Computer-Mediated Communication: UK and Arab Samples

One influential framework for understanding these culturally shaped styles is Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), which explains how individuals adjust their communicative behavior to manage social distance, express identity, or achieve interactional goals. These adjustments can take the form of convergence (adapting towards an interlocutor's style to promote affiliation), divergence (emphasizing difference to reinforce identity), or maintenance (holding one's style constant). Moreover, CAT has been widely applied in intercultural communication to understand how individuals navigate cultural boundaries, both offline and online.

Along with interactional frameworks such as CAT, broader cultural value models also provide insight into the foundations of communication styles. Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory is one of the most widely used frameworks for understanding how cultural values shape communication practices. The model identifies several dimensions of national culture that influence how people exchange information, interpret messages, and build relationships. For example, power distance refers to the extent to which inequality in power is accepted within a society. In high power distance cultures, communication is typically formal and deferential, reflecting hierarchical relations, whereas in low power distance cultures, communication tends to be more informal and egalitarian. Similarly, individualism-collectivism affects communicative preferences: individualistic cultures emphasise autonomy, personal expression, and directness, while collectivist cultures value group harmony, relational obligations, and indirectness. Another important dimension in Hofstede's model is uncertainty avoidance (UA), which captures the degree to which members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguity. High-UA cultures generally prefer explicit, rule-governed, and structured communication, whereas low-UA cultures are more tolerant of ambiguity and favour flexible, exploratory interactional styles. Together, these dimensions illustrate how deep-seated cultural values translate into distinct communication styles across societies.

Beyond Hofstede's model, other cross-cultural frameworks also explain how cultural values influence communication. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner identified seven dimensions that capture differences in interactional preferences across societies. Of the seven dimensions, several are especially relevant to communication. Universalism versus Particularism contrasts cultures that emphasise rules and consistency with those that prioritize relationships and context. Individualism versus Communitarianism distinguishes cultures that stress personal autonomy from those that emphasize group consensus. Neutral versus Emotional highlights differences in whether emotions are openly expressed or carefully restrained in interaction. These dimensions have been widely applied in international business and management to explain communication challenges in multinational contexts.

The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project further advanced cross-cultural research by surveying managers in 62 societies and identifying nine cultural dimensions. While it shares some overlap with Hofstede's framework, GLOBE placed greater emphasis on organizational and leadership contexts, making it particularly relevant to workplace communication and cross-cultural collaboration. Several of its dimensions directly relate to communicative styles, for example, Assertiveness reflects preferences for direct versus indirect expression, while Humane Orientation highlights the cultural importance of empathy, generosity, and relational focus.

2.1. The present study

The present study takes a step toward addressing this gap by examining eight dimensions of online communication style in a cross-cultural design. To do so, we draw on data from two populations: participants from the United Kingdom and from Arab countries. This choice is grounded in well-documented cultural contrasts. At the level of everyday interaction, cultural values are enacted as communication styles through which individuals signal identity and manage relationships. In high-context traditions, such as those prevalent in Arab societies, communication is often associative, relational, and context-dependent, relying on implicit cues and indirect phrasing. In contrast, communication in the UK aligns with low-context preferences for explicitness, clarity, and direct language. These differences have been consistently observed in offline communication, and converging evidence indicates that they extend to online settings: for example, recent work comparing UK and Arab participants found differences in how misinformation is challenged, with Arab users drawing more on relational and contextual cues. The contrast between these populations is of particular interest because it reflects markedly different cultural orientations toward communication. This makes it possible to examine whether differences in communication styles are reproduced, diminished, or reshaped in digital interaction in both cultures. Moreover, a study shown that technology itself is reshaping Arab communication practices, making this population especially relevant for examining shifts in communication styles.

It has to be noted that we selected the UK and Arab populations as anchor cases that represent distinct communication logics. While our design includes direct between-group comparisons, we treat these contexts primarily as theoretically contrastive anchors that maximize variation on key communication dimensions, enabling us to assess how communication style operates within each culture - an approach that recognizes the interdependent nature of style dimensions and provides a richer understanding of their expression.

Based on the previous studies, we expect the polar differences in the eight dimensions of communication style between these populations (direct vs indirect, ordered vs unordered, being-centred vs doing-centred, oral vs literate). However, with the rise of digital communication, these cultural preferences may shift or blend in response to online environments. For example, studies have shown that online interactions may reduce some of the indirectness in high-context cultures, as written communication often requires more clarity. By comparing these two distinct cultural groups, we can better understand how cultural dimensions like context, directness, and social structure are redefined in the digital age.

Importantly, previous research on communication styles has focused on the use of communication styles largely neglecting an important aspect: the comfort level individuals have with using these styles. The use of a communication style does not necessarily indicate that a person is comfortable or confident with it. For instance, individuals may adopt a direct communication style in professional settings out of necessity, even if they feel more comfortable with indirect communication in personal contexts. The novelty of our study design is assessing both the frequency of use and the level of comfort with communication styles. This approach aims to capture differences that may otherwise be overlooked, which is critical because comfort reflects deeper cultural norms and communication preferences. This leads us to the key research questions addressed in the present study:

• RQ1: Do Arab and British participants differ in their frequency of use and comfort with various communication styles, including direct versus indirect, ordered versus unordered, being-centred versus doing-centred, and oral versus literate?

• RQ2: Are there differences between Arab and British participants in both their use of, and comfort with, each of the eight online communication styles?