Tag: stereotypes

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

Posted on by Leave 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.

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

Posted on by Leave 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.

How Much Does Culture Influence Gender Stereotypes

Posted on by Leave a comment

Does culture influence the way that we perceive gender?

Or are masculine and feminine gender roles and stereotypes universal?

Three compelling studies unveil the influence of cultural values on the contents of these stereotypes, shedding light on the dynamic interplay between society and our perceptions of gender.

Study 1: Women as Interdependent, Men as Independent

At first glance, the authors of Study 1 expected two straightforward main effects. 

  • 1) East Asians would be perceived as more interdependent compared to their Western counterparts. 
  • 2) Within each culture, men would be seen as more independent than women—a pattern deeply entrenched in our societal fabric. 

Study 1 begins with Americans, who perceive men as less interdependent than women. 

But in Korea, the script actually flips, defying the “universal” gender stereotype of male independence. 

Koreans, in their unique cultural lens, perceive men as more interdependent than women, revealing the nuance between cultural values and gender perceptions.

As it turns out, men embody the traits that hold sway in their respective societies.

Study 2: Bicultural Norms Align According to Language

Study 2 introduces us to the world of bicultural Korean Americans, navigating the transition between languages and cultural frames. 

As they complete surveys, the language they use becomes a catalyst for transformation. 

In English, men are perceived as less interdependent, aligning with American cultural norms. 

However, in Korean, men are seen as more interdependent, mirroring the values of their Korean heritage.

Study 3: Gender Stereotypes Morph According to Dominant Cultural Preferences

Study 3 sees American college students take center stage. 

Ambitiousness and sociability emerge as focal points, representing the cultural values cherished at their respective universities. 

These values shape perceptions of a male student. 

Whatever trait is hailed as the pinnacle of cultural importance becomes the beacon through which his character is judged. 

Culture, like a master sculptor, molds the contents of gender stereotypes with a deft hand.

Conclusion

These studies ignite a flame of understanding, illuminating the dialogue between culture and gender perceptions. 

They reveal the malleability of stereotypes, challenged by the diverse tapestry of human experiences shaped by culture. 

As we continue to place gender and culture, we delve deeper into the realm of societal influence, recognizing the power cultural values hold in shaping our perceptions of masculinity and femininity.

History is in the Eye of the Beholder: Why There Is No “One Truth” When It Comes to Culture

Posted on by Leave a comment

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” – or so the saying goes.

And so is history.

History may be “written by the victors,” but in most cases, the “victors” don’t permanently wipe out all other perspectives (thankfully).

Opposing views of history co-exist and, if you’re doing business in a new culture – or living in it – an awareness of that culture’s perspective of history, particularly its own, will help you succeed…and avoid some serious cultural faux pas.

How?

UPS in Germany

Consider this: when UPS tried to introduce new business in West Germany in 1976, the company didn’t consider the historical roots of brown uniforms there.

UPS’s recognizable “brown shirts” were reminiscent of Hitler Youth uniforms to locals.

Tensions arose due to this serious oversight, and UPS was forced to introduce green employee uniforms instead. 

But cultural insensitivity was their first impression.

This could have all been avoided with a little bit of historical knowledge and common sense.

Moreover, another important thing to remember about history is that, when it comes to cultural understanding, it’s open to interpretation.

Interpreting History

Although there may be one truth, no one will ever know it.

Historical events can be perceived differently by opposing cultures and are subject to interpretation.

Knowing that, when introduced to your host culture, look at their history not only through the lens of your own culture, but through their own.

If you look at another’s history only through the framework of your culture’s historical perspective of it, that singular interpretation of the facts likely won’t provide the same view.

In the sense that you’re trying to understand the perspective of another culture, that interpretation is pretty useless to you.

While we hope for objectivity in history-telling, the reality is that subjectivity colors history writing a great deal.

Historians often write within the biased framework of their culture’s own national and political interests.

Cultural bias is difficult to recognize, particularly coming from academics or historians, whom we’d like to believe are “above” bias.

But nationalist tradition often enters into historical interpretation, and cultural preconceptions and stereotypes are extremely resistant to facts.

Only when faced with foreign opposition of said facts may any sort of bias be detected.

We’ll illustrate this contrast of opposing historical views next week.

“Western Culture” as a Stereotype: Defining “The West”

Posted on by Leave a comment

Over the last few weeks, we’ve talked about stereotypes: how they can be harmful and ways in which you can use them wisely to aid cross-cultural understanding.

In fact, we use stereotypes a lot in this blog.

One of these stereotypes is the broad term, “Western culture,” which is associated with core values, norms, and beliefs.

But what, exactly, is it?

What is “Western Culture”?

What do you think of when you hear the term, “Western culture”?

You probably think of Europe, the United States, Australia, Canada – the latter three of which are highly influenced by Europe, due to their historical roots.

All of these countries mentioned (and others that fall under the umbrella of “Western culture”) hold a common set of values and norms.

However, as we’ve also highlighted in this blog, values and norms vary widely across the countries that fall under this umbrella.

In the U.K., queues are law; in Italy, it’s every man for himself.

German companies run like well-oiled machines; French companies are like royal courts.

Despite these cultural differences on a country-by-country basis, Western cultures share strong commonalities, due to their historical heritage under the Ancient Greek and Roman Empires, as well as the influence of Judeo-Christian religions.

Moreover, 18th-century Enlightenment in Europe brought forth a rationalist and secular-oriented ideology focused on social and scientific progress.

This drove such democratic values as the separation of church and state, human rights, capitalism, modern technology, and political pluralism.

Western Culture is a Stereotype 

Up until now, we never defined “Western culture” in this blog.

Yet, somehow, we all understood what it means.

This is due to the fact that “Western culture” is as much a stereotype as anything else. 

The behaviors of someone from “the West” are fixed in our mind, contrasted with how those from an Eastern culture might act or the ideology and values they might live by.

So, while we know there are differences between the values and behaviors of Australians, Europeans, Americans, etc. – and even further, between countries, regions, subcultures, and even individuals in each culture – we still recognize the broad commonalities that exist across all of “the West.” 

Use Your Discretion

If I board a plane and am seated between a Swiss person and an American, I would be more inclined to talk to the American.

This is not because I am opposed to the Swiss (I am Swiss); it’s because I want to be courteous.

Americans generally like small talk with strangers in public settings; Swiss generally don’t.

However, some Swiss might actually be prone to small talk, while some Americans will put their earbuds in immediately.

The point is, when it comes to stereotypes, applying them wisely means to use your discretion when approaching each individual.

Test the waters, apply your observational skills, and proceed accordingly.

Stereotypes blanket entire populaces, but they don’t take into account the individuality of people.

So, rather than presuming each person is attached to the stereotypical values, norms, and behaviors of their cultures, tuning in to the individual nature of a person’s preferences, priorities, and behaviors will allow you to avoid misusing stereotypes.

Stereotypes: A “Solid Impression” or a Funhouse Mirror?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Imagine you’re trying to navigate yourself to a restaurant in a big city.

You open up Google Earth, plug in the address, and find the coordinates.

At first, you’re in satellite view. So many details – lines, colors, buildings, trees. With such an intricate bird’s-eye perspective, it’s hard to focus and find the way.

Gps Maps Google Map Navigation Location Navigator
Gps Maps Google Map Navigation Location Navigator

However, when you switch over to map view, everything is suddenly simplified and much clearer.

Analogies are the map views of a culture. They simplify a culture’s complexity, clearing the way to understanding by providing less – but more pertinent – information.

Analogies strip away the details you don’t need, leaving only those that you do.

While this is most certainly helpful in a lot of ways, you must be careful with simplified views.

A simplified map can leave out roadblocks, traffic jams, or other valuable information that might have altered your chosen route or decision-making.

This can especially happen when we use stereotypes as our simplified cultural maps.

A “Solid Impression”

The word “stereotype” is rooted in the Greek words for firm/solid (“stereos”) and impression (“typos”).

Literally translated, stereotype means “solid impression.”

In the late 18th century, the term was used by Firmin Didot in printing to describe printing plates that duplicate typography.

Rather than using the original plate, the stereotype (duplicate printing plate) was used for printing.

The meaning of the word changed in the early 20th century when American journalist, Walter Lippmann, used it analogously in relation to the characteristics of a group of people.

As a stereotype is a solid impression in the printing process, so it is in people’s minds in relation to groups or cultures.

Lippmann saw this, defining the word as,

“a distorted picture or image in a person’s mind, not based on personal experience, but derived culturally.”

Stereotypes are like a funhouse mirror: conditioning that distorts our image of “the other.”

Lippmann warned of the dangers of such bias. In Public Opinion (1922), he wrote,

“The only feeling that anyone can have about an event he does not experience is the feeling aroused by his mental image of that event.”

In this way, our feelings about an event (or a people) are not based in truth if we have no experience with said event/people.

They’re based on a stereotype.

Stereotypes condition us to deflect valid and true claims that do not align with our own, grounded in often negative attitudes and perceptions of “the other” – attitudes that are regularly driven by social and political motivations.

How Are Stereotypes Different Than Analogies

Although stereotypes and analogies work in a similar fashion in that they simplify the mechanics and behaviors that drive a culture’s people, the aim of creating analogies is to enable one to work effectively in a cross-cultural environment.

The aim of stereotypes, on the other hand, is often to contrast characteristics of other cultures that conflict with one’s own, essentially blanketing them over an entire group.

Stereotypes can often be intolerant, toxic, discriminatory, prejudicial, and downright dangerous.

Swiss are punctual; Indians are late.

Italians are jovial; Brits have a stiff upper lip.

Russians love vodka; the French love wine.

Americans are superficial; the Japanese are polite.

While stereotypical characteristics may not always be negative or evil, applying them to an entire people can result in prejudice of said people and individuals, which is of course ineffective to cross-cultural leadership and understanding.

Next week, we’ll talk about taking a wise approach to stereotypes.

Sociolinguistics, Language Prejudice, & Regional Stereotypes

Posted on by Leave a comment

“Y’all come back now, ya hear?” – Ellie May, The Beverly Hillbillies

“No one ever lived after he’d decided ter kill ‘em, no one except you, an’ he’d killed some o’ the best witches an’ wizards of the age — an’ you was only a baby, an’ you lived.” – Hagrid, Harry Potter & the Sorcerer’s Stone.

Whether you realize it or not, you may judge each of these phraseologies and their accents based on where you live.

If you’re from America, you might associate certain stereotypes with the South, and the obvious Southern drawl might trigger prejudice, whether consciously or subconsciously.

One example of this appears in The Routledge Handbook of Sociolinguistics Around the World, wherein a detailed study was conducted by Bucholtz, Bermudez, Fung, Edwards, and Vargas on the perceptual dialectology of California in 2007.

The study found:

“that the most salient linguistic boundary is between the northern and southern regions, although, reminiscent of Clopper and Pisoni (2006), category labels ranging from ‘surfers’ to ‘hicks’ played a role in the social map.”

Essentially, the way you speak – often regionally-based or relative to your sub-culture – may result in a label of some kind.

If you’re from Britain, a coarser accent, like the one spoken by Hagrid above, might be associated with lower-class stereotypes, as opposed to those considered “posh.” 

As mentioned last week, the wealthier classes have always attempted to distinguish themselves through their language’s social patterning. The lower class accents and phraseology, therefore, are often distinctly different from those of the aristocracy.

Either accent might trigger conscious or subconscious prejudices as well. As soon as a person’s mouth opens to speak, their class may be revealed, and the prejudices associated become sharp and glaring.

Sociolinguistics visits all of this and more.

What is sociolinguistics?

Sociolinguistics is “the study of language in relation to social factors, including differences of regional, class, and occupational dialect, gender differences, and bilingualism.” – Oxford

The sociolinguistics of a country are often nationally-based.

Funnily enough, Americans, who speak English, might not be able to differentiate between the stereotypically “posh” accents and the stereotypically lower- or middle-class ones in the UK.

They may not feel the same prejudices against the person speaking as their British counterparts, whose ear is attuned to these differences and mind is attuned to the prejudices associated with them in their country.

Likewise, those from other English-speaking countries likely don’t have the same associations with the American Southern accent and the South as Americans do.

Therefore, for foreigners, specific social patterning might not reinforce the regional prejudice related to these stereotypes, such as a person’s level of education or intelligence.

This is all deeply entrenched, rooted in the history of the country, regions, and the values, norms, traits, and behaviors associated with them across time.

Whether the regional values, norms, traits, and behaviors have evolved or not, the linguistic stereotypes remain.

Step 3 of Cross-Cultural Integration: Adapting in Action

Posted on by 2 Comments

Once you realize you’re the monkey in a foreign culture, you can’t go around, swinging from limb to limb. After being made aware of and accepting your differences, you must start to adapt.

This is where the monkey must come out of his cage and start behaving like a human to “fit in.” Slowly, he’ll begin to adapt some of their behaviors, and the following advice will ease the process.

5 Steps to Adapting

  1. Seek the “Why” – Instead of seeing things as black or white, wrong or right, seek the “why” when faced with cultural differences. Knowing why your host culture believes certain things or behaves in ways that are strange to you will help you understand local culture.
  2. Adopt Your Host’s Worldview – To help you seek the “why,” try to put yourself in the shoes of your host and momentarily adopt their worldview. Leave your gavel and robes at home, because you’re not here to judge or condemn; you’re here to learn. Look at yourself as a student and your host culture as the teacher.
  3. Rely on Analogies – A German businesswoman in France was once advised to forget the clockwork functioning of a business. She was told, instead, to view French companies as “royal courts,” where the CEO is king, and she was an earl, building her network until she earned favor. Analogies like these can help you visualize how to behave in the culture and interpret what’s going on around you.
  4. Apply Stereotypes Wisely – While stereotypes are similar to analogies in that they can aid cultural interpretation, these simplified representations of people shouldn’t be applied in an overarching manner. Doing so can be dangerous and hurtful. However, even though it’s important to remember that we’re all individuals and should never be treated like stereotypes, looking at an individual in a cultural context can allow understanding. As Kevan Hall at the Global Integration Blog notes, “If we focus on individuals irrespective of their cultural context we may assume everything is personality. Using US-normed tests on extraversion and introversion, for example, has led to a very high proportion of mainland Chinese participants scoring as introverted. Not a very useful result.”
  5. Apply Empathy Generously – Remember that empathy – or putting yourself in another’s shoes – is essential to understanding. To truly understand your hosts and their culture, you must be culturally empathetic.

Adapting Inaction

Employee A is from Japan. She’s moved to Spain. Spanish greetings involve a kiss on both cheeks. This makes Employee A very uncomfortable.

The Japanese find touch inappropriate and even intimate. When introduced to the Spanish form of greeting, Employee A does not seek the “why,” adopt her host’s worldview or feel empathetic. Instead, she views this greeting style as wrong and inappropriate and chooses to remain physically distant. Every interaction that follows is awkward, for both Employee A and for her hosts.

Employee A does not adapt to the simplest of cross-cultural differences – greetings – which will make it even harder to fully integrate into the culture.

Adapting in Action

Employee B is also from Japan but looks at this greeting from the Spanish perspective. It is not meant to be uncomfortably intimate; it’s a gesture of friendliness.

She chooses to adapt this simple greeting into her behavior, even though it gives her discomfort at first. After a while, she starts to get used to it, despite the fact that limitations on physical touch are deeply ingrained in her culture.

Her hosts appreciate her effort, and as she starts to adapt other Spanish behaviors, she has a much easier time integrating.

She may even move onto adopting behaviors and ideologies of her host culture, which we’ll talk about next week.