The distinction between cultures with high and low contexts is intended to draw attention to variations in both spoken and non-spoken forms of communication.
[5] The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural-communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation.
People within high-context cultures tend to be more aware and observant of facial expressions, body language, changes in tone, and other aspects of communication that are not directly spoken.
Within high-context cultures, people rely on their networks of friends and family, viewing their relationships as part of one large community.
In high-context cultures, where much of the communication is implicit, knowing the context allows individuals to pick up on non-verbal cues and indirect messages, thus facilitating smoother interactions.
Conversely, in low-context cultures, recognizing the need for explicit communication helps in providing clear and direct information, which can avoid misunderstandings.
[15] Typically a low-context culture will be less close-knit, and so individuals communicating will have fewer relational cues when interpreting messages.
A simplified example mentioned by Hall is that scientists working in "hard science" fields (like chemistry and physics) tend to have lower-context cultures: because their knowledge and models have fewer variables, they will typically include less context for each event they describe.
[18] In contrast, scientists working with living systems need to include more context because there can be significant variables which impact the research outcomes.
[citation needed] Hall notes a similar difference between Navajo-speakers and English speakers in a United States school.
[24] Kim Donghoon conducted a study to test the major aspects of high-context versus low-context culture concepts.
The study tested 16 items, covering various aspects of the high-versus-low context concept, including social orientation, responsibility, confrontation, communication, commitment, and dealing with new situations.
Overall, this study provides further evidence to support the high versus low-context culture concepts with Chinese, Korean, and American participants.
[25] A study from 2019 found that due to the different cultural backgrounds of China and the United States, the use of language in automotive advertising varies a lot.
[28] A research, published in 2022, investigates how varying cultural communication styles impact the outcomes of social group divisions.
The study results show that in Germany, known for direct communication, social divisions often lead to task conflicts, harming team performance.
"[31] This implies that communication is quite direct and detailed because members of the culture are not expected to have knowledge of each other's histories, past experiences, or backgrounds.
The Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice states that "high context defines cultures that are relational and collectivist, and which most highlight interpersonal relationships.
High-context users actively embrace these tools to enhance their communication styles and contribute to the efficiency and meaning of digital interactions.
[36] Awareness of miscommunication between high- and low-context cultures within the workplace or intercultural communication settings advocates for collected unification within a group through the flexibility and ability to understand one another.
Settings and cultures where people come together from a wider diversity of backgrounds such as international airports, large cities, or multi-national firms, tend to use lower-context communication forms.
[38] In contrast, a high-context language like Japanese or Chinese or Korean can use a high number of homophones but still be understood by a listener who knows the context.
India and Japan are typically high-context, highly collectivistic cultures, where business is done by building relationships and maintaining respectful communication.
The USA and Australia are typically low-context, highly individualistic cultures, where transparency and competition in business are prized.
[43] By contrast, low-context cultures tend to change more rapidly and drastically, allowing extension[definition needed] to happen at faster rates.
This also means that low-context communication may fail due to the overload of information, which makes culture lose its screening[definition needed] function.
[47] Website design among cross-cultural barriers includes factoring in decisions about culture-sensitive color meanings, layout preferences, animation, and sounds.
[48] In a case study conducted by the IT University of Copenhagen, it was found that websites catering to high-context cultures tended to have more detailed and advanced designs, including various images and animations.
In a 2008 meta-analysis of 224 articles published between 1990 and 2006, Peter W. Cardon wrote:[T]he theory was never described by Hall with any empirical rigor, and no known research involving any instrument or measure of contexting validates it. ...
In other words, the relationship between directness and contexting based on traditional classifications of [high-context] and [low-context] cultures is particularly tenuous.