Cultural Differences in Uncertainty Reduction - Essay Example

Cultural Differences in Uncertainty Reduction Introduction "The most universal quality" was the term Montaigne used to describe diversity.(Le Baron, 2003). It is this diversity in people and cultures and makes interaction between individuals and communities an exciting phenomenon. An element of uncertainty is prevalent when we meet new people, and this uncertainty makes the experience both exciting, and nerve wracking. As a result "when we encounter a stranger, we may have a strong desire to reduce uncertainty about this person" (Littlejohn & Foss, 2004, p.145). Our cultural background is a significant factor in determining how we deal with strangers. This paper will focus on what Edward Hall termed High and Low context cultures. The basic difference between high context cultures and low context ones is that while high context cultures view communication as a means for social bonding, low context cultures see it as a means for information transmission. As a result people while people from these varied cultural backgrounds are faced with anxiety when dealing with strangers, the manner in which they tackle the issue is rather different. Charles Berger's Uncertainty Reduction Theory deals with this concept of 'uncertainty' and focuses on how different aspects of communication can increase or decrease our uncertainty level about others Uncertainty reduction is all about understanding a stranger and being able to predict and explain his/her behaviour in a given context. (Griffin, 2006)The first part of this paper focuses on Charles Berger's uncertainty reduction theory and how this theory is important to our understanding of communication between cultures. The second part of the paper discusses the issue of cultural differences between societies and individuals. This section will describe the various characteristics of high and low context cultures and how they try to reduce uncertainty while dealing with strangers. The third part of the paper deals with the methods used for the study.This is followed by key finds ad conclusion. Uncertainty Reduction Theory. The core assumption of Berger's theory as the website of the University of Twente states is that "Uncertainty is unpleasant and therefore motivational; people communicate to reduce it." Expanding on Berger's theory,. William Gudykunst and his colleagues found out that all cultures seek to reduce anxiety and uncertainty in the initial stages of the relationship, but they do so in different ways (Littlejohn & Foss, 2004). The difference can be explained by whether one is a member of a high-context culture or low-context culture. Central to the uncertainty reduction theory, which was originally formulated by Charles Berger, is the assumption that when strangers meet, their primary concern is one of uncertainty reduction or increasing predictability about the behavior of both themselves and others in the interaction (Wright, 2000). The original formulation of uncertainty reduction theory in initial interactions posited seven axioms and 21 theorems which specify the interrelations among uncertainty, amount of communication, nonverbal affirmative expressiveness, information seeking, intimacy level of communication content, reciprocity, similarity, and liking (Gudykunst, 1985). The seven axioms that Berger uses to reinforce his theory are; as verbal communication increases, the level of uncertainty decreases; uncertainty causes increased levels of information seeking; high levels of uncertainty result in low levels of self disclosure; uncertainty causes increased levels of reciprocity; similarities decreases uncertainty whereas dissimilarities increase uncertainty; and high levels of uncertainty causes a decrease in liking whereas low levels of uncertainty increase liking (Wright, 2000). Charles Berger's Uncertainty reduction Theory focuses on how human communication can be used to gain knowledge and create understanding. (Griffin, 2006) . Uncertainty reduction follws a three step pattern of developmental stages namely, entry personal and exit. At the entry stage interaction is largely within the parameters of communication rules and norms. The information exchanged is rather basic pertaining to age, economic or social status, and other demographic information. The personal stage begins when attitudes, beliefs values and more personalized information is shared. At this stage the people communicating feel less constrained by the rules of communication. In the exit stage, the communicators may decide on future interaction plans. On one hand they might allow the relationship to grow or on the other hand terminate it after that first meeting. (University of Twente website) Berger also suggests that there are three different ways we use to get information from others; passive strategies, active strategies, and interactive strategies (Littlejohn & Foss, 2004). The first passive strategy is reactivity searching which includes observing the target person's behaviors in formal situations. For example, if you were interested in getting know a colleague, you might observe how he/she reacts to events or communicates with other people in work place. Another passive strategy is disinhibition searching which is the observation of target person in informal situations such as in a cafeteria at lunchtime or at a supermarket on Sunday. In disinhibition searching, you might be able to observe a person in less self-monitoring and behaving more natural way. Active strategies of uncertainty reduction involve asking others about the target person, or arranging to be around him/her. The last is interactive strategies which include asking direct interrogation and self-disclosure to the target. "This type of uncertainty reduction is one of the primary dimensions of a developing relationship" (Littlejohn & Foss, 2004, p.145). People belonging to different cultures and societies use one or more of these techniques to gain information about others and thereby reduce uncertainty. They socio-cultural group they represent is key to their attitudes and behaviour. The next section will focus on the specific qualities of high and low context cultures and try to determine how people from these cultures manage the issue of uncertainty. High and Low Context Cultures The general terms "high-context" and "low-context," presented by Edward Hall, are used to describe broad-crush cultural differences between societies (Beer, 1997). High-context cultures are more common in the Eastern cultures than Western, and in countries with low racial diversity. In high-context communication, a substantial part of the message is physical or internalized in the speaker; in other words, the message is often nonverbal and indirect (Singh et al, 1998). In low-context communication, on the other hand, the message is predominantly verbal; that is, although they may use nonverbal forms of expression, a substantial amount of their message is conveyed verbally. People from western or linear cultures rely more heavily on low-context than high-context communication (Singh et al, 1998). In High context cultures, communication is viewed as a social lubricant and a means to develop relationships. The communication here is more group oriented and in most cases the social implications precedes the accuracy of information exchanged. In the case of low context cultures, communication is seen as a tool to convey thoughts. The focus here is on transmitting information and the key features of communication in these cultures are clarity accuracy and directness.(Paulusz, 2004) All societies contain a mix of high and low context cultures. Across the world, communication in a shopping mall is likely to be low context in nature while communication in a family gathering, high context in nature. For an outsider entering a high context culture is likely to be more difficult. This is primarily because people in high context cultures are bound by strong relationships, deep knowledge and practices which are quite difficult for a stranger to understand. On the other hand strangers find it easier to enter into low context cultures. As information is key to communication, it becomes possible for the stranger to gain access to that information and thereby be part of the communication process. (Beer, 1997) A simple example quoted by Beer is a PTA meeting in high and low context cultures. In the case of low context cultures, the communication is likely to be task oriented, which discussion focusing on certain key issues. Dates for meetings, a clear set of rules for participation are all elaborated in such meetings. However a PTA meeting in a high context culture, say in a local school in a small town or village is likely to be a more complex one. Here the participating members may all know each other personally and have overlapping interests. Similarly they might agree on an agenda or issue without having to actually discuss it A stranger entering such a meeting might find it difficult to participate as he/she may not understand the decision-making processes. (Beer 1997) As it evident from this example, communication in low context cultures is less complex and more direct. As a result uncertainty levels for a stranger entering a low context cultural situation are likely to reduce faster. Direct questions pertaining to experience, attitudes and information on the task help lower the levels of anxiety and uncertainty. Based on this understanding of the characteristics communication between high and low context cultures it is hypothesized that people who are members of low-context cultures are more likely to reduce anxiety and uncertainty in the relationship sooner than the members of high-context cultures. In this hypothesis, independent variables are people who are members of high or low-context cultures and dependent variable is the time each cultural member of people spend to reduce anxiety and uncertainty. Method This study involved the participation of 30 college students between the ages 18 and 22. The participants were randomly chosen and comprised both men and women. People of the same age group were chosen in order to avoid any instance of generational gap. Among those chosen, 15 belonged to high context cultures , primarily from south east Asia like Japanese and Koreans. The other 15 belonged to the more westernized low context cultures like North Americans and British.. In order to examine accurately how much time the participants took to reduce anxiety and uncertainty about strangers, efforts were made to ensure that all those chosen for the study had never met one another before. Procedure Prior to the arrival of the participants, the room was set up completely. Once the participants arrive and are seated, they are requested to answer the first questionnaire which comprises questions on measures of anxiety, self-esteem inventory, introversion and extroversion, and additional questions. The questions are worded in a manner that they disguise the real purpose of this experiment. Once they have answered the questions, the person conducting the experiment informs them that they must all remain in the room for an hour but are free to do anything they like. They are allowed to talk, exchange information, share phone numbers if they want to , and even make an appointments to meet one another outside of the experiment. Such experimental meetings are arranged once a week for a period of one month. After the final meeting the participants are again required to answer a questionnaire. The questions are on the measures of anxiety reduction, and a feedback on this experiment. The participants are asked whether they have been able to make a new friend/friends during this experiment period. Conclusion Uncertainty is a common phenomenon experienced by both people belonging to high context cultures and even those belonging to low context cultures. The study reveals that people belonging to low context cultures found it easier to reduce levels of uncertainty while communicating with strangers. This is primarily because, the communication in low context cultures is direct and task oriented. Members of low-context cultures have tendency to rely on direct verbal communication which is perhaps the easiest way to break the ice with strangers. They tend to ask direct and simple questions while staying within the parameters set forth for inter-personal communication. This reduces probability of embarrassment or any kind of awkwardness between the two. A significant aspect of uncertainty reduction lies in verbal communication. In line with the first axiom of Berger's theory, which states that, an increase in verbal communication and lower levels of uncertainty. Also as uncertainty levels reduce, the amount of verbal communication increases. (Griffin, 2006) Members of low context cultures use this tool effectively and thereby reduce uncertainty in interaction with strangers On the other hand when members of high context cultures interact with strangers, they rely more on non-verbal cues, which can be quite misleading. Strangers too find it difficult to comprehend the real meaning behind the words and gestures of people belonging to high context cultures. Berger states in his third axiom information seeking behaviour increases uncertainty levels. As much of the communication by those belonging to low context cultures falls within the norms of communication, members find it easy to ask direct questions and get information. Similarly they find it rather easy to disclose information about themselves. Self disclosure (Berger's fourth axiom) and reciprocity (Berger's fifth axiom) become key features of their interaction with strangers as a result of which uncertainty levels are further lowered. The basic characteristic of communication in low context cultures, which is asking simple and direct questions, is key to their reducing uncertainty levels while dealing with strangers. As a result when a low-context cultured person meets a new people, he/she must be able to get information and reduce uncertainty faster than a high-context cultured person. References Basinger, M. (1998). Uncertainty Reduction Theory of: Charles Berger. Retrieved November 15, 2005, form the World Wide Web: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/mb518496/mbur.htm Beer, J. B. (1997). Communication Across Cultures. High and Low Context. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html Griffin, E.A, (2006). A First Look at Communication theory, McGraw-Hill, 130-134. Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). The Influence of Cultural Similarity, Type of Relationship, and Self-monitoring on Uncertainty Reduction Process. Communication Monographs, 52(3), 203-218. LeBaron, M., (2003). Communication Tools for Understanding Cultural Differences, Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado. Retrieved May 2, , 2006 from the World Wide Web:- http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/communication_tools/ Littlejohn, S. W. & Foss, K. A. (2004). Theories of Human Communication 8th Edition. California: Thomson wadsworth, 144-146. Paulusz, W.,(2004) Communication: High and Low Context cultures, exerpt from report Identifying and Providing Culturally Relevant Support Serivces to International Students, Division of Student Life, Retrieved May 2, , 2006 from the World Wide Web:- http://www.deakin.edu.au/studentlife/counselling/bevalued/communication.php Singh, N. N., Mckay, J. D., & Singh, A. N. (1998). Culture and Mental Health: Nonverbal Communication. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 7(4), 403-409. University of Twente, Uncertainty Reduction Theory, Retrieved May 2, , 2006 from the World Wide Web:- http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Interpersonal%20Communication%20and%20Relations/Uncertainty_Reduction_Theory.doc/ Wright, N. (2000). The Critique of Berger's Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/nw583098/unc.htm Read More