Perhaps the most widely researched and accepted difference between cultures is the concept of individualism and collectivism. The word individualism entered the English vocabulary in 1835 with Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations of the young America. Throughout the years the United States continues to rank highest in the world in valuing and practicing individualism. Individualist cultures stress self-direction and self-achievement; collectivist cultures stress in-group loyalty and conformity.

A related concept is that of high and low context cultures. Edward T. Hall, who is commonly credited with originating the study of intercultural communication, noted that high context cultures are those in which less has to be said or written, because much of the meaning is encoded in the physical environment or already shared by the people. Think of the traditional Japanese tea ceremony—full of meaning but without words. Hall descried low context cultures as those in which meaning is primarily encoded in spoken and written words. Compare friends meeting over coffee to the traditional Japanese tea ceremony. Examples of high context cultures are China, Japan, Korea, most Latin American cultures, and southern and eastern Mediterranean cultures such as Greece, Turkey and the Arab states. Examples of low context cultures are United States, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, and the Nordic states.  Of course, not every individual in these countries exhibits that generalized stereotype.

Why does high context China emphasize collective order and low context Western cultures stress individual liberties? Recent analysis has attempted to explain the observed cultural difference in terms of historical agriculture tradition, specifically the differences observed between rice growing cultures and wheat growing cultures. According to these studies, over half of the world’s population lives in 15 societies with legacies of rice farming. The irrigation and labor demands of rice cultivation required labor sharing and resulting interdependent relationships. The studies suggest that the social traits in rice-growing communities extended to others in the communities whether they were involved in agriculture or not. 

Rice-growing cultures are more interdependent, think more holistically, and show less individualism that wheat-growing or herding cultures. One test of the theory was to compare rice-growing southern China with the wheat-growing north. The researchers found again that people in the rice-growing south were more interdependent and holistic-thinking. 

Research like this demonstrates that cultural variables, such as high and low context, are very stable, long-lasting constructs that help us understand the conflicts that arise and/or will arise. Corporate life, as an example, can be very different in high context and low context countries. And domestic life in an international marriage as well can challenge the beliefs and values of the partners.

The terms stereotyping, prejudice and racism are so frequently used that distinctions can be lost. Stereotype is most commonly used to refer to negative or positive judgments made about individuals on any observable or believed group membership. Prejudice is irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group while racism is prejudice with the exercise of power over the group through institutional, historical and structural means.

Research shows it is the feeling of threat that results in prejudice. Such feelings can be realistic, symbolic, cause intergroup anxiety and inspire negative stereotypes. Realistic threats are intimidating to the power and material well-being of a dominant group. Symbolic threats refers to feelings that the dominant group’s way of life are in peril. Intergroup anxiety occurs when people feel personally threatened during interactions. And negative stereotypes refers to the dominant group’s unfavorable assumptions that determine their interactions with other group members. The research make it clear that the threat does not need to be real to lead a dominant cultural group to express prejudice toward a minority.

So, the critical question is what is the source of that perceived threat. Recently, researchers surveyed 274 U.S. born individuals during the Covid-19 pandemic. Their analysis showed that the more one believed their preferred daily social media to be fair, accurate, and factual, the more like they were to believe Chinese Americans pose a realist and symbolic threat.

Their analysis revealed a gender difference. Women were more likely to believe Chinese Americans have a negative influence on their welfare, political and economic power, and physical and material well-being. Men felt more awkward, irritated, suspicious, anxious, defensive and self-conscious when communicating with Chinese Americans.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, social media was a platform to communicate prejudice. Opinions shared by political leaders and celebrities were deemed by some as fact and led to perceived threat resulting, in some instances, prejudiced behavior. The researchers compared political leaders’ and celebrities’ for their opinions as well as unrestricted social media and uncritical consumers of social media.

Their conclusion? Uncritical social media use can result in prejudice.