Chapter 4 – How Culture Works: Fundamentals of Cross-Cultural Interaction

Box 4.2: Use of Cultural Stereotypes

• Meeting context: U.S. and Mexican businesspeople negotiating time management.
  • Shared expectation:
  • Mexicans = polychronic / "mañana" mindset; flexible with time.
  • Americans = monochronic; strict with deadlines.
• Positive impact of accurate stereotypes:
  • Helped both sides quickly predict the other’s time orientation.
  • Enabled a negotiated compromise (e.g., blended timetable).
• Limitation:
  • Accuracy alone was insufficient; both parties still needed to understand why the other valued time that way (cultural values underlying each style).
  • Deeper causal insight prevents superficial agreements and fosters sustainable cooperation.

Differential Attributions and Attribution Errors

• Attribution = Cognitive process linking observed behavior to presumed causes (Trope, 1986).
  • Internal causes = personality, values, intentions (under individual control).
  • External causes = situational pressures beyond individual control.
• We rely on three situational cues for accurate attribution (Kelley, 1972):
  • Distinctiveness to situation.
  • Consistency over time.
  • Consensus across similar situations.
• Social‐categorization layer: We automatically sort people into in-group/out-group, which then colors our causal reasoning.

Inconclusive Information and Stereotype-Based Gaps

• When situational data are ambiguous or incomplete:
  • People default to stored knowledge:
  • Stereotypes of the other culture.
  • Personal scripts ("What would I do in that situation?").
  • Both defaults reflect cultural norms, thus culture silently shapes attributions.
• Example (Box 4.3 – Helen & Hideo):
  • U.S. employee (Helen) sees Japanese colleague (Hideo) complain about bosses while drinking.
  • Ambiguous cause cues → Helen projects her U.S. norm ("open criticizers are aggressive") ⇒ concludes Hideo has an aggressive character.
  • Misinterpretation arises because she ignores Japanese drinking-context norms (momentary venting, not lasting aggression).

The Ultimate & Fundamental Attribution Errors

• Ultimate Attribution Error (Pettigrew, 1979):
  • In-group positive behavior → internal causes ("We succeeded because we’re skilled").
  • Out-group positive behavior → external, transient causes ("They just got lucky").
  • Pervasive: influences product preferences ("country-of-origin" effect).
• Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977):
  • General human bias: overweight internal factors, underweight situational forces.
  • Once thought universal; later research reveals cultural variability (see next section).

Cultural Patterns in Attribution Biases

• Asian vs. Western differences (Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999):
  • Asians show weaker fundamental attribution error; more situational explanations.
• Illustrative studies:
  • Indians vs. Americans (Miller, 1984): Indians emphasize context; Americans emphasize individual traits.
  • Chinese vs. Americans on murder explanations (Morris & Peng, 1994): Chinese highlight societal stressors; Americans highlight killer’s disposition.
• Variability in in-group bias:
  • Vertical collectivism: lower-status groups may accept others’ higher status as legitimate (Smith & Bond, 1999).
  • Collectivists compare less with out-groups; focus on harmony within in-group (Triandis, 1994).
  • Individualists make more explicit inter-group comparisons (Hinkle & Brown, 1990).

Cross-Cultural Interaction Model (Figure 4.2)

• Sequence operates daily in international management contexts.

1. Situational Cues
   • Familiar business settings often trigger stored scripts (Type\,1 cognition).
   • Novel settings → deliberate reasoning (Type\,2 cognition).
2. Behavior (Actor)
   • Actor follows cultural script or strategically adjusts behavior.
3. Perceiver’s Processing
   • Identification of Behavior
     • Selective perception shapes what is noticed.
     • Immediate categorization if behavior matches expectations (automatic, Type\,1).
   • Causal Attribution
     • Draws on culturally based expectations & available cues.
     • Well-developed cultural schemas → more moderate, accurate judgments.
4. Response Behavior & Attitudes (Perceiver)
   • If attribution aligns with existing script → scripted response.
   • If not → must invent new response (creative accommodation), possibly consulting others.
5. Feedback Loop
   • Perceiver’s response becomes new situational cue, restarting the cycle.

• Competence hinges on ability to adjust old scripts / create new ones (Shaw, 1990; Thomas et al., 2016).

Box 4.4: Cross-Cultural Interaction – Todd & Chungmin

• Context: U.S. expatriate manager (Todd) in Korea.
• Event chain:
  1. Todd publicly mentions minor mistake during lunch.
  2. Chungmin (secretary) feels humiliated (Korean norm: reprimand should be private) → subtle displeasure (slamming door, no eye contact, sick leave).
  3. Todd misreads cues (lacks Korean schema); tries open, direct discussion (Western script).
  4. Chungmin’s discomfort escalates; more sick days; communication breakdown.
• Key lessons:
  • Script mismatch creates misattributions on both sides.
  • Each new behavior compounds misunderstanding (behavior-perception-attribution-reaction spiral).

Self-Schemas, Motivation, and Cultural Values

• Independent self-schema (common in individualistic cultures):
  • Motivated to express internal needs, defend rights, maintain personal consistency (Janis & Mann, 1977).
  • Positive self-image = uniqueness, inner attribute expression.
• Interdependent self-schema (common in collectivistic cultures):
  • Motivated to adjust to others, maintain harmony, restrain personal desires (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
  • Positive self-image = belonging, fitting in, appropriate role performance.
• Empirical profile for Chinese collectivists (Bond & Hwang, 1986):
  • High needs: compliance, socially oriented achievement, endurance, nurturance, order.
  • Moderate: autonomy, deference, dominance.
  • Low: individual-oriented achievement, aggression, exhibition, power.
• Cognitive dissonance relevance:
  • Less potent motivator for interdependent selves; internal attitudes carry less self-defining weight (Festinger, 1957; Doi, 1986).
• Universal motives (e.g., self-enhancement) manifest differently:
  • Independent context → emphasize uniqueness & competence.
  • Interdependent context → emphasize fulfilling duties & relational harmony.

Integrative Summary – Mechanisms of Cultural Influence

• Beyond overt norms, culture shapes interaction through:
  • Scripts: ready-made behavior sequences for familiar contexts.
  • Selective Perception: cultural filters determine salient cues.
  • Attribution Patterns: culturally tuned expectations guide causal explanations (internal vs. external, ultimate, fundamental errors).
  • Motivational Schemas: independent vs. interdependent self-construction redirects goals, persistence, and responses to conflict.
• Interplay captured in behavior-perception-attribution-reaction cycle; competence arises from:
  • Recognizing one’s own scripts & biases.
  • Accurately reading situational cues in culturally unfamiliar settings.
  • Flexibly creating/adapting scripts when none fit.
  • Accounting for motivational differences rooted in self-views.