Culture is not one thing.
Explore the dimensions.

Move between Hall’s communication-context model and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions on one interactive map. Search for a country, choose a lens, and explore what the data can—and cannot—tell us.

Compare two countries

One map. Multiple lenses.
Country-level indicators are a starting point for learning—not a definition of any individual or community.

Explore the data

Choose a cultural lens

203 countries in the dataset

Map a dimension Find a country

WORLD VIEW / CONTEXT

High- and low-context

Select a country to explore

Loading the map…

Low-contextHigh-context

Scores are shown from 0 to 100 No data

Basemap tiles © Esri and its listed data partners · Country boundaries © Natural Earth contributors · Cultural scores from the shared labs database.

Browse the six Hofstede dimension indexes

Open a dimension to browse its scores and interpretations by country.

Sources and methodology

Sources adapted from the Hofstede and Hall references used in the shared dataset. The communication-context score shown on this site is a transparent proxy calculated as 0.70 × (100 − IDV) + 0.30 × PDI; it is not a score directly measured by Hall.

Hofstede dimensions and country data

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
Minkov, M. (2007). What Makes Us Different and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-Cultural Data. Klasika i Stil.
The first four Hofstede dimensions draw on IBM employee studies. Long-term orientation and indulgence draw on later cross-cultural survey research, including the Chinese Value Survey and World Values Survey, as summarized in the sources above.

Hall’s communication-context framework

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans. Intercultural Press.
Kittler, M. G., Rygl, D., & Mackinnon, A. (2011). Beyond Culture or Beyond Control? Reviewing the Use of Hall’s High-/Low-Context Concept. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management.
Cardon, P. W. (2008). A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model: A Meta-Analysis of Literature on Intercultural Business and Technical Communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.
Broeder, P. (2021). Communicating Distances and High- and Low-Context Cultures. Language and Intercultural Communication.
Lamino, P. P., & Diaz, J. (2025). Intercultural Competencies: Understanding High- vs. Low-Context Cultures. University of Florida IFAS Extension (AEC813).

Limits and critical perspectives

McSweeney, B. (2015). Hall, Hofstede, Huntington, Trompenaars, GLOBE: Common Foundations, Common Flaws. In Transculturalism and Business in the BRIC States.
Country scores and the communication-context indicator are broad, national-level summaries. They do not predict an individual’s behaviour and should be interpreted with attention to local, organizational, regional, and personal variation.