The Art of the Interruption: Conversation Across Cultures

We have all been there: you’re mid-sentence, sharing a story, and suddenly someone cuts you off. It can feel like a violation of your space, a disruption of your flow. But hold on, because what might feel rude in one culture could be a sign of deep engagement in another.

Interruption isn’t always a sign of disrespect. In fact, in some cultures, it is a welcome expression of connection.

The Science of Interruption

Communication is not a simple matter, even if we practice it daily. It is a highly coreographed dance, and interruption, believe it or not, is an integral part of it. People in all cultures interrupt each other, but doing so means different things in different places, and it can be a positive gesture or not, depending on the intention behind it.

Researchers differentiate between dominance-driven interruptions in an otherwise linear, orderly conversation called turn-taking, and the kind of interruptions that show interest and build on the conversation. This second form is called cooperative overlapping speech or parallel talk, and to understand the differences better, we will have to clarify a few linguistic contrasts between different cultures.

High vs. Low Context Cultures

Cultures can be broadly categorized as high or low context, in terms introduced by the American anthropologist and cross-cultural researcher Edward T. Hall.

High-context cultures rely heavily on nonverbal cues and shared understanding. Here, every detail of life is thoroughly embedded in a rich and intricate context, and people are expected to read between the lines. Communication relies on this implicit knowledge that everyone shares. The focus of communication is therefore less on factual information, and more on placing what is communicated within the larger context.

Examples of high-context countries are Japan, China, India, Latin America, Arab countries, Greece and Spain. In these high-context cultures, conversations are marked by cooperative overlapping, so people often interrupt each other and speak at the same time, as a way to show agreement, anticipation, or simply stay in sync with the speaker.

In Japan, for example, the natural conversational style is called kyowa, which means “co-create”. Interruption is used with the intention to help the speaker, and listeners are expected to actively participate, even finishing sentences for the speaker (kyowa) or offering frequent interjections (aizuchi) to show attention and understanding. This cooperative overlap isn’t about dominance; the co-speakers weave a shared narrative together in an often indirect and ambiguous, but harmonious and respectful way.

On the other hand, low-context cultures, like German-speaking countries, the Scandinavian countries and the United States, place a premium on clear, direct and open communication. Here, most information is explicit and is expected to be in the message, as if the listener has little to no knowledge about what is being said. If something is unclear, explanations are required or expected, and not offering this information can be interpreted as unfriendliness or holding back.

Low-context communication is often precise and highly focused, and can be emotional and verbose, with speakers taking turns. Silence often signifies respect for the next speaker’s discourse, and some cultures, like the Scandinavian, are more comfortable with silence than others. Due to the turn-taking, linear nature of low-context communication, interrupting can be perceived as rude, patronizing, or aggressive.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Another factor influencing interruption styles is the emphasis a culture places on individualism versus collectivism, as described by the widely used Cultural Dimensions Theory developed by the Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede.

Individualistic cultures, like the US, Australia, the UK, Canada, Hungary, or the Netherlands, prioritize self-expression. Here, communication is used to signal being in charge of one’s life, being self-responsible, self-determined, different and self-assertive, qualities highly valued in such cultures. In the ideal conversation, people take turns speaking, ensuring everyone gets a chance to express themselves and contribute. Interruption is seldom welcomed in individualistic cultures, unless the speaker invites the listener to interrupt for questions or detail requests.

Collectivistic cultures like India, Brazil, Russia, Japan, China, or Indonesia value group harmony and maintaining relationships. Collective needs and expectations, responsibility for others, interdependent decision-making, intergenerational support, a sense of belonging, and group values are important. In collectivistic cultures, conversations are often coopeartive and interruptions are expected, ideally used to emphasize agreement or solidarity with the speaker.

What Not to Do- Intrusive Interruptions

Having understood the cultural background behind the different views on interruption, we can now take a look at what helpful or disturbing interruptions look like. We will rely on the theories of Kumiko Murata, Carol W. Kennedy, Carl T. Camden and Han Z. Li to understand what helps us in our social interactions and what does not.

Interruptions that are disturbing and have a negative impact on the relationship between the speakers are called intrusive. Here is what to look out for:

• Disagreement: You disagree with the speaker and can’t wait to jump in with your opposing viewpoint. This type of interruption feels urgent, as if you have to get a word in right away.
• Floor Taking: You want to keep the conversation on the same general topic, but you grab the conversation floor from the speaker before they’re finished. It’s like taking the microphone at a karaoke bar – still singing the same song, but it is now you who is in the spotlight.
• Topic Change: This is a more forceful interruption. You want to steer the conversation in a completely new direction. Imagine you’re walking with a friend and they’re talking about their work. With a topic change, you blurt out, “Hey, did you see that movie trailer?” – a whole new conversation takes over.
• Tangentialization: You show you’ve been listening, at least superficially, by summarizing what the speaker just said. But you might use this summary to downplay their point or show you already knew it. An example is saying “Yeah, yeah, I get it, we should leave before noon” but in a way that might shut down the conversation instead of letting it flow.

These types of interruptions are used more or less by people everywhere, and they are universally perceived as disturbing. If you are personally and culturally open to using interruptions in conversation, you might want to focus on the kind that helps.

What We Can Do- Cooperative Interruptions

If we want to maintain healthy relationships and are comfortable with interruptions, here are the types that actually help the flow of communication, and with it, our social interactions:

• Agreement: You chime in to show you’re on the same page as the speaker. You might say “Exactly!” or “That’s so true!” Sometimes you might even build on their idea, like saying, “And not only that, but…”
• Assistance: You think the speaker might be stuck for a word or idea. So you jump in to offer a helpful suggestion, like completing their sentence or providing a relevant detail.
• Clarification: You want to make sure you understand what the speaker is saying. This interruption might be a simple “Wait, what?” or a more polite, “Sorry, could you elaborate on that?”
  
  Such interruptions are expected in high context, cooperative cultures, but can be surprising in low context, individualistic cultures. Still, depending on the situation and the particular people involved, interrupting in cooperative ways can help make conversations more friendly, increase intimacy, or simply make the day better for everyone.
  
  

Interrupting Gracefully: A Global Skill

As we have seen, conversation in general and interruption in particular are not a simple matter, especially in an interconnected world of multicultural societies. So, how can we best improve the art of interruption? Here are some tips:

• Be aware of cultural context: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Observe how conversations flow in the local context and do your best to adapt your style accordingly.
• Pay attention to nonverbal cues: Try to read your conversation partner’s body language, even if a different cultural context might make interpretation challenging. This could give you more clues as to whether your interruptions are welcome and if they hinder or help.
• Use short interjections: If you’re not confident using other types of cooperative interruptions, it is enough to briefly acknowledge the speaker’s point without derailing the conversation.
• Leave space for clarification: If unsure, ask if it’s okay to interrupt or offer a quick, “Sorry, couldn’t resist adding that!”
• Do not jump to conclusions: Whenever you are interrupted, or if you expect the support of cooperative interruptions but never receive it, refrain from jumping to negative conclusions. The differences in how people communicate are huge, and chances are that your conversation partner simply has another reference frame.
• Communicate with kindness: Research confirms what we all know- kindness, deep listening and a sense of connection make relationships stronger. Regardless of what happens on the surface of form, speaking with kindness will be beneficial for all involved.

Next time you find yourself in a conversation, take a moment to observe and appreciate the intricacy of interruptions. If you become friends with this conversational skill, you might even find yourself tempted to use it consciously, fostering deeper connection and a richer understanding of the people you interact with.

If nothing else, you’ll gain more tolerance for both your own and others’ occasional interruption blunders. After all, the most enjoyable conversations are often the ones where everyone feels comfortable participating.

 

Sources:

Bradshaw, J., Siddiqui, N., Greenfield, D., & Sharma, A. (2022). Kindness, listening, and connection: Patient and clinician key requirements for emotional support in chronic and complex care. Journal of Patient Experience, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735221092627

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences (Vol. Sage): Beverly Hills, CA.

Individualistic Countries 2022. (n.d.). Worldpopulationreview.com. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/individualistic-countries

Kennedy, C. W., & Camden, C. T. (1983). A new look at interruption. Western Journal of
Speech Communication, 47, 45-58.

Li, H. Z. (2001). Cooperative and Intrusive Interruptions in Inter- and Intracultural Dyadic Discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927×01020003001

‌Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or cooperative? A cross-cultural study of interruption.Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 385-400.