HALL · COMMUNICATION CONTEXT INDICATOR
Low-context
This is an exploratory proxy calculated from the country’s Hofstede individualism and power-distance scores. It is not a communication-context score directly measured by Hall.
← Back to the world culture map
Country culture analysis
United States
North America · US · A concise, data-led cultural overview
Hofstede’s strongest signals are individualist tendencies on Individualism (91) and short-term oriented tendencies on Long-Term Orientation (26). Hall’s derived context indicator is 18.3/100 and leans toward lower-context communication, where messages are more often explicit; it is a proxy from Hofstede’s IDV/PDI scores, not a direct measurement of communication behavior.
Get an in-depth analysis of United States for $9.99. Download the free Egypt sample to preview the report, or unlock the full analysis whenever you’re ready.
Compare United States with another countryBasemap tiles © Esri · Country boundaries © Natural Earth contributors.
In-depth country report
There is more to learn about United States!
Download our full United States cultural analysis for only $9.99.
A full report covers:
- All six Hofstede dimensions and their practical meaning
- Country-specific insights and recommendations
- Methodology, limitations, and references
Explore another country
Choose a country
Jump straight to another country profile.
Browse all 203 available country analyses
Choose a country to open its analysis. The list reflects profiles available in the shared culture dataset.
A brief cultural overview
A starting point for understanding United States
United States has its highest Hofstede score in Individualism (91) and its lowest score in Long-Term Orientation (26). This profile within North America shows how authority, identity, risk, time orientation, competition, and self-expression combine in one national cultural snapshot.
PDI · HOFSTEDE
Power Distance
Leans egalitarian · #177 of 203
United States scores 40 on Power Distance, ranking #177 of 203 in the dataset. That is 25.8 points below the global average and 4.3 points below the North America regional average.
Explore the power distance indexIDV · HOFSTEDE
Individualism
Very individualist · #1 of 206
United States scores 91 on Individualism, ranking #1 of 206 in the dataset. That is 55.6 points above the global average and 9.7 points above the North America regional average.
Explore the individualism indexMAS · HOFSTEDE
Masculinity
Moderate masculinity · #22 of 197
United States scores 62 on Masculinity, ranking #22 of 197 in the dataset. That is 12.6 points above the global average and 9 points above the North America regional average.
Explore the masculinity indexUAI · HOFSTEDE
Uncertainty Avoidance
Moderate uncertainty avoidance · #174 of 208
United States scores 46 on Uncertainty Avoidance, ranking #174 of 208 in the dataset. That is 14.1 points below the global average and 5.3 points below the North America regional average.
Explore the uncertainty avoidance indexLTO · HOFSTEDE
Long-Term Orientation
Very short-term oriented · #113 of 197
United States scores 26 on Long-Term Orientation, ranking #113 of 197 in the dataset. That is 10.5 points below the global average and 5 points below the North America regional average.
Explore the long-term orientation indexIVR · HOFSTEDE
Indulgence
High indulgence · #37 of 195
United States scores 68 on Indulgence, ranking #37 of 195 in the dataset. That is 20.2 points above the global average and aligned with the North America regional average.
Explore the indulgence indexThese are national-level indicators, not predictions about individuals. Regional, generational, organizational, and personal differences matter; use the scores to guide questions rather than assumptions.
In-depth country report
There is more to learn about United States!
Download our full United States cultural analysis for only $9.99.
A full report covers:
- All six Hofstede dimensions and their practical meaning
- Country-specific insights and recommendations
- Methodology, limitations, and references
For teams and organizations
Practical cultural intelligence
Custom cultural intelligence reports from $50, tailored to your market, team, and goals.
- Market-entry briefings
- Cross-cultural training
- Organization-specific analysis
- Business etiquette guidance
- Negotiation and communication analysis
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.