called the “Polish Exit.” In Poland, the “English Exit.”

It doesn’t actually appear to be a stereotypical behavior or social norm of any one of these cultures.

And yet, these terms all represent the act of ducking out early.

Midwest Goodbye

The Midwest goodbye is a regional social custom prevalent in the American Midwest, characterized by a prolonged and elaborate departure process. 

Unlike the Irish goodbye, this tradition involves a series of extended farewells, conversations, and well-wishing that can significantly extend the time it takes to leave a social gathering. 

Individuals partake in a series of incremental goodbyes, moving from group to group, expressing gratitude, and engaging in small talk before finally making their exit. 

This ritual is deeply ingrained in Midwest culture, reflecting values of warmth, friendliness, and community.

The Midwest Goodbye is often seen as a genuine expression of care and appreciation for others, emphasizing the importance of personal connections and social bonds. 

While it may extend the duration of the farewell process, many in the Midwest consider it a polite and respectful way to conclude social interactions. 

The Midwest Goodbye showcases the cultural nuances and emphasis on interpersonal relationships in the region, offering a stark contrast to more abrupt departure styles observed in other parts of the country.

This is one that I’ve personally witnessed and can say is a true social norm of that region.

But as for the French or Irish exit, I’m curious if this method of departure is cultural in any way or truly is an invented stereotype.

If you know more, please share in the comments.

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

Posted on by Leave 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. 

Relational Mobility, Part II: How Easily Does Your Culture Form New Relationships…And Abandon Existing Ones?

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you build relationships?

Do they last?

Last week, we discussed relational mobility – an aspect of the social environment that reflects how easily people of different cultures form new relationships and leave existing ones. 

The authors of six comprehensive studies encompassing both correlational and experimental designs unveiled significant findings regarding relational mobility in culture.

Let’s take a look at what they’ve found.

The Research

The research hypothesis of these collective studies centered on the notion that individuals residing in cultures characterized by diminished relational mobility would exhibit a heightened propensity for holistic thinking, emphasizing a broader focus on the surrounding social and physical context. 

Conversely, those in cultures marked by greater relational mobility would display more analytic thinking. 

To substantiate this proposition, the authors explored the disparities in relational mobility across culturally diverse regions, including the United States, Spain, Israel, Nigeria, and Morocco. 

Their findings revealed that variances in relational mobility predicted patterns of dispositional bias and the prevalence of holistic or analytic cognitive orientations.

Findings

Some of the greatest findings across these six studies are as follows:

  • Firstly, individuals in cultures characterized by higher relational mobility exhibited narrower attention spans towards their surrounding context and displayed increased dispositional biases. This was in stark contrast to individuals in cultures with lower relational mobility.
  • Secondly, the authors identified that relational mobility acted as a mediator, explaining the differences observed between these cultural groups in terms of cognitive tendencies.
  • Thirdly, the role of locus of control was explored as a mechanism underlying these within-culture effects. It was evident that individuals in high relational mobility environments tended to perceive greater control over their surroundings, particularly within the social realm.
  • Lastly, relational mobility exhibited a unique predictive power in elucidating why certain cultures leaned towards analytic or holistic cognitive orientations compared to other cultural constructs.

Relational Mobility Shapes Cognitive Behaviors

The degree of relational mobility in an environment, shaped by various factors like subsistence styles, historical threats, or sociopolitical systems, influences individuals’ proximal incentives and shapes their cognitive behaviors. 

In contexts with lower relational mobility, interdependence and adherence to social norms tend to dominate, driving individuals toward holistic thinking. 

Conversely, higher relational mobility settings foster independence and cultural looseness, encouraging analytic cognitive tendencies.

This research sheds light on how the degree of relational mobility in a society can profoundly impact the way people think, highlighting the interchange between socioecological factors and cognitive tendencies across diverse cultures.

Social Capital & Promoting Development in Low-Income Communities

Posted on by Leave a comment

Picture this: You’re driving down a rural road, and suddenly your car breaks down. 

You’re stranded, with no phone signal and no idea what to do. 

But then, a friendly farmer pulls up and offers to help. She calls a mechanic she knows, and within an hour, your car is fixed and you’re back on the road. 

This is an example of social capital at work – the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively.

In their study, “Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy,” Michael Woolcock and Deepa Narayan explore the concept of social capital and its potential for promoting development in low-income communities. 

They argue that social capital can play a crucial role in creating positive outcomes, including economic growth, improved health and education, and reduced crime and violence. 

Let’s see how.

Social Capital, Defined

We’ve covered social capital extensively over the last several weeks, and similarly, the authors of this study define social capital as 

“the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively.” 

They emphasize that social capital is not just about individual connections but also about the broader social norms and institutions that support collective action. 

Some of these norms include trust, reciprocity, and social networks that help create social capital, which can vary by community, region, and country.

Further, the study notes that while bonding social capital can provide social support and a sense of belonging, bridging social capital is particularly important for promoting economic growth and reducing poverty. 

However, bridging social capital can be particularly challenging, as it often requires overcoming social and cultural barriers.

Regardless, social capital can be particularly important for marginalized communities, as it can provide a source of support and resources.

Social Capital vs. Individual Outcomes

According to research, social capital has several advantages over traditional development approaches that focus on individual outcomes or economic growth. 

Social capital can create “public goods” that benefit everyone in a community, which can be self-sustaining over time. 

The authors note that social capital can help to build trust and cooperation within a community, which can be particularly important in post-conflict or post-disaster contexts.

The Cons

While the study makes obvious the many benefits of social capital, it also notes potential pitfalls and emphasizes the need for a nuanced and context-specific approach to promoting it.

Social capital is not a universal remedy for development challenges – there are several potential disadvantages, including the possibility of exclusion and inequality within social networks, the risk of “elite capture” where social capital benefits only a select few, and the potential for social capital to be used for negative purposes such as corruption or discrimination.

Further research into social capital and its potential in low-income communities might give us a clearer idea of how to avoid these pitfalls.

A Zookeeper in Action: When Locals Help Explain Foreign Behavior

Posted on by Leave a comment

As a Third Culture Kid living in Africa, I would sit in the shade with my father when visitors came.

One day, a trusted employee named André stopped by.

As was normal in the Mossi culture, discussion unfolded at length in a friendly manner, while we drank cup after cup of water.

When the conversation wound down, André at last stood to leave.

It was only then that the aim of his visit became known.

The Favor

A wedding was approaching, and André wanted to ask my dad for help in transporting bags of sorghum (a type of grain). 

The pair sat down again to discuss.

My father told André that while he would like to help, he was unfortunately very busy and couldn’t take the day off that the bad roads would require to transport the grain.

André left and, from that day onward, their relationship was broken.

My father’s trusted employee and cohort now avoided him like the plague.

My father wondered what he’d done wrong. He felt helpless and couldn’t change what happened.

He also couldn’t find fault in what he had said or done. 

He understood he’d had a monkey moment but wasn’t sure what his blunder was.

He really was busy and, on such short notice, couldn’t accommodate André’s request. He had explained and apologized for this.

No matter how hard he tried, his relationship with André didn’t improve.

At a loss, my father sought out his zookeeper for assistance.

The Zookeeper Explains

Freeman Kabore was born of noble blood from Ouagadougou.

He spent time studying in Europe and so had familiarity with both cultures; the perfect quality in a zookeeper.

When my father told Zookeeper Freeman about what had unfolded between him and André, Freeman taught him something about Mossi culture.

An important request like this one should not be refused upon sight.

Instead, one should take the time to consider the request – or at least have the courtesy to appear to take the time to consider it.

If my father had told André, “I will think about it. Please come back tomorrow, and I will let you know,” and then, the following day, kindly declined, this would have been acceptable in Mossi culture.

To the Mossi, this face-saving formality shows your friend the respect he deserves.

Being delivered a direct “no” is considered rude and inconsiderate.

With help from Zookeeper Freeman, my father learned an important norm of the Mossi culture, one that would save him from further monkey moments and help him maintain valuable friendships.

Next week, we’ll talk about Third Culture Kids: the ultimate zookeepers.

Americans vs. the Swiss: Defining Friendship

Posted on by Leave a comment

An American sits down beside a Swiss on an airplane. 

After some initial friendly banter (one-sided from the American), he asks, “Where are you off to?”

The Swiss, slightly uncomfortable, is reluctant to respond, but the American doesn’t take the cue.

Without prompt, he proceeds to share his entire trip with the Swiss. He was visiting his son who lives abroad in France. They went on a bike journey across the Baltics together. He’s now heading home to Minnesota, where he’s retired. He and his wife have three other kids, all of whom are newly out of the nest. Their absence has been particularly hard on him, and he’s been trying to find new hobbies – like biking – to fill that empty void where activities with his children once stood.

“Enough about me…” he wraps up. “What about you? What do you do?”

The Swiss squirms in his seat. This man is a stranger, and it’s none of his business. Even worse, the Swiss has nowhere to turn. The nonstop flight is eight hours. Would it be rude to put his headphones in?

This is a marked difference between American and Swiss culture.

Small talk is a common, acceptable, and even appreciated social norm in America.

In Switzerland, not so much.

Sharing Personal Info

This chart illustrates just how uncomfortable the above American just made his Swiss cohort.

The Swiss only share small talk with buddies or friends – and sometimes with colleagues.

In fact, the American went well past small talk, sharing non business related topics, personal factual information, and even personal emotional themes, all of which are only shared between close friends in Switzerland.

To breach this wall with a stranger can feel egregious to the Swiss.

As we talked about last week, respecting others’ privacy is highly valued in Swiss culture.

Their “bubble” is much larger than that of their American counterpart.

Comfort Zone of Communication

The comfort zone of communication is considerably tighter in Switzerland and the scope of people with whom they communicate narrower.

Americans talk about anything and everything with their friends and are, more often than not, comfortable sharing more with a broader range of people as well, whether they be acquaintances or even strangers on a plane.

Swiss view friendship as intimate and permanent. Being a friend means being there, through thick and thin; it’s a life-long commitment not to be taken lightly.

Essentially, the Swiss have no “degrees” of friendship; they have a single solid unalterable definition.

Americans, on the other hand, have a wider range of friendships. They might have people they consider close friends who always have their back, others they consider fun and easygoing buddies who come and go from their lives, and still others with whom they’d be happy to grab a beer and discuss politics but not necessarily share their deepest darkest secrets.

While Americans might view “close” friendships similarly to the way the Swiss view friendship in general, they are also more often open to lighthearted, casual friendships with most anyone.

To some, they might be considered “fair-weather friends,” while to others with whom they are more intimate, they are considered loyal.

But they are willing to share degrees of themselves and their lives with even strangers, all the same.

So, how does one make friends in a culture with such a different concept of friendship?

We’ll bridge that gap next week.

Relationship- vs. Rule-Based Cultures: Socially-Based Control vs. Individual Autonomy

Posted on by Leave a comment

Imagine living in a culture where the village and the individual are one and the same.

That’s how the Bantu cultures of sub-Saharan Africa see things: an individual’s welfare is dependent on the village’s and vice versa.

One example of the way this manifests in the culture’s social norms is in their greeting.

The Shona people greet others with Maswere sei (“How is your day?”).

The response is Ndiswera maswerawo (“My day is OK if yours is.”).

Relationships are a fundamental part of the culture, so social control is exercised through relationships.

Last week, we talked about how cultures differ in their views of rules and relationships.

In the Shona society, certain relative figureheads are in authoritarian roles over subordinates in the family. Wives are subordinate to husbands, children to parents, younger siblings to older siblings, and all to the village elders.

The culture sees this subordination as natural. Subordinates don’t buck against the hierarchy, because it is the way of life, and the society’s baobab roots are formed and interconnected by relationships.

In contrast, rule-based cultures don’t see rules and relationships this way.

Human Beings as Autonomous Individuals

Rule-based societies view human beings as autonomous (i.e. having no natural authority over others).

As we saw in last week’s post, the authority in such cultures is rather embodied in the rules – rules that are applied to everyone.

This Western cultural concept can be traced back to God and the Ten Commandments.

God is seen as a lawmaker. He governs using universal rule of law.

The Greeks also influenced the West’s rule-based values, as they saw individuals as generally rational and rules as generally logical.

This idea is the basis of “homo economicus,” a principle in which a prosperous society is based on a logical and rational people.

It follows then that, in rule-based cultures, management and behavior is based upon the culture’s respect for rules.

Both cultural types have rules, but they differ in their relation to these rules in two ways:

  • In relationship-based cultures, the authority of rules is directly related to the authority of the person who lays down the law, while in rule-based cultures, rules are respected for their sake.
  • Moreover, in relationship-based cultures, supervision and shame ensure compliance with rules, while in rule-based cultures, fear of punishment and guilt are used for the same.

How This Difference Affects Business Relations

These complex differences can sew distrust between business partners.

Each culture views their own perspective on rules and relationships as just and right. In turn, they view the other’s perspective as corrupt.

Imagine this scenario, adapted from Riding the Waves of Culture:

A manager in a relationship-based culture offers his nephew a lofty position in the company, despite the fact that this nephew is unqualified.

A rule-based colleague of this manager tells his counterparts:

“They’ll always help their friends and family over more qualified candidates. It’s nepotism. They cannot be trusted.”

On the opposite side, the relationship-based manager sees his rule-based colleague pass up a friend for a position in lieu of a more qualified candidate.

He tells his team:

“He will not even help a friend? How can we trust him?”

In this way, cross-cultural business relations can be easily damaged or decimated, when the motives of other cultures are not understood.

Next week, we’ll talk about how to avoid this misunderstanding.

10 Cultural Universals: You Are What You Eat, How Values Become Culture

Posted on by Leave a comment

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: what we value is who we are.

We’ve talked extensively about values in this blog. That’s because they are the roots of every cultural baobab.

They define our culture, and they direct our social norms.

This grouping of the 10 Cultural Universals also includes beliefs and rituals, which tie in with values in ways we’ll discuss in upcoming posts.

You Are What You Eat

What we are fed as children – in the forms of both formal and informal education – is, more often than not, what we accept and value as adults.

As Kilroy J. Oldster wrote in Dead Toad Scrolls:

“A great deal of the global stimuli that we view comes to us without major effort. Daily a person scans and screens a wide barrage of solicited and unsolicited material. What information a society pays attention to creates the standards and principles governing citizens’ life. A nation’s discourse translates its economic, social, and cultural values to impressionable children.” 

Our national discourse, what we project and adulate as a society, the meaning and importance we place on certain beliefs, ideals, and attitudes – these are the things our children consume.

We are what we eat. Our children will become what we feed them.

Education vs. Ignorance

“The right to a quality education is, I believe, the perfect path to bridge the gap between different cultures and to reconcile various civilizations…Ignorance is by far the biggest danger and threat to humankind.” – Moza bint Nasser

If we feed children quality food, in the form of education, they will value knowledge, critical thinking, and the ethics and moral teachings therein.

If we feed them garbage, in the form of false narratives, baseless “facts”, and unwarranted prejudice, they will value conspiracies, groupthink, and stereotypes.

A culture creates its own values and also consumes them.

So, remember, whatever values you cultivate within your culture should be cultivated with care. Values are meant to keep society healthy. They’re meant to show what integrity means to you as a people and to show others what you stand for.

What We Eat

Like social norms, the beliefs and rituals of your culture are what actualize our underlying values.

Beliefs are what we eat; rituals are how we eat.

Rituals, especially, are values in action.

We’ll talk about both in the coming weeks.

10 Cultural Universals: Transportation Culture & Social Movements

Posted on by 1 Comment

Amsterdam is a bicycler’s paradise.

Motorbikes are ubiquitous in Bali.

Knowing your way around the subway or the Tube is essential in NYC or London, respectively.

People all across the world have a common need: to get from here to there.

Whether on foot, by bus, or aboard a gondola, the methods of travel in every nation or region are unique and practical to the culture born there.

Last week, we discussed traditional clothing and how clothing culture evolves with the times.

This week, we’ll take a look at transport and its evolution, a topic which falls under the same umbrella of basics – along with food, clothing, and shelter – as part of our series on the 10 Cultural Universals.

Practicality and Culture

Each culture has its own public and preferred methods of transport. These methods vary across regions, based largely upon two things:

1) Practicality – the most functional mode of transport, considering the landscape and infrastructure of the area

2) Social norms & values – the social norms and values that drive these transport choices

The favored method of transport is often chosen due to the type of transport culture that’s cultivated in any given region. It’s also chosen based upon practicality (which usually influences why society cultivates that type of transport culture, in the first place).

The Bicycling Capital

Let’s take Amsterdam, for example.

‘Bike Street: Cars are Guests’

Amsterdam is often called “the bicycling capital of the world,” and this is largely due to a social movement that happened in the ‘70s.

While prior to WWII, bicycling was already the predominant form of transportation across the Netherlands, car ownership exploded in the ‘50s and ‘60s and was soon so popular that roads were congested, and bicyclists were literally shunted to the side.

With more motor vehicles zipping around, the number of road fatalities sky-rocketed. 3,000 people – including 450 children – were killed by drivers in 1971.

‘Stop the Child Murder’ Social Movement

This is when a social movement formed, called ‘Stop de Kindermoord’ (Stop the Child Murder). The movement’s name was derived from journalist Vic Langenhoff’s article of the same title, which he’d written after his own child had been killed on the road.

The Middle East oil crisis of 1973 also informed the move toward reinstating bicycling as the primary form of transport. As the Dutch’s reliability on foreign oil was shaken, the motor vehicle seemed less sustainable than previously thought.

Thus, the Dutch government renewed their investment in bicycling infrastructure – with more cycling paths, smoother biking surfaces, parking facilities, bike-sharing programs, and clear signage and lights.

Biking is now a daily part of most Dutch people’s daily lives, which means that children grow up with this cycle-centric primary socialization. This makes for a homegrown biking culture, ever popular in a world promoting greener transport options.

In this way, Amsterdam’s traditional and revitalized biking culture is ahead of the pack, and forward-thinking “smart city” cultures are following in their bike tracks (see: Barcelona, Mexico City).

Next week, we’ll discuss transport culture further.