Cultures That Place Great Value on Family, Duty, Order, and Hierarchy Are Considered ____________.

Anthropological notion

Characteristics of a low-context culture

Characteristics of a high-context culture

In anthropology, high-context civilization and low-context culture are ends of a continuum of how explicit the letters exchanged in a culture are and how important the context is in communication. The continuum pictures how people communicate with others through their range of communication abilities: utilizing gestures, relations, body linguistic communication, verbal messages, or not-verbal messages.^[1] "Loftier-" and "low-" context cultures typically refer to language groups, nationalities, or regional communities. All the same, the concept may likewise apply to corporations, professions and other cultural groups, besides every bit to settings such every bit online and offline communication.^[two] High-context cultures frequently showroom less-direct verbal and nonverbal communication, utilizing small communication gestures and reading more than pregnant into these less-direct messages.^[3] Low-context cultures do the contrary; straight exact communication is needed to properly understand a message being communicated and relies heavily on explicit exact skills.^[4] The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a pop framework in intercultural-communication studies, but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation.^[five]

History of differing context cultures [edit]

These concepts were commencement introduced by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his 1959 book The Silent Linguistic communication. Cultures and communication in which the context of the message is of great importance to structuring deportment are referred to as loftier context. High-context defines cultures that are usually relational and collectivist, and which most highlight interpersonal relationships. Hall identifies high-context cultures as those in which harmony and the well-being of the group is preferred over individual achievement.^[ane] In low context, advice members' communication must be more explicit, direct, and elaborate because individuals are not expected to have cognition of each other's histories or background, and communication is non necessarily shaped by long-continuing relationships betwixt speakers. Because depression-context communication concerns more than direct letters, the meaning of these messages is more dependent on the words existence spoken rather than on the interpretation of more than subtle or unspoken cues.^[6] A 2008 meta-assay ended that the model was "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped".^[v]

Characteristics of loftier-context and low-context cultures [edit]

Denotation and connotation [edit]

Loftier-context cultures are related to connotation. People within high-context cultures tend to be more aware and observant of facial expressions, body language, changes in tone, and other aspects of communication that are non straight spoken.^{[ commendation needed ]} Denotation tends to be attributed to depression-context civilisation.^{[ citation needed ]} People in low-context cultures communicate in a more directly way, with explicitly speaking what they want to communicate.

Interpersonal relationships [edit]

Individualism and collectivism are related to depression-context and high-context cultures, respectively. Within high-context cultures, people rely on their networks of friends and family unit, viewing their relationships as office of one big customs.^{[ citation needed ]} In low-context cultures, relationships are not viewed as important figures to identity. People within low-context cultures see their relationships much looser and the lines betwixt networks of people are more flexibly drawn.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Examples of higher- and lower-context cultures [edit]

Cultural contexts are not admittedly "high" or "low". Instead, a comparison between cultures may detect communication differences to a greater or lesser degree. Typically a loftier-context culture will be relational, collectivist, intuitive, and contemplative. They place a high value on interpersonal relationships and group members are a very close-knit community.^[7] Typically a depression-context civilisation will be less shut-knit, and and then individuals communicating will have fewer relational cues when interpreting messages. Therefore, it is necessary for more than explicit information to exist included in the message and then it is not misinterpreted.^[viii] Not all individuals in a civilization can be divers by cultural stereotypes, and there will be variations within a national culture in different settings. For example, Hall describes how Japanese culture has both low- and high-context situations.^[9] Nevertheless, understanding the broad tendencies of predominant cultures tin aid inform and educate individuals on how to better facilitate communication betwixt individuals of differing cultural backgrounds.

Although the concept of high- and low-context cultures is unremarkably applied in the field of analyzing national cultures, it can too be used to describe scientific or corporate cultures, or specific settings such as airports or law courts. A simplified example mentioned by Hall is that scientists working in "difficult science" fields (like chemistry and physics) tend to have lower-context cultures: considering their knowledge and models have fewer variables, they volition typically include less context for each effect they describe.^[x] In contrast, scientists working with living systems need to include more context considering at that place tin be pregnant variables which impact the research outcomes.

Croucher'southward study examines the assertion that culture influences communication manner (high/low-context) preference. Data was gathered in Republic of india, Ireland, Thailand, and the United states where the results confirm that "loftier-context nations (India and Thailand) prefer the avoiding and obliging conflict styles more than low-context nations (Ireland and the The states), whereas depression-context nations adopt the uncompromising and dominating communication style more than high-context nations."^[eleven]

In improver, Hall identified countries such every bit Japan, Arabic countries and some Latin American Countries to practise high-context culture; "High context advice carries most of its data within concrete acts and features such as avoiding heart contact or even the shrug of a shoulder."^[12] On the other paw, he identified countries such as Federal republic of germany, the U.s.a. and Scandinavia as depression-context cultures. These countries are quite explicit and elaborate without having prior noesis to each member'due south history or background.

Cultures and languages are defined as college or lower context on a spectrum. For example, it could be argued that the Canadian French linguistic communication is higher context than Canadian English, merely lower context than Castilian or French French. An private from Texas (a higher-context civilisation) may communicate with a few words or use of a prolonged silence characteristic of Texan English, where a New Yorker would be very explicit (as typical of New York Metropolis English), although both speak the same linguistic communication (American English) and are function of a nation (the United States of America) which is lower-context relative to other nations. Hall notes a like departure between Navajo-speakers and English-speakers in a U.s. school.^[13]

Hall and Hall proposed a "spectrum" of national cultures from "Loftier-Context cultures" to "Low-Context Cultures.^[xiv] This has been expanded to further countries by Sheposh & Shaista.

Some recognized examples include: College-context culture: Cathay, Republic of india, Korea, Japan, other Asian countries, Saudi Arabia, Islamic republic of pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Oman, and Yemen, African countries such as Tanzania, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, Latin America, the Pacific islands, France, Hellenic republic, Finland, Ireland, Italy, and Russia. In the United States, Native Americans and Hawaiian islanders are also considered high-context. Lower-context civilisation: United States, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and other European nations.^{[xv] [16]}

Cultural context can besides shift and evolve. For instance, a report has argued that both Japan and Finland (high-context cultures) are becoming lower-context with the increased influence of Western European and United States culture.^[17]

Case studies [edit]

U.Due south, Red china, and Korea [edit]

This study, done by Kim Dunghoon, was to exam the major aspects the high versus low-context culture concepts. Three samples were gathered from the U.S, China, and Korea, three different cultures. From each culture, 96 concern managers were surveyed for the American and Chinese sample and fifty managers were surveyed from Korea. According to Hall's theory, Chinese and Korean samples represented higher-context cultures while the American sample represents lower context. 16 items were tested in this report. Each of them covers unlike aspects of the high-versus low-context concept including "social orientation, responsibleness, confrontation, communication, delivery, and dealing with new situations". "The results evidence that American, Chinese, and Korean samples were significantly unlike on 15 of the 16 items. Out of the 15 items, 11 are significant at the .01 level, 1 at the .05 level, and iii at the .x level. The blended score likewise shows a significant difference amid the three samples at the .01 level". The American sample scored the lowest compared to the two "Oriental samples" which is consequent with Hall's concept. Overall, this study offers more testify supporting the high versus low-context culture concepts with Chinese, Korean, and American test participants. The results show that in high-context cultures, such every bit People's republic of china and Korea, people appear to be "more socially oriented, less confrontational, and more than complacent with existing means of living" compared to people from depression-context cultures, similar America.^[xviii]

Russian federation and Romania [edit]

A case study was done on 30 Romanian and thirty Russian employees, to compare loftier- and low-context cultures, and results strongly suggested that Russian federation and Romania are both loftier-context cultures. The tabular array shows the major differences and similarities between individual queries.^[19]

Mexico and the U.S. [edit]

This study is a result of a cross-cultural exam between students from the United States, a low-context culture, and United mexican states, a high-context culture, to study the reasons people communicate in each culture.^[20] There were 225 Mexican participants from three different undergraduate universities in Mexico Urban center and 447 participants from Kent State University in the U.Due south.^[20] The example written report looked into civilization shock experienced by Mexicans studying in the U.Due south. The hypotheses tested indicated the high-context culture in Mexico would provide different motives for communication when compared with the low-context culture of the U.Due south.

The results found that U.Southward. participants used communication for pleasure more than frequently than Mexican participants.^[20] Pleasure, affection and inclusion were the highest motives for communication in both cultures, and control was the lowest for both cultures.^[20]

Overlap and contrast between context cultures [edit]

The categories of context cultures are not totally carve up. Both often accept many aspects of the other's cultural communication abilities and strengths into account.^[21] The terms high- and low-context cultures are not classified with strict individual characteristics or boundaries. Instead, many cultures tend to have a mixture or at least some concepts that are shared betwixt them, overlapping the 2 context cultures.^[21]

Ramos suggests that "in low context civilization, communication members' advice must exist more explicit. Every bit such, what is said is what is meant, and further assay of the message is ordinarily unnecessary."^[22] This implies that communication is quite direct and detailed considering members of the civilisation are non expected to accept knowledge of each other's histories, past experience or background. Considering low-context advice concerns more direct messages, the significant of these messages is more than dependent on the words existence spoken rather than on the interpretation of more subtle or unspoken cues.

The Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice states that, "high context defines cultures that are relational and collectivist, and which most highlight interpersonal relationships. Cultures and communication in which context is of great importance to structuring actions is referred to as loftier context."^[23] In such cultures, people are highly perceptive of actions. Furthermore, cultural aspects such as tradition, ceremony, and history are also highly valued. Because of this, many features of cultural behavior in high-context cultures, such as individual roles and expectations, do non need much detailed or idea-out explanation.

Co-ordinate to Watson, "the influence of cultural variables interplays with other key factors – for instance, social identities, those of age, gender, social class and ethnicity; this may include a stronger or weaker influence."^[24] A similarity that the 2 communication styles share is its influence on social characteristics such as age, gender, social class and ethnicity. For example, for someone who is older and more than experienced within a society, the need for social cues may be higher or lower depending on the communication fashion. The same applies for the other characteristics in varied countries.

On the other hand, certain intercultural advice skills are unique for each culture and information technology is pregnant to note that these overlaps in communication techniques are represented subgroups inside social interactions or family settings.^[25] Many singular cultures that are big accept subcultures within of them, making advice and defining them more complicated than the depression-context and loftier-context culture calibration.^[25] The diverseness within a main culture shows how the loftier and low scale differs depending on social settings such as school, piece of work, home, and in other countries; variation is what allows the scale to fluctuate even if a large civilisation is categorized every bit primarily ane or the other.^[25]

Online [edit]

Punctuation marks and emojis are more often used by loftier-context users than low-context users. The tools are used to establish context by calculation additional information equally personal and social cues are not as presentable as they are in confront-to-face negotiations.^[26]

Miscommunication within culture contexts [edit]

Between each blazon of culture context, there will exist forms of miscommunication considering of the divergence in gestures, social cues, and intercultural adjustments; nevertheless, information technology is important to recognize these differences and learn how to avoid miscommunication to benefit certain situations.^[27] Since all sets of cultures differ, especially from a global standpoint where language also creates a barrier for communication, social interactions specific to a culture commonly crave a range of appropriate communication abilities that an opposing culture may not sympathise or know about.^[28] This significance follows into many situations such as the workplace, which can be prone to diversified cultures and opportunities for collaboration and working together.^[27] Awareness of miscommunication between high- and low-context cultures within the workplace or intercultural advice settings advocates for collected unification within a grouping through the flexibility and ability to empathise one another.^{[25] [27]}

How college context relates to other cultural metrics [edit]

Variety [edit]

Families, subcultures and in-groups typically favour higher-context communication.^[nine] Groups that are able to rely on a common background may not need to utilise words as explicitly to empathize each other. Settings and cultures where people come together from a wider variety of backgrounds such as international airports, large cities, or multi-national firms, tend to utilise lower-context communication forms.^[25]

Language [edit]

Hall links language to culture through the work of Sapir-Whorf on linguistic relativity.^[xiii] A trade language volition typically need to explicitly explicate more than of the context than a dialect which tin assume a high level of shared context. Because a depression-context setting cannot rely on shared understanding of potentially cryptic messages, low-context cultures tend to requite more information, or to be precise in their language. In contrast, a high-context linguistic communication similar Japanese or Chinese tin can apply a high number of homophones but still be understood by a listener who knows the context.^[17]

Elaborated and restricted codes [edit]

The concept of elaborated and restricted codes was introduced by sociologist Basil Bernstein in his book Grade, Codes and Control. The use of an elaborated code indicates that speaker and listener do not share meaning amounts of common cognition, and hence they may demand to "spell out" their ideas more fully: elaborated codes tend to be more context-independent. In contrast, the use of restricted codes indicates that speakers and listeners do share a slap-up deal of common background and perspectives, and hence much more can exist taken for granted, and thus expressed implicitly or through nuance: restricted codes tend to be more context-dependent.^[29]

Restricted codes are commonly used in high-context culture groups, where grouping members share the same cultural background and can easily empathize the implicit meanings "between the lines" without further elaboration.^[28] Conversely, in cultural groups with low context, where people share less mutual knowledge or 'value individuality above group identification', elaborated codes are necessary to avoid misunderstanding.^[thirty]

Collectivism and individualism [edit]

The concepts of collectivism and individualism accept been applied to loftier- and depression-context cultures by Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede in his Cultural Dimensions Theory.^[2] Collectivist societies prioritize the group over the private, and vice versa for individualist ones. In high-context cultures, language may be used to assist and maintain relationship-building and to focus on process. India and Japan are typically loftier-context, highly collectivistic cultures, where business is done past edifice relationships and maintaining respectful communication.^[31]

Individualistic cultures promote the evolution of individual values and independent social groups. Individualism may atomic number 82 to communicating to all people in a grouping in the aforementioned way, rather than offering hierarchical respect to certain members.^[32] Because individualistic cultures may value cultural diversity, a more than explicit way of communicating is oft required to avoid misunderstanding. Language may be used to achieve goals or exchange information. The United states of america and Australia are typically low-context, highly individualistic cultures, where transparency and competition in business concern are prized.^[31]

Stability and durability of tradition [edit]

Loftier-context cultures tend to be more stable, as their communication is more economical, fast, efficient and satisfying; just these are gained at a cost of devoting time into preprogramming cultural groundwork, and their high stability might come up with a price of a high barrier for development.^[33] By contrast, low-context cultures tend to change more rapidly and drastically, allowing extension^{[ definition needed ]} to happen at faster rates. This also means that low-context advice may neglect due to the overload of information, which makes culture lose its screening^{[ definition needed ]} function.^[xiii]

Therefore, higher-context cultures tend to correlate with cultures that also have a strong sense of tradition and history, and alter little over time.^[xviii] For instance, Native Americans in the United States have higher-context cultures with a strong sense of tradition and history, compared to full general American civilization. Focusing on tradition creates opportunities for higher-context letters between individuals of each new generation, and the high-context culture feeds back to the stability hence allows the tradition to be maintained. This is in contrast to lower-context cultures in which the shared experiences upon which communication is built tin can change drastically from one generation to the next, creating communication gaps between parents and children, as in the United states.^[13]

Facial expression and gesture [edit]

Civilisation also affects how individuals interpret other people'southward facial expressions. An experiment performed past the University of Glasgow shows that different cultures have different understanding of the facial expression signals of the vi basic emotions, which are the so-called "universal language of emotion"—happiness, surprise, fright, cloy, anger and sadness.^{[34] [35]} In high-context cultures, facial expressions and gestures take on greater importance in conveying and understanding a message, and the receiver may require more cultural context to understand "basic" displays of emotions.

Marketing and advertising perspective [edit]

Cultural differences in advert and marketing may also exist explained through high- and low-context cultures.^[36] One study on McDonald'due south online advertizing compared Japan, Red china, Korea, Hong Kong, Islamic republic of pakistan, Federal republic of germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the United States, and institute that in high-context countries, the advertising used more colors, movements, and sounds to requite context, while in low-context cultures the advertising focused more on verbal information and linear processes.^[2]

Website communication [edit]

Website design among cross-cultural barriers include factoring in decisions nearly culture-sensitive color meanings, layout preferences, animation and sounds.^[37] In a case study conducted by the IT University of Copenhagen, information technology was found that websites catering to loftier-context cultures tended to have more detailed and advanced designs, including diverse images and animations.^[37] Low-context websites had less blitheness and more stagnant images, with more details on information.^[37] The images institute on the websites used in the study promoted individualistic and collectivist characteristics inside the low-context and high-context websites, respectively. The low-context websites had multiple images of individuals, while the loftier-context websites independent images and animations of groups and communities.^[37]

Limitations of the model [edit]

In a 2008 meta-analysis of 224 articles published between 1990 and 2006, Peter Due west. Cardon wrote:

[T]he theory was never described by Hall with any empirical rigor, and no known inquiry involving any instrument or measure of contexting validates it. ... Ironically, contexting is most ofttimes discussed in terms of directness, nonetheless empirical studies nearly all fail to back up this relationship. In other words, the relationship between directness and contexting based on traditional classifications of [high-context] and [low-context] cultures is particularly tenuous. About of the contexting categories merely have not been researched enough to make business firm conclusions. But the fact that contexting has not been empirically validated should not necessarily be construed as a failure of the theory. ... Still, the contexting model just cannot be described as an empirically validated model.^{[5] : 422–3}

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} Ramos, D. C. (2014). High context. In S. Thompson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity and social justice. Lanham, Physician: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Retrieved from http://db19.linccweb.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/rowmandasj/high_context/0?institutionId=6086
2. ^ ^{a b c} Wurtz, Elizabeth (November 2005). "Intercultural Communication on Spider web sites: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Spider web sites from Loftier-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 11 (1): 274–299. doi:x.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00313.x.
3. ^ Ramos, Carolina (2014). "High Context". Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice (1st ed.).
4. ^ Ramos, Carolina (2014). "Low Context". Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice (1st ed.).
5. ^ ^{a b c} Cardon, Peter W. (October 2008). "A Critique of Hall'south Contexting Model". Periodical of Business and Technical Communication. 22 (iv): 399–428. doi:10.1177/1050651908320361. S2CID 145808976.
6. ^ "Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice". Reference Reviews. 29 (half dozen): twenty–22. September 7, 2015. doi:10.1108/rr-06-2015-0165.
7. ^ Guffey, Mary Ellen (2009). Essentials of Business Advice. South-Western/ Cengage Learning.
8. ^ "High and Depression Context". www.civilisation-at-work.com . Retrieved October 18, 2018.
9. ^ ^{a b} Hall, Edward T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. pp. 68–69. ISBN9780385124744.
10. ^ Hall, Edward T. (1989). Across civilization. New York: Doubleday. pp. 87–88. ISBN0385124740. OCLC 20595709.
11. ^ Croucher, Stephen One thousand.; Bruno, Ann; McGrath, Paul; Adams, Caroline; McGahan, Cassandra; Suits, Angela; Huckins, Ashleigh (January 2012). "Conflict Styles and High–Depression Context Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension". Communication Inquiry Reports. 29 (one): 64–73. doi:ten.1080/08824096.2011.640093. S2CID 143056441.
12. ^ Hall, E. T.; Hall, 1000. R. (1990). "Understanding cultural differences." Intercultural Press Yarmouth ME. ^{[ page needed ]}
13. ^ ^{a b c d} Hall, Edward T. (1989). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. pp. 15–sixteen. ISBN9780385124744.
14. ^ Hall, Edward T.; Hall, Mildred Reed (1990). Agreement cultural differences. Yarmouth, Me.: Intercultural Press. ISBN093366284X. OCLC 20259415.
15. ^ "Loftier-Context vs. Depression-Context Cultures". 2019. doi:10.4135/9781529702958.
16. ^ "Search Florida Libraries - Mango". union.discover.flvc.org . Retrieved December 15, 2019.
17. ^ ^{a b} Nishimura, Shoji; Nevgi, Anne; Tella, Seppo. "Communication Fashion and Cultural Features in High/Low Context Communication Cultures: A Instance Report of Finland, Japan and India" (PDF). researchgate.cyberspace. Retrieved February 17, 2021.
18. ^ ^{a b} Kim, Donghoon (September 6, 1998). "Loftier- Versus Depression-Context Civilization: A Comparing of Chinese, Korean, and American Cultures". Psychology & Marketing. 15 (6): 507–521. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199809)15:6<507::Assistance-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-A.
19. ^ Piroşcă, Grigore. "Communicational Features in High/Low Context Organizational Culture: A Case Study of Romania and Russia". Valahian Journal of Economic Studies. 7 (4): 7–12.
20. ^ ^{a b c d} Rubin, Rebecca B.; Collado, Carlos Fernández; Hernandez-Sampieri, Roberto (March 1992). "A cantankerous-cultural examination of interpersonal communication motives in Mexico and The U.s.". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 16 (two): 145–157. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(92)90015-Grand.
21. ^ ^{a b} Yarn, Douglas, ed. (2002). "low-context and high-context communication". Lexicon of Conflict Resolution . Retrieved December ix, 2018.
22. ^ Ramos, D. Carolina. "Low Context." Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice, edited past Sherwood Thompson, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1st edition, 2014. Ideology Reference,
23. ^ Ramos, D. Carolina. "High Context." Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice, edited by Sherwood Thompson, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1st edition, 2014. Credo Reference,
24. ^ "Advice: intercultural advice." Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies, James Watson, and Anne Hill, Bloomsbury, 9th edition, 2015. Credo Reference, https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/dictmedia/communication_intercultural_communication/0?institutionId=6086. Accessed 25 Mar. 2019.
25. ^ ^{a b c d e} Watson, James; Hill, Anne (2015). "Communication: intercultural advice". Lexicon of Media and Communication Studies (ninth ed.). Bloomsbury Bookish. ISBN978-1-8496-6528-v . Retrieved September 23, 2018.
26. ^ Kersten, Gregory; Vetschera, Rudolf; Koeszegi, Sabine (2004). "National Cultural Differences in the Utilise and Perception of Internet-based NSS: Does High or Depression Context Thing?". International Negotiation. 9 (1): 79–109. doi:10.1163/1571806041262070. ISSN 1382-340X.
27. ^ ^{a b c} Back-scratch, Curtis. "Managing disharmonize in global teams: iv keys to leveraging cultural differences in diverse teams". Concern Drove . Retrieved September 22, 2018.
28. ^ ^{a b} Barron, Jacob (April 2013). "International communication 101: staying on the correct side of culture". Business Credit (Business Drove): 36+. Retrieved September 22, 2018.
29. ^ Bernstein, Basil (2003). Theoretical studies towards a sociolinguistics. London: Routledge. p. 58. ISBN0-415-30287-0.
30. ^ Foss, Stephen W. Littlejohn, Karen A. (2011). Theories of human communication (10th ed.). Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press. pp. 375–376. ISBN9781577667063.
31. ^ ^{a b} Lewis, Richard D. (2006). When cultures collide : leading across cultures : a major new edition of the global guide (3rd ed.). Boston: Nicholas Brealey International. pp. 436–437. ISBN1423774582. OCLC 69872214.
32. ^ "Individualism, Collectivism, High And Low Context". SlideShare. Academy of Montana, Undergraduate Advising Center. Jan 12, 2010. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
33. ^ Pirosca, Grigore (October four, 2016). "Communicational Features in High/Low Context Organizational Civilization: A Example Written report of Romania and Russia". Valahian Journal of Economic Studies. 7: 7–12.
34. ^ Chen, Chaona; Jack, Rachael East (October 2017). "Discovering cultural differences (and similarities) in facial expressions of emotion". Current Stance in Psychology. 17: 61–66. doi:ten.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.010. PMID 28950974.
35. ^ Jack, Rachael E.; Schyns, Philippe G. (July 2015). "The Human Confront equally a Dynamic Tool for Social Communication". Current Biology. 25 (14): R621–R634. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.052. PMID 26196493.
36. ^ Solomon, Michael; Russell-Bennett, Rebekah; Previte, Josephine (October 24, 2012). Consumer Behaviour. Pearson Higher Education AU. ISBN9781442564992.
37. ^ ^{a b c d} Wurtz, Elizabeth (November 2005). "Intercultural Advice on Web sites: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Web sites from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures". Periodical of Calculator-Mediated Communication. 11 (1): 274–299. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00313.x. ISSN 1083-6101.

Farther reading [edit]

• Hall, Edward, T. Beyond Culture. Ballast Books (December vii, 1976). ISBN 978-0385124744
• Samovar, Larry A. and Richard E. Porter. Communication Between Cultures. fifth Ed. Thompson and Wadsworth, 2004. ISBN 0-534-56929-3

External links [edit]

• High and low context cultures

andersonwelverepose.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_cultures