Cross-cultural and gender differences in patterns of communication

Because of increasing globalisation and internationalisation, more and more educators will find themselves working in diverse cultures, and multicultural interaction becomes common on the multinational campus. Therefore, it is becoming more and more important to communicate within diverse cultures.

To achieve effectiveness of communication in multicultural environment, it is inevitable to identify the different phenomena across cultures, called cross-culture. The relationship between culture and communication has been well explained by Gao and Ting-Toomey (1998). They investigated that the difference of culture causes various difference in communication behaviour. How the messages are presented and interpreted in a particular cultural context influences the outcome of any communication. This essay will mainly focus on the comparison between English and Chinese cultures.

The intended objects of the essay are Chinese students who are new comers to study in the UK recent years. These new comers often feel confused, stressful in communication and interpersonal relations facing the entirely different social-cultural background. Interpersonal stressors experiencing studying abroad contributed fifty percent of their major perceived stress (Spering, 2001). Bewaring cross-culture and gender difference can help them to adjust psychology promptly, to make right prediction and respond correctly in communication. Meanwhile it also helps English educators to understand Chinese culture to transmit their teaching smoothly. Eventually, this will help both of them to implement the transform from monoculture to bicultural even multicultural and promote the development of economic and education for both countries.

A clarification here needs to be made for the term of Chinese. It mainly refers to distinctive Chinese, a typical Mainland Chinese. Since China is so large, and Chinese spread all over the world such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada and USA. Discrimination in geography, age and districts can cause significant differences in characteristics of communication.

2 Literature review
In this section, the variation of communication may be classified on the basis of the eastern and western cultures into four dimensions: individualism and collectivism, low and high context communication, power distance, and masculinity-femininity.
2.1. Individualism and collectivism
The major dimension in cultural variability is individualism-collectivism widely used to explain the difference of behaviour in the cross-culture. In the individualistic culture, the individuals’ goal is over group’s, the “I” identity is prior to “we” identity. The people in the individualistic culture emphases the individuality, individuals’ initiative and achievement rather than group relationship. They often tend to be universalistic and even apply the same value standards to all without conscious. In collectivistic culture, in contrast, individuals’ interest is under the goal of group, and group memberships are more important than individuality. They tend to be particularistic and apply different value standards for members of their in groups and outside groups (Gudykunst 2004).

This dimension has been fully developed by many researchers. For example, Ting-Toomey (1994), Chu (1989) and Hofstede (1980) illustrated clearly that individualistic culture emphasizes on individuals’ initiatives, right, independence, autonomy, freedom and achievement. In the western countries, such as, Australia, England, Canada, France, people consider family relations, loyalty, and harmony less important. In collectivistic cultures, in contrast, people stress fitting in and belonging to the in-group, and they focus on a “we” identity. Inclusion and approval are considered as their major needs. China is a collectivism culture country, just like many other Asian countries, India, Japan and Korea. People there focus on group’s goals, value traditions.

However, the relationship between individualism and collectivism is not always opposite or conflict. To some extends, they are compatible and have similarities in some universalism value. For example, they both value cooperative and supportive primary relations, productive and innovative task performance, and gratification of self-oriented needs and desires (Schwartz and Bardi, 2001)

2.2 Low and High-Context Communication
Low and high context are the predominant forms in communication process used by both individualists and collectivists. Low-context communication tends to be direct, precise, and clear. In contrast, high-context communication tends to be indirect and it often is ambiguous (Gudykunst, 2004). In general, people use more high-context form in collectivism culture than in individualism culture.

Low and high-context communication often cause misunderstanding. Individualists using low context communication often think that high context members’ speech is ineffective, evasive. For example, American people express itself in such common injunctions, as “Say what you mean” “Don’t beat around the bush,” “Get to the point”. One way around this is that individuals can make educated guess to avoid misinterpretation depending the relationship and situation (Levine, 1985).

In addition, to manage cultural variation and to avoid misunderstanding, Gudykunst (2004) provides a very good advice for students studying aboard. He suggested that the member of low-context culture tends not to emphasis the situational factors when they explain the behaviour of members of culture in which high context message predominate. In comparison, internal factors are not to be emphasized to individual enough when trying to explain the behaviour of members of culture in which low-context messages predominate.

2.3 Power distance
Power distance has defined by Hofstede & Bond (1984, p.419) as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations accept that power is distributed unequally”.

People in high power distance cultures accept power as part of society or a basic fact of life. Individuals are treated unequally, and subordinates normally are dependent on superiors. In contrast, individuals from low power distance cultures believe power should be used only when it is legitimate and prefer expert or legitimate power. There is limited dependence of subordinates on boss. Individuals are viewed equally.

On the other hand, if expectancy of power distance is violated, miscommunications and misunderstanding will become commonplace. Subordinates in low power distance may want more personal respect from his or her supervisor, and superiors in high power distance expect more deference and humility from the subordinates (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Understanding this cultural difference in power distance can help us to know strangers’ behaviour in role of relationship and improve our communication skills with strangers (GudyKunst, 2004).

2.4 Masculinity versus femininity
As the above dimensions, masculinity and femininity tendencies exist in all cultures. Hofstede (1991, p82-83) definite “Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct (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 (both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life)”.

Understanding cultural differences in masculinity and femininity is very helpful for us to communicate with strangers in the cross-culture.

3. Reflection and analysis my experience
3.1. Expectation differences for English and Chinese students in the study
Cultural difference between English and Chinese is also embodied as different behaviour in the classrooms. In last semester, I surprisingly found that English students tended to openly speak much more than Chinese students in the classroom. They actively expressed their ideas and opinion, even more likely to clarify the lecturers’ statement when they were not sure about it. Listening to a confident talk by an English student, I felt he or she was a teacher. Chinese students generally tended to be quiet, rarely have a long self-expression, or debate in the big group. At the most of the time, they only responded when they were questioned. Even when they could not understand on some occasions, they seldom asked for an explanation but preferred to work it out individually after the lecture.

At the beginning of the semester, another interesting thing was the difference in using personal pronouns. My fellow Chinese student unconsciously used “we” to express her individual opinion. The English tutor stressed that it would be more appropriate if using “I” to express a personal feeling since “I” is self- responsible for individuals’ own ideas and opinion. This is the first impressive thing for me to approach English culture. The difference of individualism and collectivism culture can cause problems in communication.

In Chinese culture that is dominated by collectivism, the meaning of “we” implicates the group’s feeling or opinion. A speaker feels more comfortable when he or she uses “we” because he/she is talking something generally to avoid unnecessary connection with him/her. Furthermore, using “We” sounds more powerful, impressive and objective.

In contrast, listening more and speaking less in Chinese culture is considered as a merit. Talkative person can be thought as showing off and inelegant behaviour. In many traditional Chinese family, when a family member have get together to discuss something, parents often teach their children not to cut in when the adults are talking. Children are encouraged to follow their parents’ instructions rather than persuade or debate with them.

However most of the individualism cultural countries like USA, UK, Children are expected to be a good speaker and they are being nurtured to practice communication skills when they are in the primary schools. In the classroom, English children are encouraged to express themselves from basic emotion word, such as, happy, sad, miserable, angry. Clear and logical expression on one’s ideas, feeling, and opinions has been regarded very importantly. Individual characteristics and capacity is emphasized. In contrast, for Chinese student growing up in a collectivistic culture, they are repeatedly told to be “han xu” (keeping feeling inside and speaking indirectly). Clarifications and self-expression in the classroom may be considered as challenging and offending the lecturer. Feeling shy and hesitant respondents may be regard as the impression of considerable.

3.2 Low-high context comm.
I was aware of the direct speak of English people when I just came to the UK. It is first time that I shared a house with foreign students. An English housemate always borrowed money from me. A few months passed, there was no sign of paying the money back. I could not think out a way to get it back. My English friend suggested me asking him directly. Honestly, I was very surprised at this idea since it may cause the housemate embarrassment. My Chinese friend suggested that I could borrow him the same mount of money with an excuse.

The reason of Chinese people “beat around the bush” is to protect their existing relationship and maintain group harmony. Chinese people think that speaking can be a good thing but also can be a bad thing. As Gao and Ting-Toomey (1998, p38) explained “direct communication may place them in an unmanageable situation and thus cause damage to their existing relationship”. They pointed out two features of Chinese indirect communication.

The first feature is that indirect speaker really wants to convey what is implied or unsaid rather than what is said. Gao and Ting-Toomey (1998, p38) found “In Chinese culture, children are taught and encouraged to apply cha yan guan se (examining a person’s words and observing his /her countenance in) in their communication with others.”

The other feature is that listener and speaker are in an equal position in a conversation. The message need to be understood by decoding according to the situation, the non-verbal communication, social background.

3.3 Hesitant and assertive communication between Chinese and the English
Assertiveness emphasizes individual’s right, feeling, and thoughts. It is very important communication skill in individualism culture, assertive speaker sound more powerful, forceful, and confident. Assertive communication is to make direct statements regarding speaker’s feelings, thoughts, and wishes. Speaker stands up for their rights and take into account the rights and feelings of others (Matthew, et. al. 1995).

However, Chinese people prefer using hesitant speech rather than assertive talk. Gao and Ting-Toomey (in 1998, p78) suggested “learning to talk in a hesitant manner and to decipher hidden messages is both desirable and necessary for Chinese.” Speaking in an assertion manner for Chinese people is not only to be interpreted as “rude” attitude, but also can hurt the listeners’ face and break up the friendship forever, sometimes even cause grudge deeply.

Last semester, we had a session on assertive communication. One episode happened between my classmates, raise an interesting question how to appropriately use assertive communication in cross-cultural environment?

My Chinese classmate just learnt assertive communication. Certainly, she was keen on practice to see what will be different. But the result was chaotic, her tone was astonished for us. The receiver from an African country was cross and felt very strange about her behaviour since her assertive words sounded unfriendly and inappropriate.

Although assertive speak is very useful and effective way to hold individual’s right back and control the situation actively, in an intercultural group, assertion sometimes cause misunderstanding or a conflict. A receiver may consider it as an aggressive or offensive behaviour, not an assertion. A sender needs to carefully consider the group norm and a receiver’s cross cultural background. Hartley (1999) suggested that in North America and Western Europe, assertive behaviour is culturally acceptable, but other cultures have different values on humility and submission. In these cultures, people regard assertive behaviour as inappropriate, unfriendly, or even offensive in some situation.
3.4 Misunderstanding on politeness and impoliteness in cross-culture.
Neill and Caswell (1993, P14) stated that many types of non-verbal signals are culturally variable, which offer rich possibilities for misunderstanding. For example, English pre-school tend to touch black boys, this has been interpreted as control, with the teachers being stricter with black boys, but black boys may interpret the touch as friendly. Closeness and touch for majority of Chinese pupils show affection and friendliness, but are entirely bad for English pupils.

Chinese can be considered as a high contact culture, in which people tend to stand closer and more touch than in a low contact country, e.g. Britain. However, we cannot oversimplify the distinctions. For instance, eye contact has been encouraged in Britain and is a symbol of self-confidence and respect to the others. English teachers may think Chinese students’ eye contact level is inadequate and evasive. Particularly in an interview, I need to cautiously “staring” the English interviewer. If I look my Chinese lecturer in the eye, he or she certainly feel uncomfortable and considered me as an impolite person.

Chinese culture, like most complex societies, have many status distinction based on power and occupation. A teacher is very respectful and powerful person for Chinese students. Younger students often look down, stand still without much body movement and avoid eye contact showing obedience when teachers talk to students. The tones of students’ voices tend to be soft, tender. The teachers often have serious expressions, stand within certain distance, more smile than laughing. The way of reaction as if a boss and subordinates interaction. People in an individualistic culture commented it humorously “like an apple polisher” (Remland, 2003, p360).

However, in China, once students become very familiar with their young lecturer, students will treat them freely and intimidated. In particular, male students treat male lecturers as their friends. For instance, they may have friendly touch and speak loudly, having rich facial expressions. The lecturers often feel pleasant to accept the way they are treated. In contrast, English lecturers may feel Chinese students are very rude.

Therefore, Chinese students in the UK, which has a low contact culture, need to be look out their non-verbal communication. As Osborn and Motley (1999, P66) said, “when we interact with those from other cultures, we need to be especially aware that our own nonverbal norms are not universal. We need to be especially observant, patient, and empathetic toward the ways in which a given behaviour may elicit completely different interpretations in intercultural interactions. ”

3.5 Gender difference
Deborah Tannen and John Gray, famous for international best-seller statuses, stated that the difference of masculinity and femininity is human nature. Hartley (1993) argued that the source of differences in masculinity and femininity is nurtured caused by people’s biases. Whichever opinion is, no one can deny differences exist between masculinity and femininity.

However, people unconsciously ignore these differences in the daily life, which cause a great deal of misunderstanding and misinterpreting. For instance, female feel that male are more aggressive, bad listeners, impolite, dominant; male artributly think female are sensitive, dependent.

One of my awful experiences was about my male housemate. Honestly, I original thought he as a friendly and nice guy. We often talk about many things on the life and study experience. However, once he said to me “piss off, pumpkin head”, I felt very angry. Although he kept explaining for his careless and he never really think like that. This matter changed my impression about him and I thought he was a rude person.

Later, I realized that he just considered me as one of his close friends so he used his familiar “verbal aggression”. As Osborn and Motley (1999) stated that verbal aggressiveness, such as friendly insults, teasing, challenges, and so on, are signs for male to indicate closeness and bonding. Male only use verbal aggression to their fairly closed friends. When male becomes very comfortable with a particular female, they sometimes use these “friendly” verbal aggression devices.

There are many differences between male and female in specific behaviours, such as, positive minimal responses, function of questions, topic shifts, conversational turn, problem sharing, and so on (Osborn and Motley, 1999). Understanding these differences in communication behaviours between male and female can change our stereotype mentioned at the beginning of this section and feel pleasantly interact with opposite sex.

4 Implication of cross culture
By examining the difference between Chinese and western communicative patterns and gender difference, Chinese students can make a correct self-conception to know themselves well, to view themselves objectively, openly and directly, and to appropriately reveal their real feelings, thoughts and suggestions to western counterparts. They will be able to monitor themselves and modify their communication being more expressive.

Once Chinese students aware and compare intercultural communication, understanding western social custom and norm, they will release themselves from culture shock, they will not feel frustrated, stressful, even alienation in an unfamiliar environment. Besides, by observing and tolerating social blunders, they will adopt the host culture flexibly and maintain their positive attitude in the new environment.

Furthermore, taking special training in assertion, Chinese students can make an initial a conversation in various aspects, select an appropriately behave in diverse context. Positively adopt a person’s other-oriented ability to interaction, seek the same thoughts and feel the same emotions as the other person. Preparing them to be competitive communicators in diverse cultures and eventually transform from monoculture person into a multicultural person.

Reference:
1. Chu, G.C. (1989) Change in China: where have you gone Mao zedong? Centre view (East-West centre), 3- 7.
2. Gao & Ting-Toomey (1998, 5th edit.) Communicating effectively with the Chinese: communicating effectively in multicultural contexts, London: Sage
3. Gudykunst B. William (2004, 4th edit.) Bridging differences, effective intergroup communication, London, Sage
4. Hartley Peter (1999 2nd edit) Interpersonal communication, London, Routledge
5. Hayes N. & Orrell S. (1993 3rd edit.) Psychology an introduction, Edinburgh, Person Education Limited.
6. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations, London: McGraw-Hill.
7. Neill Sean and Caswell Chris (1993) Body language for competent teachers, London: Routledge.
8. Matthew, M, Martha, D and Patrick, F (1995, 2nd edit.) Messages: The communication skills book, Orkland, C.A
9. Osborn S. and Motley T. M. (1999), Improving communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
10. Remland M. (2004 2nd edit.) Nonverbal communication in everyday Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
11. Schwartz, S. and Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures. Journal of cross-cultural Psychology, 32: 286-290
12. Spering, M (2001)Current issues in cross-cultural psychology:Research topics, applications, and perspectives
13. Ting-Toomey, S. (1994 edit.) The challenge of facework, cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. New York: State University of New York Press.
14. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.
15. Yang. K. S. (1981) Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan. The journal of Social Psychology, 113: 159-170.