Values Theory: Sociocultural Dimensions and Frameworks

As communication scholars grapple with how to analyze and correlate the central dimensions distinguishing various cultures, questions have been raised about how they, and especially values, can best be compared and contrasted. This is particularly important because values are a primary motivational construct that influences almost every aspect of human life, guiding us to consider what is desirable then energizing and directing behavior towards attaining those goals. But if two cultures seem to have diverse goals stemming from differing values, how do researchers go about measuring those differences? Identifying the ways specific values or value clusters vary along dimensions has been an important goal for many social scientists.

The 19th-century approach considered a one-dimensional linear model in which tradition moved forward toward modernity. In laying the foundations for an approach to studying intercultural communication, Edward T. Hall posited that context and time were also contrasting dimensions. Harry Triandis, in similar proposals for the study of subjective culture, suggested that core cultural syndromes can be identified, such as orientations to individualism and collectivism. Thus began the quest of values theorists to explicate measurable and scientifically comparable dimensions and determine how these might be integrated into multidimensional frameworks.

Cultural anthropologist Hall proposed that cultures varied significantly across several domains. One was context: Some cultures especially value and pay attention to the complete communicative context (high-context, HC cultures), and some do not, placing more emphasis on the explicit verbal code (low-context, LC cultures). He further postulated variance regarding time: Some cultures value a linear, sequential, event-by-event approach to time (monochrome, M-time cultures), while others prefer a synchronic, multi-tasking, flexible attitude toward time (polychronic, P-time cultures). Hall's cultural types are often used in descriptive studies to discuss relative differences between cultural systems, but few scales or measures have been designed to test the specific degree to which cultures are contextually driven or time-variant.