FACTS:

HIGH & LOW CONTEXT COMMUNICATION

 

Example: 

Let’s say you’re an American, overhearing a conversation between two Saudi persons. They are from a HIGH-CONTEXT Culture. Even though you can clearly hear them, the words passed between the two Saudis may lack clarity and definition. You have no idea what's really being said. That’s because the Saudis usually rely on long-term and underlying meanings known by both because of their shared cultural background. They are also highly attuned to non-verbal communications and derive meaning from the speaker's facial expressions and body language. The Saudi person learns as much from the way you sit and whether or not you smile -- as from your words.

In contrast, conversations between two businesspersons from a low-context culture will be direct and structured, specific. Shared background is not assumed. The person from the low-context culture will place a much higher value on the words spoken than on the non-verbal aspect of communications.

On the other hand, a Japanese, French or Italian person would probably not have much trouble understanding the behavior of and getting along well with an Arab, because the two cultures share many similar factors – they are all high-context cultures.

 

DETAILS:

First used by author Edward Hall, the expressions "high context" and "low context" are labels denoting inherent cultural differences between societies. High-context and low-context communication refers to how much speakers rely on things other than words to convey meaning. Hall states that in communication, individuals face many more sensory cues than they are able to fully process. In each culture, members have been supplied with specific "filters" that allow them to focus only on what society has deemed important. In general, cultures that favor low-context communication will pay more attention to the literal meanings of words than to the context surrounding them.

It is important to remember that every individual uses both high-context and low context communication; it is not simply a matter of choosing one over the other. Often, the types of relationships we have with others and our circumstances will dictate the extent to which we rely more on literal or implied meanings.

To better understand high-context and low-context communication, ask the following:

·                   Do I recognize implied messages from others, and am I aware of the verbal and nonverbal cues that let me understand the speaker's meaning?              (High-Context)

·                   Do I "let my words speak for themselves?" Do I prefer to be more direct, relying on what is explicitly

stated in my speech? (Low-Context)

 

High-Context Communication

·                   Less is verbally explicit or written or formally expressed

·                   Often used in long term, well-established relationships

·                   Decisions and activities focus around personal face-to-face communication, often around a central, authoritative figure

·                   Strong awareness of who is accepted/belongs vs. "outsiders"

Association

·                   Relationships depend on trust, build up slowly, and are stable.

·                   How things get done depends on relationships with people and attention to group process.

·                   One's identity is rooted in groups (family, culture, work).

Interaction

·                   High use of nonverbal elements; voice tone, facial expression, gestures, and eye movement carry significant parts of conversation.

·                   Verbal message is indirect; one talks around the point and embellishes it.

·                   Communication is seen as an art form-a way of engaging someone.

·                   Disagreement is personalized. One is sensitive to conflict expressed in another's nonverbal communication. Conflict either must be solved before work can progress or must be avoided.

Low Context Communication

Hall: "The mass of information is vested in the explicit code [message]."

·                   More knowledge is public, external, and accessible.

·                   Shorter duration of communications

·                   Knowledge is transferable

·                   Task-centered. Decisions and activities focus around what needs to be done and the division of responsibilities.

Association

·                   Relationships begin and end quickly. Many people can be inside one's circle; circle's boundary is not clear.

·                   Things get done by following procedures and paying attention to the goal.

·                   One's identity is rooted in oneself and one's accomplishments.

·                   Social structure is decentralized; responsibility goes further down (is not concentrated at the top).

Interaction

·                   Message is carried more by words than by nonverbal means.

·                   Verbal message is direct; one spells things out exactly.

·                   Communication is seen as a way of exchanging information, ideas, and opinions.

·                   Disagreement is depersonalized. One withdraws from conflict with another and gets on with the task. Focus is on rational solutions, not personal ones.