Culture, Self, and Collectivist Communication Linking Culture to Individual Behavior

Abstract

This study develops and demonstrates a theoretical framework and corresponding methodology to link variables at the culture level to the individual level and, then, to specific outcome variables. The authors argue that in order to advance theory about culture's influence on communication, researchers must begin to examine how culture affects individual level (psychological) processes and, subsequently, how these processes affect communication. The image of self, referred to as self-construal, is an ideal candidate to perform the role of linking culture to behavior. The self is shaped by cultural forces and affects many, if not all, communication behaviors. The proposed strategy is applied in the test of a path-analytic model linking cultural collectivism with interdependent self-construals and, ultimately, high-context communication. The discussion includes implications for theory development and possible applications to further research.

Beyond the ‘east–west’ dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood.

“…Individualistic cultures are commonly thought to promote an independent view of the self and collectivistic cultures to promote an interdependent view of the self (Gudykunst et al, 1996; M.-S. Kim et al, 2001;Singelis & Brown, 1995). Yet, this assumption is rarely tested.…”

“…Some researchers have investigated this link using nation as a proxy for culture among a small number of nations (Gudykunst et al, 1996; M.-S. Kim et al, 2001; H.S. Park & Levine, 1999;Singelis & Brown, 1995). However, this approach reinforces stereotypes by assuming that a nation is collectivistic or individualistic when in fact national samples may not vary as predicted (Matsumoto, 1999;Oyserman et al, 2002;Takano & Osaka, 1999).…”

“…Some have described I-C as causing differences in self-construals (Gudykunst et al, 1996;M.-S. Kim, Aune, Hunter, Kim, & Kim, 2001; H.S. Park & Levine, 1999;Singelis & Brown, 1995); others have considered selfconstruals as synonymous with I-C (Oyserman et al, 2002;Taras et al, 2014) or have defined independenceinterdependence as an individual-level analog of culture-level I-C (Smith, 2011). The theoretical picture is complicated by the common use of similar items to measure both constructs.…”

Conventions of Malaysian Grocery Store Service Encounters

“…Ventola's (1987) study was conducted in Finland, also a high context culture (Nishimura/Nevgi/Tella 2008), which may explain why Ventola highlighted the non-verbal goods handover stage. However, Australia, where Halliday/Hasan's (1985) observations of service encounters were conducted, is a low context culture (Poon/Evangelista/Albaum 2005;Singelis/Brown 1995). Therefore, it is not surprising that the generic structure potential framework given by Halliday/Hasan (1985) shows linguistic enactment of all possible stages in a service encounter.…”

Conducting experiments on cultural aspects of document design: Why and how?

“…Several researchers have suggested th at this problem can be solved by finding correlates of the cultural differences at the individual level (see e. g., Singelis and Brown, 1995;Van de Vijver and Leung, 1997). Cultural differences are often described at group level (see e.g., Hofstede, 1984).…”