International Body Language

International Body Language & Cultural Differences: How Misunderstandings Happen (and How to Avoid Them)

Why “body language” goes wrong - internationally

Nonverbal communication is a bundle of semi-structured systems whose meanings can emerge from culture, context, and relationship. (Hall, 1963/2001; Patterson et al., 2021).

Cross-cultural misunderstanding is interesting because it exposes a tension between our shared biological constraints, perceptual tendencies etc. (universally shaped by evolution) and culture-specific conventions (learned rules about what movements “count” as polite, confident, warm, or offensive). (Matsumoto, 2006; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013).

Three of the most readable books on cultural differences are Morris, Collett, Marsh, and O’Shaughnessy’s Gestures: Their Origins and Distribution and Axtell’s Gestures: The Do’s and Taboos of Body Language Around the World (Morris et al., 1979/1981; Axtell, 1998), and Foreign Bodies by Peter Collett (1993).

Morris and colleagues mapped how particular gestures are present, absent, or differently interpreted across countries, offering a descriptive foundation for the idea that “the same movement does not guarantee the same meaning” (Morris et al., 1979/1981). Axtell, by contrast, foregrounds the practical risk: a gesture that feels “innocent” in one culture may be taboo or insulting in another, and travellers often discover this only after an awkward moment. (Axtell, 1998).

People do not only “use” nonverbal behaviour; they also perceive, interpret, and judge it through culturally shaped expectations (Pang et al., 2024; Uono & Hietanen, 2015).

That means miscommunication is not just about what a sender intended; it is also about how a receiver’s culture shapes what they think was intended. (Hall, 1963/2001; Codó Olsina, 2002).

Four mechanisms repeatedly generate intercultural nonverbal errors:

1. Projected similarity: assuming others mean what we would mean with the same behaviour. (Cruz, 2001).

2. Category confusion: treating culturally variable “emblems” (gesture words) as if they were universal. (Ekman & Friesen, 1969/2004; Kendon, 1994).

3. In‑group decoding advantage: people often read familiar cultural patterns more accurately than unfamiliar ones. (Pang et al., 2024; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013).

4. Out-of-awareness channels (especially distance and gaze): we feel discomfort before we can explain it. (Hall, 1963/2001; Kreuz & Roberts, 2019).

   
   

This post will use those mechanisms to organise a wide-ranging tour of nonverbal communication - with particular emphasis on gesture, proxemics, and practical everyday “errors” such as finger-counting differences and ordering drinks in noisy environments.

This post will prioritise channels where cultural variation is especially likely to be interpreted as attitude (rude, cold, flirty, aggressive, dishonest): gestures, proxemics, gaze, and touch. (Cruz, 2001; Hall, 1963/2001).

Gestures: why some are “safe” and others are cultural landmines

Emblems are the closest thing to “gesture words”. These are culturally learned movements or signals with conventional meanings that can replace speech (e.g., “come here,” “good,” “zero,” “stop”) (Ekman & Friesen, 1969/2004; Kendon, 1994). Whilst emblems differ the most culturally, are the most often to be misunderstood, Illustrators - which accompany speech (shaping rhythm, size, imagery) – also vary strongly in style across groups, and regulators - managing interaction (turn-taking signals, nods that prompt continuation) also differ culturally (Patterson et al., 2021; McCarthy et al., 2008).

This distinction helps explain a common intercultural problem: people often treat all gesture as if it were emblematic (“That movement means X everywhere”), when much everyday gesture is actually illustrative or interactional - and can be misread as emotional intensity or rudeness when it is simply cultural style (Sekine et al., n.d.; Cruz, 2001).

Gestures as a mapped cultural repertoire

Morris and colleagues’ Gestures: Their Origins and Distribution catalogued a set of gestures across multiple countries and documented where meanings diverged (Morris et al., 1979/1981). The authors presented standard gesture depictions to large samples and asked whether gestures were locally used and what they meant, producing a cross-country picture of gesture diffusion and cultural barriers.

Three claims hold:

1. Gestures cluster geographically rather than spreading uniformly; some are common in one region and absent in another (Morris et al., 1979/1981).

2. The same “shape” can carry different meanings in different places, so gesture is a poor candidate for “universal translation” (Kendon, 1994; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013).

3. Because gesture is socially learned, it changes over time, spreads via contact, and can become taboo in specific contexts (Ekman & Friesen, 1969/2004; Hall, 1963/2001).

   
   

Axtell (1998): why “innocent abroad” moments happen

Axtell’s work is shaped by travel and business contexts: he warns that everyday movements - greetings, beckoning, “OK” signals, distance, and touch - are among the fastest ways to create unintended offence (Axtell, 1998). Axtell provides realistic and often entertaining scenarios and they align with research on how nonverbal cues shape judgments and interaction success (Axtell, 1998; Pang et al., 2024).

Emblems in the lab: what modern research shows about “gesture words”

Cultural variation is real - and measurable

Matsumoto and Hwang (2013) used encoders and decoders across six world regions and a standardised verbal message list.

Emblem misunderstanding is especially potent because emblems are often high confidence signals. People assume, “This is obvious.” That confidence is exactly what makes the mistake feel surprising and sometimes socially costly (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013; Axtell, 1998).

Intercultural Hazards

Mundane gestures can become intercultural hazards.

Finger counting is culturally flexible

A major finding from numerical cognition research is that finger counting is not fixed by anatomy; it is culturally variable in starting hand, starting finger, palm orientation, and whether fingers extend or curl (Bender & Beller, 2011). Bender and Beller review cross-cultural evidence showing wide procedural variation - e.g., starting with thumb vs. index finger, left vs. right hand - arguing that any embodied cognition account of number must acknowledge cultural variability (Bender & Beller, 2011).

A vivid example comes from research discussed around German vs Canadian counting habits: in Germany, many people begin counting with the thumb as “1,” while many Canadians begin with the index finger as “1” (Bender & Beller, 2011). That difference can create real-world confusion when someone orders drinks by holding up fingers in a noisy bar: what you think is “four” may be read as “five,” depending on whether the thumb is “in the count.”

A well-known film scene uses finger-counting as a cultural “tell,” where a spy is exposed by ordering drinks with the “wrong” national finger pattern (ScienceBlog report). Even if dramatised, the core psychological point stands: culturally normative number-gestures can function like a micro-identity marker - a small motor habit that others interpret as “native” or “non-native” (Bender & Beller, 2011; Cipora et al., 2021/2023).

We can also distinguish finger counting (for oneself) from showing numbers to someone else, like a bartender (Cipora et al., 2021/2023). As you might count privately one way but display numbers publicly another way (e.g., changing palm orientation to be readable), this increases the space for cross-cultural error (Bender & Beller, 2011; Cipora et al., 2021/2023).

“Yes” and “no” head movements: the Bulgaria case

A widely documented exception to the “nod = yes, shake = no” rule occurs in Bulgaria, where the mapping can be reversed in traditional practice (Andonova & Taylor, 2012).

Even when we “know” a rule intellectually, our bodies interpret nods/shakes with deeply trained default meaning (Andonova & Taylor, 2012; Hall, 1963/2001). The cultural may be know, as you order in a Bulgarian café, but may still misread a head shake as “no” (Peace Corps, 2013). Psychologically, this is a demonstration of automaticity. 

Beckoning (“come here”): why your hand can accidentally call someone a dog

Some gesture forms are interpreted as disrespectful when applied to adults. For example, the palm-up “curling finger” beckoning gesture is described as insulting in Japan (associated with calling an animal), where a palm-down, downward motion is preferred.

Beckoning is a perfect emblem case: a simple motor pattern that is conventional rather than natural, and therefore liable to cross-cultural misinterpretation (Ekman & Friesen, 1969/2004; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013).

Eye contact: honesty cue or disrespect cue?

Eye contact is often taught in simplified binaries, but empirical work shows culturally patterned differences in gaze perception, face scanning, and interactional gaze timing (Uono & Hietanen, 2015; Senju et al., 2012). Finnish and Japanese participants differ in biases for judging slightly averted gazes as self-directed, suggesting culturally shaped perceptual expectations about eye contact (Uono & Hietanen, 2015). British and Japanese adults also show different face-scanning patterns (e.g., mouth vs. eye fixation) and different responses to gaze shifts, consistent with different norms about when eye contact is sustained or flexibly managed (Senju et al., 2012). I have a friend who sruggles to make eye contact whe speaking because as a child in Jamaica she was discouraged to do so, it being seen by her family's elders as a lack of respect.

Studies using live interaction methods complicate stereotypes: a dual eye-tracking study found East Asian dyads sometimes engaged in more mutual gaze depending on task context, reminding us that “culture effects” are dynamic and context-bound rather than fixed rules (Haensel et al., 2022; Patterson et al., 2021).

When eye contact differs cross-culturally, people often moralise it (“dishonest” vs. “respectful”), but research suggests it is better understood as differing interaction norms (Uono & Hietanen, 2015; Hall, 1963/2001).

Touch and greeting: warmth, boundary, hierarchy

Large-scale cross-cultural research shows affectionate touch is widely observed in close relationships across many countries, but frequency varies substantially by context and culture (Sorokowska et al., 2023; Sorokowska et al., 2021). In a major study of over 14,000 participants across 45 countries, affectionate touch (hugging, kissing, stroking, embracing) was most prevalent with partners and children, but cultural and ecological factors predicted variability in touch diversity (Sorokowska et al., 2021).

In intercultural encounters, touch becomes risky because it is closely tied to status, gender roles, and formality, and because “professional” touch norms (e.g., handshakes) are not globally uniform.

Proxemics (personal space): the invisible geometry of culture

Edward T. Hall’s proxemics framework is foundational in intercultural nonverbal research: he argued that people from different cultures cannot be assumed to attach identical meanings to the same physical distance, and he developed methods for observing and recording proxemic behaviour (Hall, 1963/2001; Kreuz & Roberts, 2019). Hall’s core point is psychological as well as anthropological: proxemic patterns are learned and maintained largely outside awareness, which is why spacing violations produce immediate affect (discomfort, threat) before explicit reasoning (Hall, 1963/2001; Kreuz & Roberts, 2019).

The “waltz” effect: when people misread distance as personality

A classic cross-cultural scenario is two speakers adjusting to different comfort distances: one steps forward to restore their norm, the other steps back to restore theirs, creating a subtle “dance” (Cruz, 2001)). Cruz (2001) describes how such patterns can be misinterpreted - e.g., one party seems “pushy,” the other “cold” - when the real difference is culturally learned proxemic comfort distance. (Cruz, 2001).

“Contact” and “non-contact” cultures: useful but not absolute

Hall-inspired distinctions between higher-contact and lower-contact cultures are widely used in training, but later analyses caution that these categories can be too narrow and that spacing is shaped by gender, relationship, setting, and ethnicity (Dolphin, 1987; Hall, 1963/2001). It’s important to avoid stereotypes and treat cultural patterns as probabilistic and context-sensitive rather than deterministic (Patterson et al., 2021; Haensel et al., 2022).

Why mistakes happen

Projection and ethnocentric decoding

People often interpret others’ nonverbal behaviour using their own cultural norms, a process that can generate systematic misreadings (Cruz, 2001; Hall, 1963/2001). Because nonverbal cues often feel “obvious,” these misreadings can quickly become trait judgments (“arrogant,” “flirty,” “hostile”), even when no such intent exists. (Pang et al., 2024; Patterson et al., 2021).

In‑group advantage in decoding subtle cues

Evidence suggests people are often more accurate at recognising meaning and intent when cues match their own cultural style - particularly for indirect communication (Pang et al., 2024). In Pang et al. (2024), British raters recognised indirect replies from British models above chance but not from Chinese models, whereas Chinese raters performed above chance for both - demonstrating asymmetries in cross-cultural decoding and cue use (Pang et al., 2024).

The “emblem trap”: when you think a gesture is universal

Emblems are culturally learned, and the same movement can take different meanings across settings; this is explicitly emphasised in classic gesture typologies and emblem research (Ekman & Friesen, 1969/2004; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013). That makes emblems high-risk in intercultural settings, and it explains why many training guides focus heavily on them (Axtell, 1998).

“Thin slices” and first impressions

Even brief nonverbal exposures can shape social evaluations; mismatches with cultural expectations about gesture frequency, gaze, or distance can influence perceived competence or warmth (Naidu & Gaither summary; Patterson et al., 2021).

How to avoid mistakes

The S.A.F.E. strategy for intercultural nonverbal communication

S — Slow down your certainty. If you feel an immediate interpretation (“rude,” “unfriendly,” “dishonest”), treat it as a hypothesis, not a fact. This combats projection and automatic trait inference (Hall, 1963/2001; Patterson et al., 2021).

A — Ask for context (with face-saving language). Because decoding accuracy drops cross-culturally, especially for indirect messages, use gentle clarification: “Just checking - would you prefer…?” or “How do you usually do this here?” (Pang et al., 2024; Codó Olsina, 2002).

F — Favor low-risk signals. When unsure, choose nonverbal behaviours that are widely tolerated: relaxed posture, moderate smile, open palm rather than pointing, and avoiding culture-specific emblems. This aligns with the emblem-variability evidence (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013; Ekman & Friesen, 1969/2004).

E — Encode redundantly. Use words plus gesture rather than gesture alone; if ordering numbers, say the number and show it, and consider writing it down - especially because finger monitoring varies (Bender & Beller, 2011; Cipora et al., 2021/2023).

Specific “mistake-proofing” tips

1. Avoid “high-risk emblems” with ambiguous international meanings.

   
   

   If you learned a gesture as a “universal sign,” treat it as culture-specific unless you have local knowledge - emblem research shows large cross-cultural differences (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013; Axtell, 1998).

   
   

2. When calling someone over, watch locals first.

   
   

   Beckoning conventions differ, and some styles map onto “animal-calling” meanings (Beckoning sign overview; Ekman & Friesen, 1969/2004).

   
   

3. Treat distance as cultural, not personal.

   
   

   If someone stands closer or farther than you expect, interpret it as a possible proxemic norm rather than immediate dislike (Hall, 1963/2001; Cruz, 2001).

   
   

4. For yes/no signals, listen for words in “exception” cultures.

   
   

   The Bulgarian reversal is documented, and real learners report repeated confusion when relying on head movements alone (Andonova & Taylor, 2012; Peace Corps, 2013).

   
   

5. For numbers: speak, show, and (if needed) write.

   
   

   Finger counting methods vary across cultures and are studied as culturally flexible; this is a major source of “ordering drinks” mishaps (Bender & Beller, 2011).

   
   

What to do after a mistake (because everyone makes them)

Miscommunication is not “if” but “when,” especially in intercultural interaction (Abrams, 2020; Codó Olsina, 2002). When you notice confusion, the most effective repair is often to name the misunderstanding lightly, show willingness to learn, and shift to explicit speech: “Sorry, I’m still learning the local gestures” (Codó Olsina, 2002; Peace Corps, 2013). Interestingly, many intercultural “gaffes” become bonding moments if handled with humility.

Summary

Nonverbal behaviour has both universal and culture-specific components, and the mix differs by channel (e.g., some affect displays vs emblems) (Matsumoto, 2006; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013).

Emblems are especially culturally variable and therefore high risk in intercultural settings (Ekman & Friesen, 1969/2004; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013).

Proxemics and gaze differences are often misread as personality, because they operate outside awareness and are moralised into “respect,” “honesty,” or “coldness” (Hall, 1963/2001; Uono & Hietanen, 2015).

The best prevention strategy is epistemic humility: slow down certainty, ask context, and use redundancy (speech + gesture) (Pang et al., 2024; Bender & Beller, 2011).

References

Abrams, Z. I. (2020). Miscommunication, conflict, and intercultural communicative competence. In Intercultural Communication and Language Pedagogy (pp. 288–312). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.014 [cambridge.org]

Andonova, E., & Taylor, H. A. (2012). Nodding in dis/agreement: A tale of two cultures. Cognitive Processing, 13(Suppl 1), S79–S82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0472-x [link.springer.com], [pubmed.ncb...lm.nih.gov]

Axtell, R. E. (1998). Gestures: The do’s and taboos of body language around the world (Rev. & expanded ed.). Wiley. [archive.org], [openlibrary.org]

Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2011). Fingers as a tool for counting—Naturally fixed or culturally flexible? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 256. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00256 [pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Cipora, K., Gashaj, V., Gridley, A. S., Soltanlou, M., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2021/2023). Universalities and cultural specificities of finger counting and montring: Evidence from Amazon Tsimane’ people. (Preprint / manuscript). [researchgate.net], [blog.lboro.ac.uk]

Codó Olsina, E. (2002). Managing understanding in intercultural talk: An empirical approach to miscommunication. Pragmalingüística, 10, 37–57. [jstor.org]

Cruz, W. (2001). Differences in nonverbal communication styles between cultures: The Latino–Anglo perspective. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 127(4), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2001)127:4(51) [ascelibrary.org]

Dolphin, C. Z. (1987). Beyond Hall: Variables in the use of personal space in intercultural transactions (ERIC ED288210). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED288210 [eric.ed.gov]

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (2004). Emotional and conversational nonverbal signals. In J. M. Larrazabal & L. A. Perez Miranda (Eds.), Language, knowledge, and representation (pp. 39–50). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2783-3_3 [link.springer.com]

Haensel, J. X., Smith, T. J., & Senju, A. (2022). Cultural differences in mutual gaze during face-to-face interactions: A dual head-mounted eye-tracking study. Visual Cognition, 30(1–2), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2021.1928354 [tandfonline.com]

Hall, E. T. (1963/2001). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003–1026. https://www.jstor.org/stable/668580 [jstor.org]

Kendon, A. (1994). Some recent work from Italy on “quotable gestures (emblems)”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 4(1), 92–108. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43102154 [jstor.org]

Kreuz, R., & Roberts, R. (2019). Proxemics 101: Understanding personal space across cultures. MIT Press Reader. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/understanding-personal-space-proxemics/ [thereader....ss.mit.edu]

Matsumoto, D. (2006). Culture and nonverbal behavior. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication. Sage. (Chapter PDF circulation). [cedu-spw-p...utexas.edu], [CULTURE AN...Matsumoto]

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Cultural similarities and differences in emblematic gestures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0143-8 [davidmatsumoto.com], [link.springer.com]

McCarthy, A., Lee, K., Itakura, S., & Muir, D. W. (2008). Gaze display when thinking depends on culture and context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. (Author manuscript PDF). [researchgate.net]

Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (1979/1981). Gestures: Their origins and distribution. Jonathan Cape / Triad Granada. [books.google.com], [kirkusreviews.com], [archive.org]

Pang, H. T., Zhou, X., & Chu, M. (2024). Cross-cultural differences in using nonverbal behaviors to identify indirect replies. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 48, 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-024-00454-z [link.springer.com]

Patterson, M. L., Dunbar, N. E., Schmid Mast, M., & Fernández‑Dols, J. M. (2021). Editorial: Advances and obstacles in contemporary nonverbal communication research. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 731334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731334 [pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Peace Corps. (2013, August 7). “Yes” or “no” depends on which country you’re in. Peace Corps Connect Blog. https://www.peacecorps.gov/connect/blog/yes-or-no-depends-on-which-country-youre-in/ [peacecorps.gov]

Senju, A., Vernetti, A., Kikuchi, Y., Akechi, H., Hasegawa, T., & Johnson, M. H. (2012). Cultural background modulates how we look at other persons’ gaze. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025412465360 [journals.sagepub.com]

Sekine, K., Stam, G., Yoshioka, K., Tellier, M., & Capirci, O. (n.d.). Cross-linguistic views of gesture usage. (Research report PDF). [pure.mpg.de]

Sorokowska, A., Saluja, S., Sorokowski, P., et al. (2021). Affective interpersonal touch in close relationships: A cross-cultural perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(12), 1705–1721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220988373 [europepmc.org], [ecommons.aku.edu]

Sorokowska, A., Kowal, M., Saluja, S., et al. (2023). Love and affectionate touch toward romantic partners all over the world. Scientific Reports, 13, 5497. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31502-1 [pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov], [nature.com]

Uono, S., & Hietanen, J. K. (2015). Eye contact perception in the West and East: A cross-cultural study. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118094. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118094 [pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov], [journals.plos.org]