Dominant values of high-context and low-context cultures

High-context (group orientation) Low-context (individual orientation)

Harmony with nature Mastery over nature
Fate Personal control over the environment
Being Doing
Past or present orientation Future orientation
Tradition Change
Focus on relationships Time dominates
Hierarchy/status Human equality
Elders Youth
Cooperation Competition
Formality Informality
Indirectness/ritual Directness/openness
Spiritualism/detachment Practicality/efficiency

Cross-cultural psychology has two broad aims: to understand the differences between human
beings who come from different cultural backgrounds, and to understand the similarities
between all human beings. The similarities may be sought at all levels – from the physiolo-
gical (our eyes are able to perceive colour) through the cognitive (we are also able to perceive
perspective, or relative distance), to the personal (we can be both happy and sad, gentle or ag-
gressive) to the social (we all relate to our parents and siblings), to the cultural (we all share
cultural norms with others of the same cultural background).

These cultural norms can take a variety of forms. They may be quite concrete and specific,
like the type of clothing we find acceptable on a given occasion, or extremely complex and
abstract, as are our religious beliefs. An important type of norm is the concept we have of
ourselves in relation to other objects and people. These may range from our belief about the
nature of human nature (Wrightsman, 1992), to the opinions we hold (our political opinions,
for instance) to the attitudes we have toward a variety of concepts which we hold. Attitudes
have long been studied by psychologists – especially social psychologists. For the first half of
the twentieth century, it was believed that if we could measure them accurately, they would
enable us to predict human behaviour. And predicting behaviour is what all psychology is
about.

However, as we became more psychometrically sophisticated, and able to measure attitudes

accurately with instruments such as the Likert summated ratings scale, we learned that atti-
tudes are much more complex than we had realised, and that they have to be measured very
carefully, and a number of other factors such as context and strength taken into account be-
fore any accuracy of prediction could be claimed. Moreover we all have so many attitudes,
they change so readily, and they vary so much over time and situation, that any one attitude
can predict only a relatively small amount of behaviour.
Social psychologists therefore started looking for more fundamental, slower changing
concept which might give more reliable behavioural prediction. One such concept is the val-
ues which a person holds. Values are seen as being relatively few in number. Perhaps the
best-known student of values is Rokeach (1979), who suggests that there are at most 36 val-
ues held by human beings. Moreover they are considered to be widely, and perhaps univer-
sally held. Concepts such as honesty and courage, peace and wisdom, are recognised in all
human cultures. On the other hand, Hofstede (1980, 2001), in a huge world-wide study, has
been able to find no more than five which are universally held.

Nevertheless the idea that there are basic human values, and that they are measurable, has
been exciting psychologists to investigate them for many years, from Allport, Vernon and
Lindzey in 1931 to the present day. It has been widely accepted that uncovering those values,
and devising means of measuring them, would facilitate valuable insight into the similarities
and differences between human beings from differing cultural backgrounds.

One theory of basic human values which has been very influential is that of Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck (1961). They He argued that humans share biological traits and characteristics
which form the basis for the development of culture, and that people typically feel their own
cultural beliefs and practices are normal and natural, and those of others are strange, or even
inferior or abnormal. He defined a value as: "A conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of
an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from
available modes, means and ends of action." (Kluckhohn, 1951, p 395).

Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck (1961) developed a theory which put these
principles into action.

They started with three basic assumptions:

 "There is a limited number of common human problems for which all peoples must at
all times find some solution".

 "While there is variability in solutions of all the problems, it is neither limitless nor ran-
dom but is definitely variable within a range of possible solutions".

 "All alternatives of all solutions are present in all societies at all times but are
differentially preferred".

They suggested that the solutions for these problems preferred by a given society reflects
that society's values. Consequently, measurement of the preferred solutions would indicate
the values espoused by that society.

They suggested five basic types of problem to be solved by every society:

 On what aspect of time should we primarily focus – past, present or future?

 What is the relationship between Humanity and its natural environment – mas-
tery, submission or harmony?
 How should individuals relate with others – hierarchically (which they called
"Lineal"), as equals ("Collateral"), or according to their individual merit?
 What is the prime motivation for behaviour – to express one's self ("Being"),
to grow ("Being-in-becoming"), or to achieve?
 What is the nature of human nature – good, bad ("Evil") or a mixture?
Value Orientation

Description of Five Common Human Concerns and Three Possible Re-

sponses (based on Kohls, 1981)
Concerns/ orientations Possible Responses
Human Nature: What Evil. Most people Mixed. There Good. Most peo-
is the basic nature of can't be trusted. are both evil ple are basically
people? People are basically people and good pretty good at
bad and need to be people in the heart; they are
controlled. world, and you born good.
have to check
people out to
find out which
they are. People
can be changed
with the right
guidance.
Man-Nature Relation- Subordinate to Na- Harmony with Dominant over
ship: ture. People really Nature. Man Nature. It the
What is the appropriate can't change nature. should, in every great human chal-
relationship to nature Life is largely deter- way, live in har- lenge to conquer
mined by external mony with na- and control na-
forces, such as fate ture. ture. Everything
and genetics. What from air condition-
happens was meant ing to the "green
to happen. revolution" has re-
sulted from having
met this challenge.
Time Sense: How Past. People should Present. The Future. Planning
should we best think learn from history, present moment and goal setting
about time? draw the values they is everything. make it possible
live by from history, Let's make the for people to ac-
and strive to con- most of it. Don't complish miracles,
tinue past traditions worry about to- to change and
into the future. morrow: enjoy grow. A little sac-
today. rifice today will
bring a better to-
morrow.
Activity: What is the Being. It's enough Becoming. The Doing. If people
best mode of activity? to just "be." It's not main purpose for work hard and ap-
necessary to accom- being placed on ply themselves
plish great things in this earth is for fully, their efforts
life to feel your life one's own inner will be rewarded.
 has been worth- development. What a person ac-
while. complishes is a
measure of his or
her worth.
Social Relations:What Hierarchical. There Collateral. The Individual. All
is the best form of so- is a natural order to best way to be people should have
cial organization? relations, some peo- organized is as a equal rights, and
ple are born to lead, group, where ev- each should have
others are followers. eryone shares in complete control
Decisions should be the decision over one's own
made by those in process. It is im- destiny. When we
charge. portant not to have to make a de-
make important cision as a group it
decisions alone. should be "one
person one vote."

Most studies of the dominant Euro-American culture in the United States find that it is future
oriented, focused on doing, emphasizes individualism, aspires to be dominant over nature,
and believes that human nature is mixed, some people are good and some are bad (e.g.,
Carter, 1990). By contrast, most studies show that Native cultures are past oriented, focused
on being, emphasize collateral (group) relations, aspire to be in harmony with nature, and be-
lieve that people are fundamentally good (e.g., Russo, 2000a).
It is important to note here that each culture will express all three possible responses at some
time. For example, it is common for Euro-Americans to have a "doing" orientation during the
workweek but to have a "being" orientation on weekends and while on vacation. The VOM
theory recognizes that there is diversity within a culture--both among subgroups and individ-
uals--and that degree of acculturation matters.