Cross-cultural variability of
communication in personal
relationships
William B. Gudykunst
Yuko Matsumoto
Prepared by
NAOMIE BAGUINAT-DAGUINOTAS

 In order to understand similarities and
differences in communication across cultures, it
is necessary to have a way of talking about how
cultures differ and how they are similar. In other
words, there are variables on which cultures can
be different or similar that can be used to
explain communication across culture.

Dimensions of
Cultural Variability
 Individualism-collectivism
 Uncertainty avoidance
 Power distance
 Masculinity-femininity

The Influence of Culture and
Strength of Cultural Identity on
Individual Values in Japan and the
United States
William B. Gudykunst
California State University, Fullerton
Tsukasa Nishida
Nihon University

Two studies were conducted using data
from Japan and the United States to examine
the influence of the interaction between culture
and strength of cultural identity on
individual-level individualistic and
collectivistic values. In the first study, culture
and strength of cultural identity interacted to
influence four values (freedom, pleasure,
social recognition, and self-sacrifice). In the
second study, culture and strength of cultural
identity interacted to influence three values
(being independent, harmony, and accepting
traditions). The results suggest that strength of
cultural identity must be taken into consideration
in order to understand values that members of a
culture hold.

 One way to study cultural values is by
focusing on cultural individualism
collectivism (I-C), the major
dimensions of cultural variability
isolated by theorists across disciplines
(e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Ito, 1989b;
Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961;
Triandis, 1988, 1990, 1995).

Individualism and Collectivism
 Definitions
◦ Individualist culture is a culture in which
the goals of the individual take
precedence over the goals of the group.
◦ Collectivist culture is a culture in which
the goals of the group take precedence
over the goals of the individual.

Individualism and Collectivism
 The distinction lies in what extent to
which cultures promote individual
values over collective values.
 There is a correlation…
◦ Individualist cultures tend to be
economically rich.
◦ Collectivist cultures tend to be
economically poor.
 … but there are exceptions.

Individualism and Collectivism
 Also applies on a personal level
◦ That is, one can personally be collectivist
while his or her culture is individualist.
 Cooperation versus competition
 Importance of ingroup and outgroup
members

Individualism and Collectivism
 In other words…
◦ In an individualist culture, members are
responsible for themselves and, perhaps,
their immediate families.
◦ In a collectivist culture, members are
responsible for the group as a whole.

Individualism and Collectivism
 In other words…
◦ In an individualist culture, success is
measured by how far one stands out from the
crowd.
 EX: self-made millionaires, employees of the month,
standing out…
◦ In a collectivist culture, success is measured
by one’s contributions to the group as a whole.
 EX: loyalty to company or country, specialized skills,
fitting in…

 Individualistic cultures – individuals
take precedence over groups;
emphasized person-based information
to predict each other’s behavior
Triandis (1988)

Individualism and
collectivism exist in all
cultures
 Major dimension of cultural variability
isolated by theorists across disciplines
to explain similarities and differences
in behavior
◦ one pattern tends to predominate

 Individualistic Culture
 emphasized person-based information
to predict each others’ behaviour. As
members of individualistic cultures are
socialized into their culture, they learn the
major values of their culture such as,
independence and achievement . They
also learn preferred ways for how
members of the culture are expected to
view themselves such as, unique
persons.

o Collectivistic Culture
Emphasized group-based information to
predict each others’ behaviour. As
members of collectivistic cultures learn
different major values such as, harmony
and solidarity , and also different
preferred ways to conceive f themselves
such as interconnected with others.

 Collectivistic cultures emphasized
goals, needs, and views of the in
group over those of the individual; the
social norms of the ingroup, rather
than individual pleasure; shared
ingroup beliefs, rather than unique
individual beliefs; and a value on
cooperation with ingroup members,
rather than maximizing individual
outcomes.

 However, members of Individualistic
and Collectivistic culture do not just
learn one set of values or just one
way to conceive of themselves.
Because individualism and
collectivism EXIST in all cultures.
 Both have direct influence on
behaviour such as norms/rules used
to guide behaviour. But one tends to
predominate

 Individualism- Collectivism Culture
Is the major dimension of culture variability
isolated by theorists across disciplines to
explain similarities and differences in
behaviour.
It also influences behaviour indirectly
through the personalities , values, and self
construal that individual members learn
when being socialized into their culture.

 In individualist cultures, individual
uniqueness, self-determination is
valued. A person is all the more
admirable if they are a "self-made
man" or "makes up their own mind" or
show initiative or work well
independently.
 Collectivist cultures expect people to
identify with and work well in groups
which protect them in exchange for
loyalty and compliance.

 Paradoxically, individualist cultures
tend to believe that there are universal
values that should be shared by all,
while collectivist cultures tend to
accept that different groups have
different values.
 Many of the Asian cultures are
collectivist, while Anglo cultures tend
to be individualist.

 Culture and Communication Behaviour
 Keesing (1974) argues that culture
provides its members with an implicit
theory about how to behave in different
situations and how to interpret others’
behaviour in these situations.
He contends that culture is shared in “its
broad design and deeper principles,” but
“that is not every individual shares
precisely the same theory of the cultural
code.”

 Cultural- Level Individual- Collectivism
Individuals’ goals are emphasized more than
group’s goals in individualistic cultures.
Group goals in contrast, take precedence
over individuals’ goals in collectivistic culture.
In individual cultures, “people are supposed
to look after themselves and their immediate
family only.”
In collectivistic cultures, “people belong to
ingroups or collectivities which are supposed
to look after them in exchange for loyalty.”

To summarize, individualism-
collectivism has been used widely
to explain cultural differences in
behaviour.

Individual- Collectivism at the Individual
Level
 There are three different aspects of
cultural individualism- collectivism:
Individuals’ personality
Individuals’ values
Self construals

A. Personality Orientations
The first factor that mediates the influences
of cultural individualism- collectivism on
communication behaviour.
Idiocentrism and allocentrism as the
personality factors that mediate the
influence of individualism and collectivism,
respectively.

 Triandis, Leung, Villareal, and Clack
(1985) found that allocentrism is
correlated positively with social support
and negatively with alienation and
anomie in the United States.
 In contrast, Idiocentrism is correlated
positively with an emphasis on
achievement and perceived loneliness in
the United States.

 Allocentrism is a collectivistic personality
attribute whereby people center their
attention and actions on other people rather
than themselves. It is a psychological
dimension which corresponds to the
general cultural dimension of collectivism.
 Idiocentrism is characterized by or
denoting interest centered upon oneself or
one's own ways, rather than upon others or
the ways of others

 Gudykunst, Gao, Nishida, Nadamitsu,
and Sakai (1992) found that idiocentrism
correlates negatively with sensitivity to
others’ behaviour in the United States.
 They also observed that idiocentrism is
correlated negatively with sensitivity to
others’ behaviour, attention to social
comparison information, attention to
others’ status characteristic, and concern
for social appropriateness in Japan.

 Gudykunst, Gao, and Franklyn- Strokes
(1996) discovered that idiocentrism
correlated negatively with attention to
others’ status characteristics and concern
for social appropriate in England and
China.
 Idiocentrism individuals in individualistic
cultures see it as natural to “do their own
thing” and disregard needs of their
ingroup, whereas allocentric individuals in
individualistic cultures are concerned about
their ingroups (Triandis 1988).

 Allocentric individuals in collectivistic
culture feel positive about accepting
ingroup norms and do not even raise
the question of whether or not to
accept them
 Idiocentric individuals in collectivistic
cultures feel ambivalent and even
bitter about acceptance of ingroup
norms (Triandis at al, 1988)

Idiocentric individuals
…
 In individualistic
cultures see it as
natural to “do their
own thing” and
disregard needs of
their ingroup
 in collectivistic
cultures feel
ambivalent and
even bitter about
acceptance of
ingroup norms
 in individualistic cultures
are concerned about their
ingroups
 in collectivistic culture feel
positive about accepting
ingroup norms and do not
even raise the question of
whether or not to accept
them
Allocentric individuals
…

 Yamaguchi (1994) argues that
collectivism at the individual level involves
tendency to give priority to the collective self
over the private self, especially when the
two are in conflict. He found that
collectivism at the individual level is
associated positively with affiliative tendencies
and sensitivity to others, and negatively
associated with need for uniqueness in
Japan
 Yamaguchi, Kuhlman, and Sugimori
(1995) discovered that these tendencies
also generalize to Korea and the
United States.

B. Individual Values
 the second way that influence of cultural
individualism- collectivism on
communication is mediated is through the
values individuals hold.
 Ball- Rokeach, Rokeach, and Grube (1984)
argue that values are the core to individual’s
personalities and that values help individuals
maintain and enhance their self- esteem.

 Feather (1995) found that the values
individuals hold influence the
valences they attach to different
ways to behave.

Schwartz (1992) 11 Motivational
Domains of Values:
1. Self- Direction. “ Independent thought and
action- choosing, creating, and exploring
(independent, freedom, curious).
2. Stimulation. “Excitement, novelty, and
challenge in life” (exciting, life, daring).
3 Hedonism. “Pleasure or sensuous
gratification for oneself” (pleasure, enjoy life).

4. Achievement. “ Personal success
though demonstrated competence”
(social recognition, capable, ambitious).
5. Power. “ attainment of social status
and prestige, and control or dominance
over people (authority, wealth, social
recognition).
6. Security. “ safety, harmony, and
stability of society, of relationships, and
of self” (family security, social order,
healthy).

7. Conformity. “ Restraint of actions,
inclinations, and impulses likely to up
set or harm others and to violet social
expectations or norms” (obedient,
politeness, self-discipline).
8.Tradition. “ respect, commitment and
acceptance of the customs and ideas
that one’s culture or religion impose on
the individual ( respect for tradition,
humble, moderate).

9. Spirituality. “ Endow life with meaning
and coherence in the face of seeming
meaningless of everyday existence”
(meaning in life, inner harmony, devout)
10. Benevolence. “ preservation and
enhancement of the welfare of people
with whom one is in frequent social
contact” (helpful, loyal, responsible).

11. Universalism. “ understanding,
appreciation, tolerance, and protection for
the welfare of all people and for nature” (
equality, world at peace, social justice)
Schwartz argues that the interests served
by the 11 value domains can be
individualistic, collectivistic, or mixed.

C. Self Construals
 the third factor that mediates the
influence of cultural individualism-
collectivism on communication
behavior
◦ Cultural variations in individualism-
collectivism can be linked directly to
the ways members of cultures
conceive of themselves (Triandis,
1989)

 The most widely used
conceptualization of self construal is
Markus and Kitayama’s (1991)
distinction between independent and
interdependent self construals.
 People in individualistic cultures
emphasize an independent
construal of the self. The
independent construal of self involves
the view that an individual’s self is a
unique, independent entity.

Low- Context and high-context
communication
 Individualism- collectivism provides a
powerful explanatory framework for
understanding cultural similarities and
differences in interpersonal
communication. There are cultural
differences in the communication
processes that predominate
individualistic and collectivistic cultures

Edward T. Hall
 Pioneer in this field
 He was a cross-cultural researcher.
 He is remembered for developing the concept of:
◦ Proxemics
◦ Chronemics (Polychronic and Monochronic Time)
◦ High and Low Context Culture
43

CHARACTERISTICS OF LOW- AND
HIGH -CONTEXT COMMUNICATION
 Hall (1976) – a high-context
communication or message is one in
which most of the information is either
in the physical context or internalized in
the person while very little is in the
coded, explicit transmitted part of the
message.
 - a low-context communication or
message in contrast is one in which the
mass of information is vested in the
explicit code

 People raised in a high-context systems
expect more of others than do the
participants in low-context systems.
 When talking about something that they
have on their minds, a high-context
individual will expect his/her
interlocutor to know what’s bothering
him/her, so that he/she doesn’t have to
be specific. The result is that he/she will
talk around and around the point, in effect
putting all the pieces in place except the
crucial one. Placing it properly is the role
of his/her interlocutor.
CHARACTERISTICS OF LOW- AND
HIGH -CONTEXT COMMUNICATION

CHARACTERISTICS OF LOW- AND
HIGH -CONTEXT COMMUNICATION
 In low context communication,
information is embedded mainly in the
messages transmitted
 Members of individualistic cultures
predominately use low-context
communication and tend to
communicate in direct fashion
 Collectivistic cultures: predominately
use high-context messages and tend to
communicate in an indirect fashion

 Levine (1985) describes
communication in the collectivistic
Amhara culture in Ethiopia
 Basic manner of communication is
indirect, often secretive
 Amhara, people of the Ethiopian central highlands. The Amhara are
one of the two largest ethnolinguistic groups in Ethiopia (the other
group being the Oromo). They constitute almost one-third of the
country's population. The Amharic language is an Afro-Asiatic
language belonging to the Southwest Semitic group.

 Levine (1985) describes
communication in the individualistic
culture of the US
 Affords little room for the cultivation of
ambiguity
 Dominant north american temper calls
for clear and direct communication
 “say what you mean, don’t beat
around the bush, get to the point”

Basic Cultural Dimensions
 High Context vs. Low Context
 Monochronic vs. Polychronic
 Future vs. Present vs. Past Orientation
 Power Distance
 Individualism vs. Collectivism

 Low context culture
◦ Things are fully (though concisely) spelled out
◦ Things are made explicit
◦ Considerable dependence is put on what is actually
said or written.
◦ Use categorical words: Certainly, absolutely,
positively
 High context culture
◦ Communicators assume a great deal of
commonality of knowledge and views
◦ much more is implicit or communicated in indirect
ways
◦ More responsibility is placed on the listener
◦ Qualifiers: maybe, perhaps, probably (Okabe,
1983); used to avoid leaving an assertive
impression with the listener
◦ Listeners infer; receiver’s sensitivity and abilities to
capture the nonverbal aspect of indirect

 Low context cultures include Anglos,
Germanics and Scandinavians
 High context cultures include
Japanese, Arabs and French

Implications
 Interactions between high and low context
peoples can be problematic
◦ Japanese can find Westerners to be offensively blunt.
Westerners can find Japanese to be secretive, devious and
bafflingly unforthcoming with information
◦ French can feel that Germans insult their intelligence by
explaining the obvious, while Germans can feel that French
managers provide no direction
 Low context cultures are vulnerable to
communication breakdowns when they assume
more shared understanding than there really is.
This is especially true in an age of diversity. Low
context cultures are not known for their ability to
tolerate or understand diversity, and tend to be
more insular.

Visualize it this way

High-Context Cultures
 Less verbally explicit
 More internalized understandings
 More long term relationships
 Strong boundaries- who is accepted as belonging vs
who is considered an "outsider"
 Decisions and activities focus around personal face-to-
face relationships.

Low Context Cultures
 Rule oriented, people play by external rules
 Separation--of time, of space, of activities, of
relationships
 More interpersonal connections of shorter duration
 Task-centered
 Decisions and activities focus around what needs to be
done.

Edward T. Hall's Model
High-context cultures
 Long-lasting
relationships
 Exploiting context
 Spoken agreements
 Insiders and outsiders
clearly distinguished
 Cultural patterns
ingrained, slow
change
Low-context cultures
 Shorter relationships
 Less dependent on
context
 Written agreements
 Insiders and outsiders
less clearly
distinguished
 Cultural patterns
change faster

Cultural Classification- Hall
 Low-Context Cultures - what is said is more
important than how or where it is said
◦ U.S.
◦ Germany
 High-Context cultures - what is said and how
or where it is said are significant
◦ Asia
◦ Latin America
◦ Middle East

Low-context in
business
 Business before friendship
 Credibility through expertise
& performance
 Agreements by legal contract
 Negotiations efficient
High-context in
business
 No business without
friendship
 Credibility through
relationships
 Agreements founded on
trust
 Negotiations slow &
ritualistic

High and Low Context Cultures
Factors /
Dimensions
High
Context
Low
Context
Less important
Is his or her bond
Taken by
top level
Lengthy
Japan
Middle East
Lawyers
A person’s word
Responsibility for
organizational error
Negotiations
Examples:
Very important
Get it in writing
Pushed to
lowest level
Proceed quickly
U.S.A.
Northern Europe

High-context
communication
 Indirect
 Ambiguous
 Understate
d with
speakers
being
reserved
and
sensitive
listeners
Low- context
communication
 direct
 explicit
 Open
 Precise
 Consistent
with one’s
feelings

 Individuals use low-and high-context messages
depending upon their relationship with the person
with whom they are communicating.
 Individualistic culture of US: use low-context
communication in the vast majority of their
relationships (Hall, 1976); use high-context
messages when communicating with a twin or
their spouse of 20 years. In these relationships, it
is unnecessary to be direct and precise to be
clearly understood.
 Asian, African and Latin collectivistic culture
use high-context messages when they
communicate most of the time; use low-context
messages in some relationships (e.g. close
friendships)

 Research on cultural differences in
communication supports Gudykunst
and Ting-Toomey’s (1988) argument
that low-and high-context
communication are a function of
individual-collectivism.

Cross-cultural Values
 Freedom
 Independence
 Self-reliance
 Equality
 Individualism
 Competition
 Efficiency
 Time
 Directness
 Openness
 Belonging
 Group harmony
 Collectiveness
 Age/seniority
 Group consciousness
 Cooperation
 Quality
 Patience
 Indirectness
 Go-between
Americans Japanese
Elashmawi &
Harris 1993

Conversational maxims
 Grice (1975) isolates 4 assumptions
regarding coordinated social
interaction that are characteristics of
low-context communication
1. Individuals should not give others more of less information
than necessary (quantity maxim)
2. People should state only that which they believe to be true
with sufficient evidence (quality maxim)
3. Individuals’ contributions should be pertinent to the context
of conversations (relevancy maxim)
4. People should avoid obscure expressions, ambiguity,
excessive verbosity and disorganization (manner maxim)

The Role of
Communication in
Maintaining
Relationships

Characteristics of communication
 We communicate for a variety of reasons
 Communication may have intentional and
unintentional effects
 Communication is reciprocal
 Communication involves at least two people who
influence each other’s actions
 Communication involves the use of symbols
 Communication need not be successful to have
occurred

Communication and relationships
 Communication is one of most
important factors for a well functioning
relationship
 If there is no communication there is
no relationship
 Communication is especially important
in therapeutic relationships

Communication Factors Influencing the
Quality of a Relationship
 Attribution
Self disclosure
 Individual and cultural differences in communication

Self Disclosure
 Social penetration theory (Altman &
Taylor, 1973): Relationships are formed by
a gradual process of self-disclosure; the
sharing of personal facts, inner thoughts
and feelings
 Collins & Miller (1994): A meta analysis
showed that people who disclose intimate
information about themselves are more
liked than people who don’t

Self-disclosure
 Associated with direct communication
styles that predominate in
individualistic cultures rather than with
the indirect communication styles that
predominate a collectivistic culture
 Intuitively, it appears that individualists
would engage more rather than
collectivists

Individual Differences
 Tannen (1990): In observational studies,
she found gender differences in how men
and women have conversations. Men
interrupt more, women use more language
tags, women prefer emotional support
whereas men tend to have a problem
solving approach to problems
 Reis (1986): Women self disclose more
than men. Women also disclose more to
other women than men to other men.

Social Penetration
 Process of developing deeper
intimacy with another person through
mutual self-disclosure and other forms
of vulnerability.

Social Penetration Theory..
 Developed by Irwin
Altman and Dalmas
Taylor (1973)
 Theory attempts to
understand the levels
of self-disclosure that
result in the
development of
interpersonal
relationships (Altman
and Taylor, 1973)
 Self-disclosure: What
you chose to reveal
about yourself for
others to examine and
evaluate. (Olson, A.
2012)
 Principles of self-disclosure:
◦ Risk
◦ Trust
◦ Reciprocity
◦ Movement from impersonal
to intimate information
(Pennington, N 2015)
 Factors associated with
increased depth of relationships:
◦ Time spent together
◦ Commitment/satisfaction with
relationship
◦ Environment
◦ Perceived costs and rewards
of disclosure
(Altman and Taylor, 1973)

5 assumptions of Social Penetration
Theory
1. Person A is aware they are building a
relationship with Person B and vice versa
2. Physical proximity is required to
develop and maintain interpersonal
relationship
3. There are specific disclosures that
correlate with each stage of relational
closeness
4. Skipping ahead/going out of order of
stages can stunt or end the relationship
5. The social penetration process is
gradual
(Pennington, N. 2015)

Onion Metaphor for Social
Penetration Theory
 Breadth: Amount of differing
topics disclosed
 Depth: The extent to which
each individual topic is
disclosed
(Altman and Taylor, 1973)
 Four layers of disclosure
◦ 1st: Surface
◦ 2nd: Peripheral
◦ 3rd: Intermediate
◦ 4th: Central
(Pennington, N 2015)
 Each internal level intensifies
in depth and breadth as
individuals share more
information and spend more
time with each other.
(Altman and Taylor,
https://www.slideshare.net/doylesrader/social
penetrationtheory

Facebook and the Four
Stages of Self-
Disclosure

 Orientation Stage:
◦ Surface layer: appearance, gender, age
 On Facebook: Assume that once you befriend someone on Facebook you have
accomplished this stage
 Exploratory Stage:
◦ Peripheral Layer: asking questions to learn each other’s basic interests,
where they are from etc.
 On Facebook: Scanning Facebook profile to learn this information
◦ Intermediate Layer: discussing how you feel about things
 On Facebook: Chatting on Facebook to learn this information
 Affective Exchange Stage:
◦ Entering the Central Layer: discussing personal information, small amount of
breadth and depth
 On Facebook: Can occur through in depth conversation chatting online or
deciding to meet in person
 Stable-Exchange Stage:
◦ Reaching the core of Central Layer: full depth and breadth of each other’s personal
information achieved
 On Facebook: In most cases individuals who have reached this level will have
met in person, excluding situations in which the relationship remains exclusively
online (can be the case for long distance friendships or in the case of one of the
parties masking their true identity) (Pennington, N. 2015)

Amanda M. Olsen’s Study on
Facebook and The Social
Penetration Theory
 In her study of The Social
Penetration Theory in
regards to Facebook and
increasing self-esteem,
Olsen tests her hypothesized
relationships between those
who use Facebook to build
relationships through self-
disclosure and their related
levels of positive self-esteem.
 81% of participants reported
that they felt good or very
good when they self-
disclosed through Facebook
(Olsen, A. M. 2013)

Amanda M. Olsen’s Study on
Facebook and The Social
Penetration Theory
 Comforted by the Internet
◦ Individuals were able to
eliminate in person self-
consciousness when self-
disclosing information on
Facebook.
◦ “Online conversations allow
time for an individual to think
clearly about a response
before replying.”
◦ Online interactions through
Facebook are usually done at
home, allowing users to feel
more comfortable and
conversation to be more
convenient.
(Olsen, A. M. 2013)

Amanda M. Olsen’s Study on
Facebook and The Social
Penetration Theory
 Self Esteem
◦ According to the study, there is a positive
correlation between self-esteem and self-
disclosure on social media.
◦ Those with low self esteem are more likely
to self-disclose on Facebook because it is
potentially less likely for them to be
rejected.
◦ “Facebook induced self-affirmation
produces an array of related psychological
benefits, such as being more open-
minded, secure, willing to take
responsibility for failure in a task, and less
likely to blame others.”
◦ Facebook users are more likely to share
the positive highlights of their lives,
causing their online presence to appear
more exciting than the reality they live in.

In conclusion
 The Social Penetration Theory illustrates the
types and levels of self-disclosure that must
occur in order to establish relational closeness.
 Facebook causes difficulty when attempting to
properly apply this theory to relationships
because personal information is so readily
available to see online.
 In some cases, this causes individuals to make
quick decisions about others and decide against
truly getting to know them.
 Self-disclosures on Facebook are closely related
to levels of high self-esteem and some people
feel more comfortable revealing self-disclosures
through Facebook rather than in person.

References
 Olsen, A. M. (2013). Facebook and social penetration
theory (Order No. 1537056). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1356735207). Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.pro
quest.com.ezproxy1.lib. asu.edu/docvie
w/1356735207?accountid=4485
 Pennington, N. (2015). Building and maintaining relationships in
the digital age: Using social penetration theory to explore
communication through social networking sites (Order No.
3706935). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (1695847200). Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.pro
quest.com.ezproxy1.lib.
asu.edu/docview/1695847200?accountid=4485
 Taylor, D., & Altman, I. (1975). Self-Disclosure as a Function of
Reward-Cost Outcomes. Sociometry, 38(1), 18-31.
doi:10.2307/2786231

Individualism-Collectivism and
Uncertainty
 Individualistic culture: seek out person-based
information to reduce uncertainty about strangers
 Collectivistic culture: seek out group-based
information to reduce uncertainty (Gudykunst
and Nishida, 1986)
 The focus on person-based information leads
members of individualistic cultures to search for
personal similarities when communicating with
outgroup members more than do members of
collectivistic culture
 The focus on group-based information leads
members of collectivistic cultures to search for
group similarities when communicating with
outgroup members more than do members of
individualistic cultures

 Members of collectivistic cultures
emphasize the importance of context in
explaining other’s behavior more than
members of individualistic cultures
(Kashima, Siegel and Tanaka in 1992).
 The emphasis on context in collectivistic
cultures affects other aspects of their
communication as well; adapting and
accommodating to the context in which
they are communicating is an important
part of the high-context communication
patterns used in collectivistic cultures
(Hall, 1976)

Individualism-Collectivism and
Communication Rules
 Rules for intergroup communication differ across
cultures
 Noesjirwan (1978): found the rule for behavior with
respect to the ingroup in Indonesia is that members
of the ingroup should adapt to the group, so that
the group can present a united font
 Australia: the rule is that members of the ingroup
are expected to act as individuals even if it means
going against the ingroup
 Argyle et al (1986) found the rules regarding
ingroups (maintaining harmony) are endorsed
more highly in collectivistic cultures like Japan and
Hongkong than in individualistic cultures like Britain
and Italy.

 Mann et al (1994) examined respect rules for
interaction with father, mother, teacher, best
friend, adult neighbor, and same age neighbor
used by Japanese and Australian children.
 Australian children endorsed rules for greeting
targets respectfully, did what the target told them
and stuck up for the target more than did
Japanese children. The Japanese children
differentiated their endorsement of rules with
respect to parents and teachers compared
with friends and neighbors
 Japanese rules are person-and situation-specific
and that lapses of politeness are tolerated in the
family because of the strong ingroup bond.

Individualism-Collectivism
and Face-Negotiation
 Face involves the projected image of
one’s self in a relational situation
 Conceptualized as the interaction
between the degree of threats or
considerations a member offers to
another party, and the degree of claim
for a sense of self-respect by the other
party in a given situation

Ting-Toomey (1988):
 Developed theoretical propositions to
account for the relationship between
individualism-collectivism and face-
management
 :members of individualistic cultures
emphasize self-face maintenance more
than do members of collectivistic cultures
 Members of collectivistic cultures
emphasize mutual-face and other-face
maintenance more than do members of
individualistic cultures

Face across cultures
 Koreans are influenced by others’
powers and the relational distance
more than NAs are.
 NAs use anti-social, self-presentation
and self-attribution face-maintenance
strategies more than Japanese do,
whereas Japanese use indirect face-
maintenance strategies more than
NAs.

 Cupach and Imahori (1993): NAs are
more likely to use humor and aggression
to deal with social predicaments than
Japanese are, while Japanese are more
likely than NAs to use apologies and
remediation.
 : NAs use humor to maintain face in
embarrassing situations more than
Japanese.
 : Japanese use remediation to manage
face more than NAs do

 Holtgraves (1992): relative power two
people have and the relationship
between them influences the amount of
politeness behavior across cultures.
 US emphasize the distance between
themselves and others less than
Koreans do
 NAs assume a closer distance than
Koreans do when they interact and use a
less politeness behavior than Koreans
expect
 Koreans may interpret the lack of
politeness as a claim to greater power in
the relationship

Scollon (1981)
 European Americans are less polite than
Athabascan Indians when members of
the two groups interact.
 EA politeness behavior is guided by how
close they think they are to the other
person
 : use less politeness than Athabascan
Indians expect (interpret the lack of
politeness as being due to the European
Americans thinking they are culturally
superior)

Individualism-Collectivism and
Romantic Relationships
 Dion and Dion (1988): suggest that
individualism-collectivism is the major
dimension of cultural variability that
influences similarities and differences
in romantic relationships across
cultures.
 In the individualistic cultures like US
the idea of being dependent upon
someone else either is viewed
negatively or receives a neutral
response; not the case in collectivistic
cultures.

Doi (1973)
 Relates the Japanese concept of
amae (tendency to depend upon
another person and/or presume upon
that person’s benevolence to love.
 Amae generally speaking is an
inseparable concomitant of love
 Hsu (1981) makes a similar
observation about love in Chinese
culture

Dion and Dion (1988) isolate several
problems that arise in individualistic
cultures regarding love relationships:
1. One can lose one’s self and the feeling of
personal autonomy in a love relationship, feeling
used and exploited as a result.
2. Satisfying the autonomous needs of two separate
individuals in a love relationship (becomes the
balancing act)
3. The spirit of NA individualism makes it difficult for
either partner in a relationship to justify sacrificing
or giving to the other more than one is receiving.
4. NAs confront a fundamental conflict trying to
reconcile personal freedom and individuality with
obligations and role requirements of marital
partner and parent

 Romantic love is less likely to be considered
an important reason for marriage in
collectivistic cultures than in individualistic
cultures
 Romantic love is considered the main reason
for marriage in individualistic cultures,
whereas having a family tends to be the most
important reason for marriage in collectivistic
cultures (acceptance of the potential mate by
the family is important)
 Psychological intimacy is more important to
marital satisfaction in individualistic cultures
than in collectivistic cultures

 Individualism-collectivism influences
the stereotyping of members of the
opposite sex based on physical
attractiveness
 Collectivism leads individuals to
stereotype members of the opposite
sex on group-related attributes
(position in a social network and family
memberships) rather than individual
attributes such as physical
attractiveness
 Chinese in Canada

Sprecher et al (1994)
 NAs emphasize romantic love,
passionate love and love based on
friendship more than do Japanese and
Russians
 NAs rated physical appearance,
similarity, family and friend approval,
personality, affection and mystery as
more important than did Russians and
Japanese

Gao (1993)
 Individualism-collectivism influences
love, intimacy and communication in
romantic relationships.
 EA partners in romantic relationships
reported more passion than did
partners in romantic relationships in
China;
 partners in Chinese romantic
relationships reported more
intellectual intimacy and uncertainty
reduction than did partners in EA
relationships

Gao and Gudykunst (1995)
 Greater high-context attributional
confidence (reducing uncertainty
indirectly) in Chinese romantic
relationships than in EA romantic
relationships
 Perceived attitude similarity is higher
among EA than Chinese

Hofstede's cultural dimensions
The lack of precision, and the lack of a universally
applicable framework for classifying cultural patterns,
has been addressed by a number of researchers.
The most famous and most often cited work in this
area is the research by the Dutch organizational
anthropologist Hofstede. Hofstede derived his
culture dimensions from examining work-related
values in employees of IBM during the 1970s. In
his original work he divides culture into four
dimensions at culture-level:
 1)power distance,
 2)individualism /collectivism,
 3)masculinity/femininity and
 4)uncertainty avoidance.

Hofstede’s Dimensions of
Culture
Power Distance (Large or Small)
◦ The extent to which less powerful members of
institutions accept that power is distributed
unequally
 Large (Mexico, South Korea, India)
 blindly obey order of superiors
 hierarchical organizational structure
 Small (U.S., Denmark, Canada)
 decentralized decision making
 flat organizational structures

Uncertainty Avoidance (High or Low)
◦ The extent to which people feel
threatened by ambiguous situations
 High( Germany, Japan, Spain)
high need for security
strong beliefs in experts
 Low (Denmark, UK)
willing to accept risks
less structuring of activities

Individualism (vs. Collectivism)
– The tendency of people to look after themselves
and their immediate family only
 strong work ethic
 promotions based on merit
• U.S., Canada, Australia
Collectivism
– The tendency of people to belong to groups and to
look after each other in exchange for loyalty
 weaker work ethic
 promotions based on seniority
• China, South American cultures

Masculinity (Vs. Femininity)
– the dominant values in society are success, money
and things
 emphasis on earning and recognition
 high stress workplace
• Japan
Femininity
– the dominant values in society are caring for others and the
quality of life
 employment security
 employee freedom
• Scandinavian cultures

Individualism Vs. Collectivism
Individualism: refers to people regarding
themselves as individuals
–U.S., UK, and Sweden
Collectivism: refers to people regarding
themselves as part of a group
– Japan and France

The Power Distance Dimension

Power Distance
 Shows the difference
between people in a
society.
 Difference in authority,
power, influence.
 It also determines how
formal and informal
people in a culture are
and how they interact.

Power Distance in Comparison
 Small Power Distance
 All people should be
independent.
 Superiors consider
subordinates to be
“people like me”.
 Superiors are accessible.
 All should have equal
rights.
 Large Power Distance
 A few people should be
independent; most should
be dependent.
 Superiors consider
subordinates to be a
different kind of people.
 Superiors are inaccessible.
 Power-holders are entitled
to privileges.

The Individualism/Collectivism Dimension

 Individualism
 People are interested in their own achievement.
 Make decisions for themselves.
 Value is placed on “I”
 Collectivism
 People are group oriented and are interested in group
achievement.
 The prefer to make decisions involving others.
 Value is placed on “We”

Individualistic/Collectivistic in
Comparison
 Collectivist
 In society, people are
born into extended
families or clans who
protect them in exchange
for loyalty.
 Private life is invaded by
organizations and clans
to which one belongs.
 Belief is placed in group
decisions.
 Individualist
 In society, everybody is
supposed to take care of
himself/herself.
 Everybody has a right to
a private life.
 Belief is placed in
individual decisions.

Individualistic versus Collectivistic
 Individualistic-Oriented
Cultures:
 United States
 Canada
 Australia
 Great Britain
 Germany
 Italy
 France
 Sweden
 Collectivistic-Oriented
Cultures:
 China
 Japan
 Columbia
 Venezuela
 Indonesia
 Pakistan
 Costa Rica
 Peru

The Femininity/Masculinity Dimension

Masculinity-Femininity Cultural
Dimension
 Is addressed as a societal, not an
individual's, characteristic and "refers to the
distribution of values between the genders”.

Definitions
 Masculinity
 A culture in which the dominant values in society are
achievement, heroism, assertiveness, money and
material rewards for success.
 Femininity
 A culture in which the dominant values in society are
cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of
life.

Femininity/Masculinity in Comparison
 Femininity
 Sex roles in society are
more fluid.
 There should be equality
between the sexes.
 Quality of life is
important.
 You work in order to live.
 People and environment
are important.
 Masculinity
 Sex roles in society are
clearly differentiated.
 Men should dominate in
society.
 Performance is what counts.
 You live in order to work.
 Money and material things
are important.

The Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension

 The extent to which people feel threatened
by ambiguous situations, tolerate
uncertainty and have created beliefs and
institutions that try to avoid these.

Uncertainty Avoidance in Comparison
 Weak Uncertainty
The uncertainty
inherent in life is more
easily accepted and
each day is taken as it
comes.
 Time is free.
 There is more
willingness to take
risks in life.
 There should be as
few rules as possible.
 Strong Uncertainty
The uncertainty
inherent in life is felt as
a continuous threat
that must be fought.
 Time is money.
 There is great concern
with security in life.
 There is a need for
written rules and
regulations.

Elementary
Structures of
Social Interaction

Fiske (1991)
 Integrate diverse bodies of research into a
coherent theory of social relations
 Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary
Forms of Human Relations
 Four elementary structures to guide their action
and to make sense of and respond to the social
action of other people: communal sharing,
equality matching, market pricing
 The four structures of social interaction are
similar to the social scripts that people use to
guide their behavior
 Cut across all social domains; shared
psychological models people use to coordinate
their actions with others

Fiske’s Typology
 Go beyond the realm of traditional
consistency and balance theories to
incorporate the complex network of
relationships beyond the dyadic level
 Incorporate culture as a key dimension in
determining the expression of the four
elementary models
 Incorporate economic, ethnographic,
psychological, sociological and
anthropological evidence as well as
classified social theory in support of his
theory

Communal sharing
 Characterized by people who perceive
themselves in terms of the group to
which they belong
 Sharing according to group membership
regardless of individual contributions
 Individuals in interpersonal relationships
that are organized based on communal
sharing see themselves in terms of WE
and I
 Decision making: individual adheres to
the wisdom of the group

 Jury system in US
12 individuals are brought together
to discuss, deliberate and to reach a
decision regarding the issue at hand
 Japanese practice of consensus –
unanimous agreement stands as the
foundation for decision-making
practices; individuals place value on
decisions made by the group
 Persuasion: desire to be similar to
others;

similarity compliance occurs in
two situations
 People try to be similar to avoid the
embarrassment of standing out
 As perceived similarity increases, the
more likely it becomes that influence
will occur
 The former is clearly illustrated by a
traditional Japanese saying: The nail
that sticks out will be promptly
hammered down.

 Construal of self within the communal sharing
structure is predominately shaped by group
membership whether in an ethnic group, age,
group, family, sports team or religious affiliation,
not only experiencing a sense of belonging with a
particular group,, but also being recognized as a
member of the group by outsiders, plays a part in
developing an individual’s sense of self
 Communal sharing is established by the groups
that one associated oneself with
 Use of labels to describe one’s ethnicity
 Roosens (1989) described ethnic identity- a
fitting representation of how identity operates
within the communal sharing structure

 A Mexican students is upset if people
mislabel her a Hispanic or Latina
which means she is from Spain,
calling her Latina would mean she is
from Central America, labelling her
Mexican acknowledges her Spanish
as well as Indian ancestry.
 It is not only necessary to be accepted
as part of a group, it is also important
for outsiders to acknowledge group
membership

Communal sharing operates on the basis that
 All the members of some group or
category are the same and that the
group transcends its individual
members.

Authority ranking
 Involves hierarchy
 People perceive each other as
different in terms of status
 High-ranking people control more
resources (power, money, time) than
lower-ranking people and have more
choices

 The power that superiors hold in
authority ranking is not a domination
by force or by threat of punishment; it
is perceived by the subordinates as a
legitimate power that comes from the
superior position of the other.
 mamá, variation of Colombian term
madre: indicates respect owed to
authority figures who are nurturing and
affectionate

Existence of Authority
Ranking
 One of the two independent relational concerns
that make up the identity individuals report in
narrating their lives (McAdams, 1988)
 Power and prestige within small decision
making groups are determined by status
differences among members (Berger, Cohen
and Zelditch, 1972)
 Psychological persuasive tool in influencing
others (Cialdini, 1988)
 Filial piety toward parents and services to
superiors will be balanced by matching loyalty
from one’s own childhood and subordinates
(Lebra, 1969): authority ranking and equality
matching,; strong obligation to reciprocate is
easily changed to authority ranking when the

Equality Matching
 A model of social relations in which people are
separate, but equal;
 This relationship is characterized by a desire for
balance
 Set apart from communal sharing because
members assume that benefits are given with the
expectation of receiving a benefit in return (Clark
and Mills, 1979)
 The receipt of a benefit incurs a debt or obligation
to return a comparable benefit
 Manifested in turn taking, reciprocity of same or like
items, eye-for-an-eye revenge, or equal distribution
 It may also take in the form of equal reciprocity in
which the actual items exchanged may be different
but the categories are perceived as the same or
very similar; it is irrelevant to who gets or gives

 Individuals may send birthday cards to people
who remembered their birthdays
 In relationships characterized by equality
matching, a person may think of himself as one
of a set of equals who reciprocate fairly, share
and contribute equally, a partner on a par with his
fellows (I will scratch your back if you will scratch
mine)
 Individuals perceive themselves as separate
from peers, but also as equal to them; social
identity revolves around staying even and
keeping up with their reference group
 Decision making follows a one-person, one-vote
format; each vote carries equal weight; turn
taking is implemented in decision making (e.g. on
one occasion the husband may decide which
movie the couple will see, and on the next
occasion the wife will decide.

Cialdini (1988)
 In US, reciprocity is an important and
often used tool
 One way reciprocity is used is with the
free gifts or samples provided at the
grocery store; the free gift serves two
purposes: to introduce the consumer
to a new product, and to activate
feelings of obligation (people who are
given free gift may feel obliged to
return the favor and reciprocate by
buying the product)

 Lebre (1969): Japanese try to reciprocate
similar gifts in the same exact circumstance
in which the gift was given; culture
determines how turn taking is initiated and
what is perceived as an appropriate delay
before reciprocating
 Lerner (1974) demonstrates that children
distribute rewards equally. In US, children are
generally taught that they should take turns,
and should reciprocate gifts and slumber
parties; children first begin to externalize
equality matching at approximately 4 years of
age

Market Pricing
 Entails exchange of unlike items or services that
are traded in proportion to the market value or to
the contribution made
 Structure is based on a market system in which
people evaluate commodities in ratio terms which
includes a cost-benefit analysis
 Relationships are entered into as a contract
 Relationships are characterized by the idea that
civil society in general and the state in particular
is the product of a voluntary contract between
autonomous individuals who bind themselves to
a circumscribed compact to further their
individual self-interest
 One theory in speech communication similar to
the notion is social exchange theory

Social exchange model of a relationship
 individuals buy the best type of relationship they
can get
 Fitzpatrick (1991): individuals look for a
relationship that is the most rewarding, the least
costly, and the best value relative to other
relationships
 Decision making within the market pricing structure
is influenced by the principle of supple and
demand
: Billboard’s Top 20 selection is determined by the
sale of a particular album. The song with the highest
sales during a particular time period is ranked as
number one.
: a computer software firm may base decisions
regarding production of its software line, as well as
additional accessories, on the demand for the

Market pricing structure
 The attempt to influence individuals, as well as
groups, is governed by cost and reward
enticements
 Turn on the television and tune in to a late night
infomercial and you will be bombarded with such
claims: if you act now, not only will you receive this
valuable item, but we will throw in a free gift too, or
act now, while supplies last (Bettinghaus and
Cody, 1994)
 : marketers actually plan shortage of certain
desirable products so that customers will pay for
the hard-to-find objects. At Christmas, some dolls,
video games, race car sets, and many other
products are frequently advertised, but a shortage
of the items means that more parents are looking
for the products than there are products available

Fiske (1991)
 Within the market pricing structure the
self is governed by economic rules
 People’s occupational, personal financial
success, and independent contracts
shape their self-concept
 People are motivated by achievement,
as this is a defining characteristic
identity; achievement consists of the
need to try to do everything well, to be
stimulated to excel by the presence of
others, to enjoy competition (Murray,
1938)

Example to clarify the differences of the four models
Families can use one or all of the four structures to organize
the process of preparing dinner.
In the mode of communal sharing, cooking dinner is a
family effort. Every member of the family contributes
whatever he does to prepare the dinner. Alternatively, within
the authority ranking structure, dinner preparation is based
on traditional roles in the household. In this case, the mother,
who is in charge of the kitchen delegates responsibilities to
her children. When equality matching is operating, the
responsibility for dinner preparation is distributed equally.
For example, people may take turns doing the dishes, or
each member of the family may have one specific duty at
each meal time. Market pricing is similar to eating out. The
family pays someone else to prepare the dinner for them

Dimensions of
cultural variability
The structures can be
associated with the different

Power distance
 Differences in views and practices of skills, wealth,
status, and power that differentiate clusters of
cultures
 Power distance is defined as "the extent to which the
less powerful members of institutions and
organizations within a country expect and accept that
power is distributed unequally".
 The power distance concept is clearly more far-
reaching than the work place alone; often reflected in
the hierarchical organization of companies, the
respect that is expected to be shown by the student
towards her or his teacher, the political forms of
decentralization and centralization, by the belief in
society that inequalities among people should be
minimized, or that they are expected and desired.
 In high power distance countries, India, Mexico, Brazil,
employees accept that the boss must be obeyed.
 In low power distance countries, US, Australia, Denmark,
boss gain the trust of employees.

Individualism/Collectivism
 Attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that differentiate clusters of
cultures (Triandis, 1988)
 Hofstede defines this dimension as:
"individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between
individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or
herself and his or her immediate family.
Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people
from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups,
which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in
exchange for unquestioning loyalty.“
 Collectivism is when people see themselves
primarily as members of groups.
 The US has an individualistic culture, Japan has a
collectivist culture.

Masculinity/femininity
 Expression of emotions, roles of men and women, and the
dominant values of a society
Masculinity/femininity is an equally powerful, yet often
understated, dimension. Hofstede defines this dimension as
follows:
 "masculinity pertains to societies in which social
gender roles are clearly distinct (i.e., men are
supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material
success whereas women are supposed to be more modest,
tender, and concerned with the quality of life);
 femininity pertains to societies in which social gender
roles overlap (i.e., both men and women are supposed be
modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life)."
(Hofstede, 1994)
 High masculinity: Japan, Mexico, Italy
 High femininity: Norway, Finland, Sweden

Uncertainty Avoidance
 Degree of tolerance for ambiguity that is expressed by
members of a culture
 Uncertainty avoidance is the final dimension present in
Hofstede's original work. Hofstede defines uncertainty
avoidance as "the extent to which the members of a
culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown
situations." (Hofstede, 1994, p. 113)
High uncertainy avoidance cultures have strict
laws, are highly formal and intolerant.
 High: Japan, Argentina, Italy, Israel
 Low: US, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark.
 This dimension is fairly easily grasped, and can often be seen
reflected in business negotiations.

Value Differences and Similarities
Across Cultures
 Differences
◦ U.S. managers value tactful
acquisition of influence
◦ Japanese managers value
deference to superiors
◦ Korean managers value
forcefulness and
aggressiveness
◦ Indian managers value
nonaggressive pursuit of
objectives
◦ Australian managers value
low-key approach with high
concern for others
 Similarities
◦ Strong relationship between
managerial success and
personal values
◦ Value patterns predict
managerial success
◦ Successful managers favor
pragmatic, achievement-
oriented values while less
successful managers
prefer static and
passive values

 Communal sharing
structures are
predominantly
collectivistic in that
the structure
emphasizes the
importance of the
ingroup and of
shared group goals.
 Feminine in that the
relationships in the
structure value
interdependence
and guarding the
relationship
 Market pricing
structure is
predominantly
individualistic in that
the emphasis is
placed on individual
achievement.
 Masculine in nature
because money,
achievement, and
independence are
valued
 Relationships
prescribe rules and
formal settings,
which is standard of
high uncertainty
avoidance cultures.

 Equality matching is
more accepting of
differences and
ambiguity, therefore
the culture is
characterized by a low
power distance
culture, because
everyone is
considered equal
though separate
 Predominantly
individualistic in that
individual status is
emphasized: the self is
considered separate,
 Authority ranking structure is a
high power distance culture
because of the emphasis on
status and the separation of
superiors and subordinates.
Triandis (1990)notes that
collectivistic cultures tend to
see a big difference between
those with power and those
without, and that the emphasis
on hierarchy is a characteristic
of collectivism. Hofstede (1980)
found that power distance and
collectivism were highly
correlated.
 Authority ranking is therefore
characterized as a
collectivistic culture

Burgoon and Hale’s Relational
Topoi
 Delineated aspects that are significant and
distinct to interpersonal relationships
 6 overriding categories derived from the
investigation: control, intimacy,
composure, formality, task-social
orientation and equality
 The dimensions may be viewed
simultaneously as primary themes for
relational discourse and as the dimensions
along which partners interpret and define
their interpersonal relationship

 Control consists of
the dominance-
submission
dimension, and the
distribution of power
and influence in
relationships
 Intimacy is made up
of 5 dimensions:
affection-hostility,
inclusion-exclusion,
intensity of
involvement, trust,
and depth-similarity
 Composure has to
do with an
individual’s self-
control, degree of
comfort, and
relaxation.
 Formality is the
degree of
personalism,
reserve, and
decorum being
exhibited
 Task-social factor
includes the degree
to which tasks
influence the
relationship
 Equality is related to

Authority ranking
 Motivated by power (Fiske, 1991)
 The motivation of power and influence of a hierarchy
create a theme based on the complementary relationship
of dominance-submission. The dominant individuals
control the upper levels of the hierarchy, whereas the
subordinates posses lower levels of the hierarchy
 Power is evident in both roles
 : dominant individual may possess power based on
personal status, whereas the subordinate may control
power by using passive-aggressive strategies to get a
superior to comply.
 In case of authority ranking, individuals with low
status respect the status of those who dominate them,
high-ranking individuals control many people

 Intimacy level can be
high based on the
complementarity of the
relationship
 Each partner attempts
to meet the needs of
the other based on
each one’s dominant
or submissive role
 Relationships that are
complementary are
more intimate than
those that are not
(Berg and Clark, 1986)
:traditional marital type
which is based on
complementary roles in
which the husband is
dominant and the wife is
submissive
This couple type reports
a higher degree of
sharing and intimacy
than any of the other
types Fitzpatrick (1990)
has isolated

 A component of intimacy
is apparent in the
attempt of subordinates
to emulate the behaviors
of their superiors.
 Similarity is often based
on hero-worship; this is
based on idealistic loyal
admiration … people
orient their behavior to
others … and modify
their behavior
accordingly
 Description of task
relationships in authority
ranking: superiors direct
and control the work of
subordinates while often
doing less of the
arduous or menial labor.
 Superiors control
product of subordinates’
labor
 The role of the task
relationships is
controlled by the
dominant members of
the structure
 Manifested in high
power distance cultures
where higher status
individuals closely
supervise subordinates
and subordinates fear
disagreeing with the
superior (Hofstede,

 Authority ranking is
characterized by
formal roles for
interaction that are
dictated by the status
of the individuals in a
relationship.
 Dominant member
controls the formality
and the submissive
member follows the
dominant’s example
: the child’s level of
formality is dependent
on how the parents
expect the child to
behave
 The degree of
composure of
individuals in the
authority ranking
structure is determined
by the comfort they
find in their role in the
society
 Authority ranking
individuals are
comfortable with the
status differences and
accept them as
natural, so the degree
of composure is high
 Subordinates believe
that their subordination
is legitimate

 Equality is distributed according to status
 Whereas equality coexists on the same
levels of status, in authority ranking the
higher the status, the ore privileges
individuals have. The higher an individual’s
rank the more opportunity, choice or items
she is provided with
 Individuals at the lower end of the hierarchy
are provided with what is left over or not of
equal quality.
 Only people who have the same status and
authority would consider themselves as
equals.

Equality Matching
 According to the model
there is an equal
distribution of power and
control
 The relationships are
characterized by mutual
respect
 Characterized by
intimacy of a reciprocal
nature
: self-disclosure would be
moderated by the level of
intimacy in a relationship,
but the amounts of self-
disclosure provided would
be equal
 Task social element is
moderated in the number of
ways under equality
matching- individuals may
take turns doing a specific
job, do different jobs that
require equal effort, or align
themselves by completing
the same task
 Levels of composure is at
the highest when individuals
believe that their roles are
distributed equally
: husband and wife share
household duties that are
different
If both were satisfied that they
were completing equal
amounts of work, they would
display a high degree of
comfortableness and be
relaxed

 Contributions match
each other’s donations
equally
 If they did not feel that
contributions to the
relationships were
equally matched, the
amount of composure
would decrease
 According to the
model, everyone is
equal-there is giving of
identical shares in the
distribution of goods
regardless of needs
 Work is distributed
equally and individuals
are viewed as equal,
although they may be
different
 The primary motivation
of the equality
matching structure is
equality

Communal sharing
 Power is centered
within the group, the
group collectively has
control
 Intimacy is the main
motivation
 Relationship is
characterized by more
listening, more self-
disclosure, more
references to us and
we and by displaying
more concern for
family and friends.
 primary concern is the
protection of intimate
relationships
 A component of
intimacy is the main
social influence in the
communal sharing
structure
 Relationships are
based on conformity
and unanimity
: people are more likely
to choose partners from
the same race, social
class, intelligence level,
religion and so on
(Kerckhoff, 1974)

Market Pricing
 Control is negotiated
using a cost-benefit
rationale
 The market decides,
governed by supply and
demand for expected
utilities
 Market is the dominant
force that controls the
power
 Intimacy levels are
determined in part by the
cost/benefits of the
relationship
 Individuals are willing to
stay in their relationship
as long as the rewards
outweigh the costs
 Tasks are performed for
a wage equal to the
effort
 Individualistic nature is
apparent by the
delegation of tasks
 In a group project,
responsibilities are
delegated into individual
subtasks
 Relationships are not
based on maintaining
harmony, but function
through rivalry
 Task-social dimension is
essential because
individual’s roles are
defined by their
economic status,
achievement, and/or
profession