Theory

High Context and Low Context Cultural Communication Model

Theorist
Edward Twitchell. Hall, Ph.D.
Biography

Edward T. Hall, Ph.D.

The anthropologist Edward T. Hall was born in Missouri in 1914. Although his life
began auspiciously when he was virtually abandoned by his parents to the care of others, his
early exposure to diverse cultures started him on his path toward decoding the deeper, hidden
layers of human behavior. The foundation for his lifelong research on cultural perceptions of
space was laid during World War II when he served in the U.S. Army in Europe and the
Philippines. During this time, as well as during his subsequent service as director of the Foreign
Service Institute training program for technicians assigned to overseas duty, Hall observed the
many difficulties created by failures of intercultural communication. Hall began to believe that
basic differences in the way that members of different cultures perceived reality were responsible
for miscommunications of the most fundamental kind. He trained his foreign service officers
that there were profound disparities in the attitudes of different cultures toward time, space and
relationships which was considered almost heretical at the time. Today, his books are required
reading for those entering the Peace Corps. Along with his wife, Mildred Reed Hall, he has
published numerous practical and academic books on cross-cultural communication. Mildred
Hall died in 1994. He is currently living in retirement in Santa Fe, Mexico and in 2004, married
Karin Bergh (Brown, 2009).
Description of Theory
Halls cultural framework stated that all cultures can be situated in relation to one another
through the styles in which they communicate. He focused on cultural differences in

communication context and time in his research. He proposed differences in high- and lowcontext cultural dimension that depends on how each individuals identity rests in the total
communication framework. Hall is mostly associated with proxemics, the study of the human
use of space within the context of culture. In The Hidden Dimension (1966), Hall developed his
theory of proxemics, arguing that human perceptions of space, although derived from sensory
apparatus that all humans share, are molded and patterned by culture. He argued that differing
cultural frameworks for defining and organizing space, which are internalized in all people at an
unconscious level, can lead to serious failures of communication and understanding in crosscultural settings (Brown, 2009).
Halls most famous innovation has to do with the definition of the informal or personal
spaces that surround individuals (Brown, 2009):

Intimate space the closest bubble of space surrounding a person. Entry into this

space is acceptable only for the closes friends and intimates (Brown, 2009).
Social and consultative spaces the spaces in which people feel comfortable
conducting routine social interactions with acquaintances as well as strangers (Brown,

2009).
Public space the area of space beyond which people will perceive interactions as
impersonal and relatively anonymous (Brown, 2009).

Cultural expectations about these spaces vary widely. In the United States, for example,
people that are engaged in conversation will assume a social distance of roughly 4-7, but in
many parts of Europe the expected social distance is roughly half that. When Americans travel
overseas, they experience the need to back away from a conversation (Brown, 2009).
In some cultures, communication occurs predominantly through explicit statements in
text and speech and they are thus categorized as Low-Context cultures. Low-context cultures

communicate in direct, explicit and informative ways. In low-context communication,

information is more important than context. Knowledge is public, external, and accessible, and
communication is clear and short. Human relationships begin easily and end quickly. Ones
identity is rooted in ones accomplishment instead of family backgrounds. Communication is
seen as a way of exchanging information, ideas, and opinion (Morris, 2009).
In other cultures, messages include other communicative cues such as body language and
the use of silence. Essentially, High-Context communication involves implying a message
through that which is not uttered (Wurtz, 2005). High-context means that most information is
either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded,
explicit, transmitted part of message (Morris, 2009). As Morris stated, Hall (1989) determined
high-context cultures emphasized harmony, beauty, and oneness with nature. Confrontation and
direct comparison are not favored. People from high-context cultures are sensitive to specific
surrounding circumstance and cherish interpersonal relationships. Knowledge is situational and
relational. Relationships depend on trust, build up slowly, but last a long time (Morris, 2009). In
order to distinguish among cultures, Hall proposed a set of parameters to help situate cultures
along a dimension spanning from the High-Context/low-content category to the LowContext/high-content category (Wurtz, 2005). The differences of high and low-context cultures
in Halls model are summarized in Table 1 (Morris, 2009).
Hall also distinguished between monochromic time (M-time) and Polychronic time (Ptime) to describe two contrasting ways of handling time in different cultures. Typically, M-time
people do one thing at a time. In monochromic cultures people tend to have a linear time pattern.
North-European and North-American people are normally regarded as being monochromic time
people. Polychronic people, on the other hand, like to be involved in many things at once and

are committed to people and personal relationships rather than to the job. P-time people are
associated with the cyclic time pattern rather than with linear time. Most Asian countries are
regarded a polychronic people. P-time people change plans often and easily, whereas M-time
people adhere rigorously to plans. A summary of characteristics of monochromic and
polychronic cultures is presented in Table 2 (Morris, 2009).

Report prepared by:

Mary Lou Bledsoe

REFERENCES
Brown, N. (2009). Edward T. Hall: Proxemic Theory, 1966. Center for Spatially Integrated
Social Science. Retrieved October 12, 2009 from
http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/13
Changing Minds.org (2009). Halls cultural factors. Retrieved October 13, 2009 from
http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/hall_culture.htm
Culture at Work (2009). Communicating across cultures. High and low context. Retrieved
October 12, 2009 from http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html
Edward T. Hall (2009). Retrieved October 12, 2009 from http://edwardthall.com/
Morris, E. S. (2009). Cultural dimensions and online learning preferences of Asian students at
Oklahoma State University in the United States. Oklahoma State University.
Wrtz, E. (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-context cultures and lowcontext cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), article 13.
Retrieved October 13, 2009 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/wuertz.html

High-context Culture
Knowledge is situation and
relational
Implicit communication
Internalized messages
Read nonverbal message
Reserved reactions
Distinct in-groups and out-groups
Long term relationships
Strong group bonds
High commitment
Time is flexible

Low-context Culture
Knowledge is public, external, and
accessible
Explicit communication
Plainly coded messages, public,
external
Accept expressed words
Reactions on the surface
Flexible in-groups and out-groups
Short term relationships
Fragile people bonds
Low commitment
Highly organized time

Table 1: Comparisons of High- and Low-Context Culture

From: Morris, E. S. (2009). Cultural dimensions and online learning preferences of Asian students at Oklahoma State
University in the United States. Oklahoma State University.

Monochronic Culture
Do one thing at a time
Concentrate on the job
Time is inflexible and tangible
Adhere religiously to plans
Emphasize promptness
Uses to short-term relationships
Work time is clearly separable
from personal time
Show great respect for private
property

Polychronic Culture
Do many things at once
Are highly distractible and subject
to interruption
Time is flexible and fluid
Change plans easily
Base promptness on the
relationship
Have strong tendency to build
lifetime relationships
Work time is not clearly separable
from personal time
Borrow and lend things often and
easily

Table 1: Characteristics of Monochronic and Polychronic cultures

From: Morris, E. S. (2009). Cultural dimensions and online learning preferences of Asian students at Oklahoma State
University in the United States. Oklahoma State University.