Introduction

In an increasingly globalised world, communication is more complex than ever before. Today, over 7000 languages are spoken worldwide, and millions of people interact across borders daily, whether in business, education, or through digital platforms. With this vast diversity, effective communication has become both a challenge and an opportunity, requiring a deeper understanding of cultural differences and communication practices.

Communication challenges often arise from the diverse ways individuals express themselves, which are commonly referred to as communication styles. These styles are tied to personal and cultural identities, influencing how individuals send, receive, and interpret messages. It is well established that communication styles are shaped by cultural norms, with different cultures developing distinct styles of communication. For example, Hall (1976) introduced the concepts of high-context and low-context communication, where high-context cultures rely heavily on implicit, nonverbal cues, while low-context cultures emphasize direct, explicit communication. Additionally, cultural backgrounds influence communication behaviours, such as politeness, directness, and the interpretation of nonverbal cues.

To capture the complexity of communication styles, several other dimensions were proposed to classify and assess them. One widely recognized framework introduced the individualism-collectivism dimension. This perspective shows that individualistic cultures often value assertiveness and direct communication, while collectivist cultures tend to favour indirect, harmony-preserving styles. Another framework (Interpersonal circumplex model) offered a categorization of communication along two axes: dominance vs. submission and warmth vs. hostility. Moreover, the Communication Styles Questionnaire (CSQ) was developed to identify several distinct communication styles, including dominant, dramatic, contentious, animated, impression-leaving, relaxed, attentive, open, and friendly. These dimensions of communication styles were further developed by McCallister identifying three predominant types: noble, Socratic, and reflective. Each of these styles represents distinct approaches to communication, particularly in how individuals engage with truth-telling, analytical detail, and interpersonal relations.

Recent research proposed several new dimensions of communication style based on cultural influences. For instance, characterising communication style based on ‘doing' and ‘being' where the ‘doing' orientation places a high value on achievements and productivity measured, for example, by career progression and material wealth. In contrast, ‘being' orientation places a greater emphasis on personal identity, social status, and intrinsic worth with fostering a sense of belonging and community over constant striving for future goals. This distinction also extends to communication styles in oral versus literate societies. Literate societies, which rely on written communication, prioritise factual accuracy, logic, and evidence-based reasoning. In contrast, oral cultures rely more on verbal communication and tend to emphasise the emotional resonance and symbolism. Some researchers distinguish between ordered and unordered communication styles. For instance, ordered communication follows a structured pattern where participants take turns speaking guided by formal rules, as seen in Western culture. Unordered communication, on the other hand, allows for more fluid and spontaneous exchanges, where interruptions and overlapping conversations are common. This style is often found in more collectivist cultures, where maintaining relational ties takes precedence over adherence to formal communication rules.

Taken together, these perspectives demonstrate that communication style is a multidimensional construct shaped by cultural values, interpersonal dynamics, and situational contexts. Dimensions such as directness, formality, emotional expression, and relational orientation interact in complex ways, producing diverse patterns of communication both within and across cultures. Importantly, the frameworks reviewed above were largely developed in the context of face-to-face interaction. Yet as social life increasingly unfolds through digital platforms, the question arises as to how these culturally grounded styles are reproduced, adapted, or transformed in online communication.

Digital communication introduces conditions that challenge these established models. Online interaction is often asynchronous, multimodal, and sometimes anonymous, which complicates distinctions such as direct versus indirect communication. Increasing mobility and intercultural contact also give rise to hybrid styles that draw from multiple cultural traditions. These shifts raise important questions: how do cultural communication styles adapt in digital environments, and to what extent can frameworks developed for face-to-face settings capture the fluidity of online interaction? Empirical evidence to address these questions remains limited. Many proposed dimensions, such as those distinguishing oral and literate societies or ordered and unordered communication, originate from anthropological and sociolinguistic observations, and their applicability in contemporary digital contexts is uncertain. Only a small number of studies have examined cultural differences in communication styles online, and these typically focus on one or two isolated dimensions. As a result, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of how communication styles operate as a multidimensional phenomenon in digital settings.