Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
Vol. 35, No. 2, July 2006, pp. 139–160
Power Distance and
Facework Strategies
Rebecca S. Merkin
This study utilized Hofstede’s (2001) study that tested whether Hofstede’s power distance
(PD) dimension of culture is an important predictor for understanding cross-cultural
facework. It investigated how cultural groups differing in their level of PD negotiate
strategic responses (i.e., cooperative, indirect, or direct) to a face-threatening situation on
the individual level. Respondents from six cultures—Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, Chile,
Sweden, and the United States—completed questionnaires. Multivariate multiple
regression results from an individual-level analysis show that large-PD culture members
are more likely to use cooperative, indirect, and direct communication strategies to
manage face threats than their small-PD counterparts. The cooperative and indirect
facework findings in this study corresponded with Hofstede (1980, 2001), thereby adding
support for Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) grand theory of cultural dimensions.
Keywords: Power Distance; Facework; Cultural Dimensions; Impression Management;
Cross-cultural; Intercultural Communication
The challenge of creating enhanced understanding between diverse cultural members
has accelerated during this global age. Given the increasingly complex exchanges
taking place in our World, it is important to understand cultural differences in how
different facework strategies are strategically used during face-threatening situations.
Understanding interpersonal facework responses could help smooth intercultural
encounters and prevent potential intercultural conflicts. While there has been some
evidence of how power distance (PD) influences facework in conflict management
(Brew & Cairns, 2004; Oetzel et al., 2001, 2003; Ohbuchi, Sato, & Tedeschi, 1999;
Smith, Dugan, Peterson, Leung, Shaun, & Mark, 1998) and in family communication
This paper was adapted from the author’s dissertation, directed by Dr. Rebecca Rubin, and completed at
Kent State University in December, 2000. It was presented in 2003 at the Meeting of the International
Communication Association, San Diego, California. Correspondence to: Rebecca S. Merkin, Baruch CollegeCUNY, 1 Bernard Baruch Way, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10010, USA. Tel: 646 312-3720;
Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1747-5759 (print)/ISSN 1747-5767 (online) ß 2006 World Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/17475750600909303
140 R. S. Merkin
(Oetzel et al., 2003), how PD impacts on interpersonal cross-cultural facework
strategy choices, particularly in embarrassing situations, has not been investigated.
There is a large body of research describing how individualism-collectivism (IC)
influences facework (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Gudykunst et al., 1996;
Holtgraves & Yang, 1992; Imahori, 1994; Merkin, 2000; Oetzel et al., 2001; Singelis &
Brown, 1995; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). However, IC is not the
only cross-cultural influence on behavior. Cultures vary in different ways. In fact, a
number of researchers have shown that a reliance on only cultural IC to explain
communication behavior is limited and can lead to faulty conclusions (Gudykunst
et al., 1996; Kim et al., 1996; Merkin, 2005).
According to the Handbook of Social Psychology, IC and PD stand out as two
central cultural dimensions affecting psychological processes (Fiske, Markus,
Kitayama, & Nisbett, 1998). In particular, Ting-Toomey (2005) pointed out that
the PD should be taken into consideration in explaining face negotiation because PD
and IC are separate cultural dimensions. PD and IC, however, are also correlated.
Specifically, individuals from large-PD cultures tend to be more collective and
individuals from small-PD cultures tend to be more individualistic (Hofstede, 1991,
2001). Despite their correlation, nevertheless, on their own, IC and PD explain
different aspects of culture.
While IC refers to how individuals identify with their group, PD is about
differences in equality perceptions between people. PD refers to the extent to which
less powerful individuals from a society accept inequality in power and consider it
normal (Stohl, 1993). Ting-Toomey (2005) explained that cultural-level PD refers to
how cultures value unequal power distributions; but on the individual level of
analysis, PD refers to the degree that people prefer horizontal-based facework
interaction that minimizes social hierarchies (e.g., cooperative, indirect vs. direct
facework strategies). Therefore, studying PD’s effects on facework should increase
our understanding of how people enact facework cross-culturally.
In addition, while effects relating to IC are well known, the effects of PD have not
been adequately explored with facework (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Moreover, the
correlation between PD and IC makes it possible to confuse their different effects.
While individuals’ assumptions about their reference group may have an impact on
their subsequent communication, the different role of perceptions resulting from an
individual’s level of PD should affect facework differently from IC perceptions.
Therefore, it is worthwhile to extend extant facework research by analyzing how the
specific effects of PD impact on individuals’ facework strategy choices.
Embarrassment: A Face-Threatening Context
According to facework negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988) and subsequent
research (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; TingToomey & Kurogi, 1998), people in all cultures try to preserve and negotiate face
(using facework) in all communication situations partly to avoid being embarrassed.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
141
Embarrassment results from deficiencies in one’s presented self (Klass, 1990;
Modigliani, 1968; Shott, 1979). Embarrassment, i.e., self-conscious distress, ensues
when one is in a social context, as opposed to shame and guilt (Edelmann, 1981;
Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996) and is likely to be accompanied by
blushing, smiling, or feelings of foolishness (Buss, 1980). During a face-threatening
context of embarrassment, a disturbance of the assumptions people make about one
another in social transactions could potentially occur (Gross & Stone, 1964).
Level of Analysis
This study was part of a larger study testing all of Hofstede’s (2001) cultural
dimensions conducted operationalizing cultural dimensions on the cultural level by
country and the individual level by Hofstede’s Value Survey (Hofstede, 1994). The
countries corresponding to varying levels of PD from high to low were applied as
indicated by Hofstede in six countries: Hong Kong, Japan, Chile, USA, Sweden, and
Israel. However, in this study in order to evaluate cross-cultural facework on the
individual level, Hofstede’s Value Survey results were reported. Nine facework
strategies originally tested were direct, indirect, distancing, leveling, harmony,
ritualism, hostility (aggression), self-attribution, and consultation expectations for
structural change. Each of the nine strategies originally tested corresponded to each
of Hofstede’s different cultural dimensions according to Hofstede’s (1980) theoretical
predictions. This particular study is reporting on the strategies specifically related to
PD, i.e., cooperative, indirect, and direct strategies as elucidated by Hofstede. The
other strategies tested in the overall study related to other dimensions of cultural
variability than PD.
Face and Facework
We try to present a respectable front to other individuals when managing different
relationships. According to Goffman (1967, p. 5), face is ‘‘the positive social value a
person effectively claims for himself [or herself] by the line others assume he [or she]
has taken during a particular contact’’. Face is similar to a negotiated identity.
Feelings are attached to one’s self, and one’s self is expressed through face (Goffman,
1955). Thus, our face is connected to our innermost identity and its maintenance in
interpersonal relationships is of utmost importance.
Facework consists of actions taken to support desires to maintain or gain face.
Goffman (1967) defined facework as ‘‘actions taken by a person to make whatever he
[or she] is doing consistent with face’’ (p. 12). When a person’s face is threatened,
facework is the necessary actions taken to restore one’s desired identity. Facework
researchers (e.g., Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) have
tended to look at particularly face-threatening contexts (e.g., requests, conflict,
embarrassment) in order to study the facework strategies people use to manage such
situations.
142 R. S. Merkin
Facework and Culture
Culture shapes how the context or situation is perceived in that it helps determine
one’s self and, in turn, one’s corresponding face (Hofstede, 2001; Inkeles & Levinson,
1997). Even though the situation plays a part in the strategies people use to present
their face, the range of strategies from which people choose is limited by their cultural
values.
Goffman (1955) refers to facework as the rules that people follow in enacting their
face. It is these rules that vary according to culture (Hofstede, 1991; Imahori, 1994;
Matsumoto, 1988; Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003;
Sueda, 1995). Individuals have predominant facework strategy choices (Oetzel &
Ting-Toomey, 2003; Oetzel et al., 2003). Cultural factors have an indirect effect on
facework strategy choices when mediated by individual-level factors (Gudykunst
et al., 1996; Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995); cultural factors
also have a direct effect on facework strategy choices (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003).
The focus of this study is on the direct effect of culture on individual-level facework
strategy choices.
Tracy (1990) states that while concern over face may be universal; the particular
aspects of face that are valued and pursued are highly influenced by the cultural
context. Face researchers have contemplated how cross-cultural face is conceptualized (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Holtgraves & Yang, 1992; Oetzel et al., 2001;
Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). These varying notions of crosscultural face led researchers to investigate further the facework strategies people use.
Facework strategies used within a face-threatening context that varies by culture
include (but are not limited to) cooperative strategies, in which the actors
accommodate their communication towards the other, indirect strategies, which are
roundabout and diverge from a direct course, and direct strategies, which are
straightforward and candid. Hofstede (2001) described these strategies as
characteristics varying according to one’s level of PD. Because human groups
organize, direct, and pattern their behavior through culture (Kim, 1993), varying
cultural dimensions influence human behavior (Arrindell et al., 2004; Hofstede, 1980;
Marsella, 1985; Merkin, 2004; Rosaldo, 1984; Shackleton & Ali, 1990; Triandis &
Albert, 1987).
There is a historic tradition that cultural values indicate preferred modes of
behavior in a given culture (Kapoor, Hughes, Baldwin, & Blue, 2003). Hofstede
(2001) has been one proponent of this method linking cultural values to goaldirected behaviors. Unlike ethnomethodological (Goffman, 1967) and sociolinguistic
(Brown & Levinson, 1987) studies, face-negotiation theorists (Cocroft &
Ting-Toomey, 1994; Merkin, 2004, 2005; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; TingToomey, 1988, 2005) began studying facework in cross-cultural contexts using the
more culturally universal approach advocated by Hofstede (1980, 2001). Following
this approach, this article aims to extend facework research by analyzing facework
cross-culturally within a conceptual framework conceived with intercultural
interactions in mind—specifically, Hofstede’s (2001) theory of cultural dimensions.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
143
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Hofstede’s (2001) four cultural dimensions explained the differences in shared views
individuals acquire by growing up in a particular country. These dimensions provide
a useful framework for analyzing the influence of culture on the expression and
interpretation of face in intercultural interactions. Hofstede’s dimensions have been
widely used in analyses of phenomena pertaining to different cultures (e.g., Arrindell
et al., 2004, Arrindell, Steptoe, & Wardle, 2003; Burgoon, 2005; Chang & Holt, 1994;
Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hirokawa & Miyahara, 1986; Vishwanath, 2003). Hofstede’s
four cultural dimensions are: (a) power distance, (b) uncertainty avoidance,
(c) individualism-collectivism (IC), and (d) masculinity-femininity. Most discussions of cultural dimensions focus on IC (Gudykunst & Lee, 2000; Gudykunst et al.,
1996; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Kapoor et al., 2003; Merkin, 2000; Oetzel &
Ting-Toomey, 2003; Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey &
Kurogi, 1998; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2002; Triandis, 1995).
‘‘Individualism stands for a society in which everyone is expected to look after
him/herself and her/his immediate family only. Collectivism stands for a society in
which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups,
which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty’’ (Hofstede, 2001, p. 225). Hofstede explained that individualistic cultures stress individual goals, whereas collectivistic cultures stress group goals.
Facework strategy choices cultural members carry out in face-threatening situations
are influenced by IC values (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Gudykunst et al., 1996;
Holtgraves & Yang, 1992; Imahori, 1994; Merkin, 2000; Oetzel et al., 2001; Singelis &
Brown, 1995; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991).
Power Distance and Individualism-Collectivism
‘‘Power distance (PD) is the extent to which the less powerful individuals from
institutions expect and accept that power is distributed unequally’’ (Hofstede, 2001,
p. 98). People in large-PD cultures believe that power should be distributed
unequally while people in small-PD cultures believe that power should be distributed
relatively equally (Oetzel et al., 2001). Accordingly, this study currently examines PD
and facework framed by Hofstede’s (2001) conceptualization of PD characteristics
relating to: obedience, verbal expression, and injustice. Such aspects of PD should
influence cross-cultural facework.
Power Distance and Obedience
Obedience is not common among individuals from small-PD cultures. This is
because they value participation in decision making. They also question authority
and challenge the status quo for the sake of being fair (Ohbuchi et al., 1999).
Furthermore, in small-PD cultures, they do not mind creating face-threatening
conflicts while expressing themselves for the sake of clarity. Such independent
attitudes can be face threatening, however, to people from large-PD cultures who
144 R. S. Merkin
believe that any intervention that challenges authority or that threatens with the need
to open up and confront conflict is not appropriate (Westwood, Tang, & Kirkbride,
1992).
Unlike individuals from small-PD cultures who believe power should be used only
when it is legitimate, culture members possessing large PD grant authority and social
inequality (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede (2001) also explained that together with seeing
power as a basic societal fact, individuals from large-PD cultures stress coercive or
referent power. Thus, people from large-PD cultures accept coercive autocratic
power, obediently following orders more than individuals from small-PD cultures
(Mann, 1980). This is because power is a basic fact of society and its legitimacy is
irrelevant in large-PD cultures (Hofstede, 2001). Consequently, in large-PD cultures,
defiance of autocratic power is face threatening.
Acquiescence and PD are positively correlated (Johnson, Kulesa, Cho, & Shavitt,
2005; Smith, 2004). This may explain why in large-PD cultures, people are afraid to
deviate from what is expected of them and fear approaching, disagreeing, and
communicating with their superiors (Hofstede, 1980). Moreover, individuals from
large-PD cultures are reluctant to trust each other (Smith et al., 1998).
Cultures high in PD tend to stress conformity and submissiveness and be more
authoritarian societies (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, when it is necessary for people
from large-PD cultures to interact with others, they engage in obedient, peaceful,
cooperative communication strategies that compromise or collaborate with others
(Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood, 1991). Cooperative strategies are soothing, extraconsiderate communications employed to show deference, reverence, and respect in
an effort to smooth over potentially face-threatening events. One manner in which
obedience might be expressed is via deferential or acquiescent cooperative
communication strategies.
It is widely known that a preference for obedient, conforming, and cooperative
communication is also related to collectivism (Hofstede, 2001; Offermann &
Hellmann, 1997). Hofstede scores for collectivism and PD have predictive validity in
relation to social behavior (Smith et al., 1998). Given Hofstede’s description of the
preference of large-PD cultures for cooperative interactions and large-PD’s positive
correlation with collectivism, it is reasonable that individuals from large-PD cultures
would also prefer using cooperative facework strategies to smooth over difficult
face-threatening situations. Thus, the following hypothesis was tested:
H1: Individuals from large-PD cultures are more likely than individuals from
small-PD cultures to use cooperative facework strategies.
Just as PD and collectivism are correlated, there are also similarities between
their effects. In particular, collectivists mainly favor large PD (Ting-Toomey &
Kurogi, 1998). Just as collectivists are expected to ‘‘read each other’s mind’’
during communication, large-PD members use messages that are indirect and
dependent on hints (Hofstede, 2001) because they are more concerned with face
issues than their small-PD counterparts (Chi-Ching, 1998; Roongrengsuke &
Chansuthus, 1998).
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
145
For example, Brew and Cairns (2004) found that Australians (small PD) prefer
direct, explicit communication strategies in managing conflict, whereas Singaporeans
and Thais (large PD) skirt around problematic issues and prefer indirect
communication strategies because they have a need to avoid embarrassment for
both themselves and others. Ohbuchi et al. (1999) found the Japanese (large PD) to
be concerned with relationships and to use more avoidance tactics than their US
(small PD) counterparts, who are more concerned with fairness and assertiveness.
Similarly, in Oetzel et al.’s (2001) study of individuals’ perceptions of PD, results
showed that large-PD participants would be more likely to use avoiding facework in
conflict situations than small-PD participants.
Furthermore, persons from large-PD cultures also tend to accept passively
discrepancies between the public versus private selves of individuals to a much higher
extent than do individuals from individualistic small-PD cultures (Iwao & Triandis,
1993). This passive acceptance is sometimes expressed with indirect communication
that acts to smooth over difficult face-threatening encounters.
Although the above findings relate to how individuals from large-PD cultures
passively accept conflicting self-presentations of others and employ indirect
communication during the face-threatening context of conflict, to distinguish if
Hofstede’s (2001) prediction, that individuals from large-PD cultures use more
indirect communication strategies, also applies to facework strategies in an
embarrassing face-threatening situation, the following hypothesis is posed:
H2: Large-PD culture members are more likely to engage in indirect face-saving
strategies than their small-PD counterparts.
Power Distance and Verbal Expression
In large-PD cultures people generally foster a lower verbal expression of negative
emotions (Fernández, Carrera, Sanchez, Paez, & Cardia, 2000). Likewise, Matsumoto
(1989) found that individuals from large-PD cultures gave lower intensity rating to
negative emotions than individuals from small-PD cultures. The overt expression
of emotion (particularly the emotional demonstration of aggressiveness and anger)
is viewed as generally inappropriate. For example, Japanese and Koreans (large PD)
show more concern for politeness and use less confrontational communication
styles than small-PD Americans (Steil & Hillman, 1993). Furthermore, in large-PD
Japan, confrontation often leads to a loss of face (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Therefore, it
appears to be less likely for people from large-PD cultures to express themselves
directly.
According to Hofstede (2001), respect and formal deference to authority (e.g.,
elders) is valued in large-PD cultures. This deference is expressed by maintaining a
significant emotional distance separating individuals of different status groups such
as subordinates from superiors (Basabe et al., 2002). Moreover, status differences are
more pronounced, accepted, and promoted than in large versus small-PD societies
(Gudykunst, 2005; Leung, 2001).
146 R. S. Merkin
People from large-PD cultures even forgo their normal display rules of lower
emotional expression of negative emotions to foster and legitimize status differences
(Fernández et al., 2000). Furthermore, despite social norms to keep emotions under
control, findings show that people from large-PD cultures also have a low affect
balance. This may be why Oetzel et al. (2001, 2003) found that people from large-PD
cultures use more dominating facework than individuals from small-PD cultures.
Such findings indicate that when status differences are present, typical communication styles can vary.
Power Distance and Injustice
Hofstede (2001) found that PD was negatively correlated with injustice. Large-PD
cultures like Japan, for example, are not troubled by unjust terms (Kublin, 1987). In
large-PD cultures, where inequality and injustice are taken for granted, direct
communication would not seem to be a response to perceived injustice; unlike
Americans (small PD), whose experience of participating in direct communication
against perceived injustice gives rise to satisfying feelings of solidarity and mutual
validation (Martin & Varney, 2003).
On the other hand, individuals from large-PD cultures, receive more social
support for conformity and acceptance of injustice (Basabe et al., 2002) and aim to
preserve existing structures. For example, they maintain taller organizational
structures than their lower PD counterparts (Hofstede, 2001). This is because in
large-PD cultures, the hierarchical structure to which people belong preserves their
face. Face is preserved because when roles are structured and formalized, associated
behaviors are prescribed and acted out without surprises arising. Moreover, when
behaviors are prescribed, face-threatening challenges regarding who a person is or
what authority a person has are also not likely to occur. Conversely, any breakdown
or threat of breakdowns in such a hierarchy is face threatening.
The acceptance of injustice in large-PD society is highlighted by the fact that PD is
significantly and positively correlated with beliefs that the world is unjust (Furnham,
1993). For example, the societal members possessing the highest unjust world beliefs
were from Greece (with large PD) and the lowest unjust world beliefs were from
Israel (with very small PD). If people accept the world as unjust, they are less likely to
experience anger over relationships reflecting inequality and/or injustice. In fact,
findings show that people from collective large-PD cultures experience less intense
emotions than people from individualistic small-PD cultures (Markus, Kitayama, &
Heimain, 1996; Scherer, 1988).
In contrast, people from small-PD cultures view the world as just (Furnham,
1993). Injustice is not expected in small-PD cultures (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey,
1988; Matsumoto, 1989). For these reasons, people from small-PD cultures do not
simply accept the status quo, but rather engage in more active communication,
feeling more in control of their fate (Fetchenhauer, Jacobs, & Belschak, 2005).
People from individualistic small-PD cultures believe in individual freedom of
expression (Matsumoto, 1989) and emphasize clarity because it indicates integrity
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
147
(Fry, 1991); they value equal power distributions across different social roles (TingToomey, 2005); and they assume that equals can communicate directly with each
other. Furthermore, they say what is on their minds, even if it risks damaging the
relationship (Kim et al., 1994; Triandis, 1995). For example, Olekalns (1999)
describes low PD Australians as egalitarian individualists who care about honesty,
truth, and transparency, and who, therefore, tend to be direct and blunt in their
speech acts, favor argument, and can be confrontational if necessary, none of which
need be damaging to the relationship. Hofstede (2001) points out that people from
small-PD cultures tend to be verbally direct and clear. Thus, the following hypothesis
is posed:
H3: Individuals from small-PD cultures are more likely than individuals from
large-PD cultures to respond to a face-threatening situation with direct
strategies.
Method
Participants
The participants were as follows: 92 students primarily from Hong Kong Baptist
University (n ¼ 60), and secondarily from the Chinese University of Hong Kong
(n ¼ 32); 98 students from Tezukama College in Nara, Japan; 70 Chilean students
primarily from two universities: the University of Chile and Universidad Diego
Portales; 241 USA students from a high Midwestern university; 92 Swedish student
participants primarily from three universities: the University of Lund, the University
of Hogskolan Trollhattan-Uddevalla, and the Royal Institute of Technology in
Stockholm; and 81 Israeli student participants from three universities: Haifa
University, Bar Ilan University, and Tel Aviv University. A total of 649 participants
took part in this study (216 males and 443 females).
This study predicted that PD would influence cooperative, indirect, and direct
facework strategies during a face-threatening situation. Hofstede (2001) specified that
the best way to operationalize culture is to use matching samples. This is because if
subjects are matched on as many characteristics (i.e., age, education, sex) as possible,
such factors could not act as competing effects with the calculation of cultural effects.
For the most part, participants in this study were matched. They were all college
students between the ages of 18 and 23, with 13–15 years of education, and broke up
into similar ratios between men and women with women dominating the samples
(see Table 1).
Instrumentation
PD was operationalized on the individual level using Hofstede’s (1994) Value Survey
Module (VSM 94). The actual calculations from Hofstede’s VSM 94 measure were
employed for this study (see Table 2). Hofstede developed the VSM 94 in order to
measure cultural dimensions from actual population data. The VSM 94 is made up of
148 R. S. Merkin
Table 1 Demographic information about test participants.
Item
Chile
Israel
Japan
Sweden
USA
Hong Kong
Mean age
SD
Mean education
SD
No. Males
% males
No. females
% females
21.04
7.29
15.49
1.59
20
28.60
50
71.40
23.32
4.12
14.11
1.40
20
24.70
61
75.30
19.15
1.56
13.04
2.21
32
32.70
63
64.30
23.26
10.85
14.70
3.42
31
33.70
59
64.10
19.52
2.98
14.25
1.44
31
33.70
59
64.10
17.68
11.63
14.32
2.81
22
27.20
59
72.80
SD ¼ standard deviation.
Table 2 Multivariate analysis of power distance as a predictor of facework strategies:
Cooperative, indirect, and direct.
Multivariate tests
df
Power distance
Power distance
Cooperative
Indirect
Direct
9, 614
Sum of squares
1.62
6.88
2.34
F
3.49
df
1,625
1,623
1,625
Wilk’s Significance
2
0.95
0.0001
0.05
Significance
Beta
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.10
0.11
0.11
Univariate tests
F
5.75
6.88
7.51
five four-item questionnaire segments used to compare culturally determined values
between people from different countries. Each four-question set allows for an index
score calculation. The four questions measuring PD were employed for this
investigation. All of the questions were scored on five-point scales. The total scores
were derived from the mean scores on the questions for national samples of
respondents.
A few studies have recalculated the reliability and validity of the dimensions of the
VSM 94. For example, using the VSM 94, Earley and Stubblebine (1989) found the
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for UA subscale to be 0.75. Shackleton and Ali (1990)
retested the factor structure of Hofstede’s dimensions for four countries and
confirmed the same factors (dimensions) as Hofstede (1980). This established further
construct validity for the VSM 94. Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) established
the VSM 94’s convergent validity by finding a number of correlations in their
predicted direction.
Cooperative strategies were operationalized in this study by using the Cooperative/
Competitive Strategy Scale (CCSS; Simmons, Tucker, & King, 1988), which measures
the motivation to use competitive, cooperative, and/or avoidance strategies to
achieve success. This is a 24-item scale containing three independent subscales.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
149
Although the CCSS was scored by adding all responses within the three subscales and
computing the aggregate average for each subscale, this study employed only the
cooperative subscale.
Test–retest reliability for the Cooperative subscale has been reported at 0.75
(Simmons et al., 1988). Construct validity was also established by Ward (1993), who
confirmed the factor structure of the Simmons et al. scale with an independent
sample of employed adults. This scale was first pilot tested and yielded the reliability
of 0.82 for the cooperative subscale. The factor structure of the cooperative strategies
was also confirmed in this study as being one factor.
This study employed Cocroft’s (1992) construction of response items for indirect
and direct strategies because Cocroft (1992) and Cocroft and Ting-Toomey (1994)
successfully utilized these response items with Japanese and USA respondents. There
seemed to be too few indirect strategy items, so a few similar additional ones were
constructed to boost reliability. Reliability of such response items were tested in a
pilot test of over 200 students. In this study reliabilities for the indirect strategy scale
were: Hong Kong ¼ 0.81; Japan ¼ 0.72; Chile ¼ 0.75; USA ¼ 0.78; Sweden ¼ 0.76;
Israel ¼ 0.79.
The Crowne and Marlowe (1960) Social Desirability Scale was included to avert
the possible problem of response biased by social-desirability concerns. Results of an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the different cultural responses to appear
more socially desirable did not differ from each other. Therefore, social-desirability
effects did not need to be controlled for.
Scenario
According to face-negotiation theorists (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Oetzel &
Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998), the concept of ‘‘face’’ is
especially problematic in vulnerable interpersonal situations. Thus, the researcher’s
first goal was to find a previously tested situation to represent an embarrassing
situation according to most people around the world. Therefore, six hypothetical
situations from previous research were pilot tested for this study. Of the six
hypothetical situations tested, two were derived from Cocroft’s (1992) examples and
one situation was derived from a critical incident in Brislin, Cushner, Cherrie and
Yong’s (1986) Intercultural Interactions. The remaining three situations were based
on Miller’s (1992) categories of embarrassing social predicaments.
After presenting 50 students with the six situations, these situations were
considered in focus group discussions until the situation most face threatening to US
respondents became apparent. The situation that most respondents regarded as
representative of a face-threatening situation was Situation 2, which was derived from
a critical incident in Brislin et al. (1986).
A panel of experts in intercultural communication also believed that the situation
chosen during the pretest would be the most appropriate for testing responses to an
embarrassing situation internationally. Thus, the scenario chosen originally came
from intercultural specialists. Two follow-up judgments were made by a student
150 R. S. Merkin
pretest, and an expert panel served as a basis for the decision to use the following
scenario in this study:
Imagine that you are in a foreign country as a tourist and you are currently visiting
with an acquaintance from this foreign country (you met this afternoon in the
museum). This acquaintance invites you out for dinner. While dining in a fancy
restaurant, you accidentally knock over your red wine. It shatters and your drink
goes everywhere, including onto your acquaintance’s white shirt. Everyone in the
restaurant sees this.
Procedure
Facework researchers (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003;
Ting-Toomey, 1988) tend to look at particularly face-threatening contexts (e.g.,
requests, conflict, embarrassment) in order to study the facework strategies people
report using to manage such situations. In keeping with this practice, the students
were requested by their professors, in classes in their home countries, to respond to
questions requesting them to read the above hypothetical face-threatening situation.
They were then asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale the extent to which they
would use each strategy. US respondents and—because they were bilingual—
respondents from Hong Kong, Sweden, and Israel received questionnaires in English.
Japanese respondents received questionnaires in Japanese, and Chilean respondents
received theirs in Spanish. Both Japanese and Chilean questionnaires were back
translated to assure that they had been translated correctly. When students were
finished, their professor collected their questionnaires.
Results
Data Reduction Analysis
To determine whether cooperative, indirect or direct or strategies measured a similar,
separate, or higher construct, a principle components analysis was carried out. A
0.50/0.30 inclusion criterion (i.e., the item had to have a loading of at least 0.50 on
the primary factor and no loading higher than 0.30 on a secondary factor) was
applied.
The cooperative scale was part of one bipolar instrument including competitive
items on the other pole. Factor analysis initially divided this instrument into two
factors before varimax rotation procedures. After rotation five factors emerged.
Factor 5 (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.44), which accounted for 8.02% of the variance, was
eliminated because only one item loaded on the factor. One other item loaded
negatively on all factors except for Japan and brought down reliabilities; thus, it was
deleted. Two other factors (Factor 2: Eigenvalue ¼ 2.28 with 12.69% of the variance
and Factor 4: Eigenvalue ¼ 1.81 with 10.07% of the variance loaded on either
cooperative or competitive items exclusively and thus, were retained. The other two
factors (Factor 1: Eigenvalue ¼ 2.38 with 13.25% of the variance accounted for and
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
151
Factor 3: Eigenvalue ¼ 2.19 with 12.17% of the variance) had both positive and
negative loadings in the direction of the respective constructs. Two items loaded
heavily on both factors (i.e., items 52 and 55) and decreased the reliabilities of the
scales, thus, they were deleted. In short, I deleted four items from the analysis of the
cooperative/competitive scale, leaving the cooperative scale with six items. The items
were summed and averaged.
The indirect scale split into two factors. The first factor had four items and
explained 33.13% of the variance (Eigenvalue ¼ 2.65); the second factor contained
four items and explained 18.18% of the variance (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.46). Upon further
examination of the questionnaire, it was apparent that items in the second factor
were all placed together in a different section of the questionnaire which appeared to
affect participants’ responses. The second factor also had low reliabilities (between
0.11 and 0.66). Thus, the items contained in the second factor were dropped and the
four items in Factor 1 were summed and averaged to represent indirect strategies.
Reliabilities ranged from 0.72 to 0.81. Factor loadings ranged from 0.67 to 0.84.
The direct scale factor analysis after rotation indicated the presence of two factors
(see Table 4). Factor 1 consisted of four items and Factor 2 contained the fifth item.
Factor 1 (Eigenvalue ¼ 1.63) accounted for 32.54% of the variance. Factor 2
(Eigenvalue ¼ 1.54) contained one item and accounted for 30.73% of the variance.
Cronbach alphas for all five items were the same across all countries except for Japan.
Because, for the most part, the one item in the second factor boosted the scale’s
reliability, I decided to keep the scale intact and summed and averaged the five items
for further use in factor analyses.
Multivariate Multiple Regression Analysis
A multivariate multiple regression analysis using general linear analysis in SPSS (see
Table 2) was conducted to simultaneously test the relationship among PD and three
facework strategies: cooperative, indirect, or direct. In these analyses, the partial 2 is
reported for each predictor variable in Table 2; it is similar to an R2 term from a
regression analysis and serves as an indicator of effect size (Weinfurt, 2000). PD is
significant at the multivariate level, Wilk’s (9, 614) ¼ 0.95, p50.0001). At the
univariate level, PD is a significant predictor of cooperative, indirect, and direct
strategies (see Table 2).
Discussion
Findings in Relation to Hypotheses
This research investigated how the cultural influence of PD influences interpersonal
facework. This test, based on Hofstede’s (2001) theory of national cultures, was
carried out partly to see if PD operates similarly to Hofstede’s conclusions in another
sample and context because Hofstede’s conclusions were drawn from a sample of
IBM employees exclusively and extant facework studies have tested the context of
152 R. S. Merkin
conflict exclusively. The other objective of this inquiry was to achieve a greater
understanding of how PD influences individual level facework strategy choices to
help guide our communication with others during intercultural interactions.
The underlying reason for testing H1 was to see whether Hofstede’s description of
cultural members having deference and obedience as large-PD values would be
expressed communicatively by using cooperative extra-considerate communication
to smooth over a potentially face-threatening event. This prediction was
substantiated. Findings showed that cooperative strategies are more likely to be
employed by individuals from large-PD cultures than their small-PD counterparts.
Corresponding with this study’s findings that individuals from large-PD cultures
are more likely to actively employ cooperative strategies, H2 showed that large-PD
culture members are also more likely to engage in indirect face-saving strategies than
their small-PD counterparts. The PD values of obedience appear to be expressed
among large-PD cultural members through more cooperative and indirect facework
strategies.
H3 predicted that people from small-PD cultures would be more likely to display
direct communication than people from large-PD cultures in face-threatening
situations. Contrary to expectations individuals from large-PD cultures were more
likely than small-PD culture members to use direct facework strategies in response to
a face-threatening situation.
Direct and Indirect Facework Strategies
The following elucidations might help to explain the counterintuitive finding in H3.
In general, higher status individuals tend to use more direct strategies because it is
not considered inappropriately impolite (Brown & Levinson, 1978). For example, in
a study of large-PD hosts and small-PD expatriates, the hosts were more likely to
react to the status of the expatriates by choosing to be more indirect with superiors
and more direct with subordinates (Brew & Cairns, 2004). On the other hand, Steil
and Hillman (1993) found that regardless of cultural group or participant sex, direct
strategies were reported as first choice strategies, whereas indirect strategies were
cited as strategies of last resort.
Moreover, Steil and Hillman (1993) point out that American, Japanese, and
Korean participants were more similar than different on measures of perceived power
and frequency of direct strategy use. Direct strategies also varied in a study with
preschool girls’ and boys’ verbal conflict strategies in the United States and China
(Kyratzis & Guo, 2001). In their examination of linguistic strategies used by which
middle-class preschool girls and boys (aged three–five years) from the USA and
Mainland China, in same-sex groupings, Chinese girls and USA boys used the most
direct strategies while Chinese boys used a combination of direct and indirect conflict
strategies. Hence, it could be possible that individuals from large-PD cultures use
both direct verbal strategies and less emotional indirect communication strategies
depending on the situation.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
153
Implications
Cooperative facework strategies
The underlying reason for testing H1 was to see whether the large-PD values of
conformity and obedience described by Hofstede (2001) would be expressed by
cooperative communication that allows others to regain face during a facethreatening event. Cooperative strategies assist both parties to regain composure
during interactions that ensue after a face threat. Results provided support for this
hypothesis. Findings showed that large-PD culture members were more likely to
respond to a face-threatening situation using cooperative strategies than their largePD counterparts. Therefore, if face-threatening events occur during cross-cultural
interactions, it would be important not to be too blunt or prickly about the facethreatening event when interacting with people from large-PD cultures because this
could exacerbate the situation. On the other hand, a frank discussion or direct joke
about face-threatening events could be an appropriate appreciated strategy when
interacting with large-PD culture members who indicated that they prefer to also use
direct strategies to save face.
H1 results suggest that large-PD values of obedience to authorities and deference
are reflected in the greater reported use of cooperative strategies. This result
substantiated that Hofstede’s (2001) conclusions about organizations also hold in an
interpersonal facework context. This conclusion also demonstrates the importance of
abiding by accepted cooperative practices when communicating with people from
large-PD cultures. Abiding by tacit hierarchical understandings (as expressed through
cooperative communication) can help to save face for large-PD interactants.
Indirect facework strategies
Hypothesis 2, that large-PD culture members would use more indirect facework than
their small-PD counterparts, was supported. Apparently individuals from large-PD
cultures prefer indirect communication because it is affirming, pleasant, and
agreeable. If people are in a face-threatening situation with large-PD culture
members, it might be helpful to initiate a cooperative indirect statement to reduce
tension others might feel.
Moreover, in large-PD cultures where status distinctions reign, hierarchical
distinctions can actually be communicated indirectly. For example, a person may
indicate his or her higher status by not answering another’s inquiry about a topic
because the acceptable amount of personal disclosure in conversations varies by
relational status distinctions. Thus, if one desires to show consideration to a high
status person in a large-PD culture, one could make indirect references to the status
of that person.
In general, because facework is often performed when people first meet one
another, people first present their preliminary face. According to the reception they
receive, people then amend their subsequent facework. Because facework is
interactive, people also have reactions to the others’ facework. During potentially
154 R. S. Merkin
face-threatening situations, one might consider reacting more indirectly with largePD culture members because this communication style appears to put them at ease.
Direct facework strategies
Contrary to expectations, H3, which predicted small-PD versus large-PD culture
members would report that they would be more likely to display direct facework
strategies in response to face-threatening situations was not substantiated.
Individuals from large-PD cultures were more likely than small-PD culture members
to use direct facework strategies in response to a face-threatening situation. The
question can then be asked, how can one implement both direct and indirect
facework?
It could be that direct or indirect strategies should be chosen based on the different
kinds of messages communicated. For example, one could use indirect facework
when delivering negative messages and use direct communication style when
delivering positive messages. Another explanation is offered by Steil and Hillman
(1993), who found that regardless of cultural group or gender of the participants,
direct strategies were reported as a first choice when communicating, whereas
indirect strategies were cited as strategies of last resort.
Yet another explanation could be that this finding exemplifies how direct
communication is used in large-PD cultures to express the underlying latent conflicts
between the powerful and the powerless as described by Hofstede (2001). Direct
communication is considered to be less polite, yet can be more appropriately used by
higher status individuals (Brown & Levinson, 1978). Therefore, while individuals
from large-PD cultures may actually use or prefer more direct facework strategies, it
is also likely that they are also in control of their emotions and ensuing
communication as Hofstede described.
Hofstede states that a large PD is associated with an acceptance of an unjust world:
‘‘On the large PD side there is a basic mistrust that may never explode but is always
present’’ (p. 97). This acceptance and consequent obedience may be accompanied by
pent up emotions, which appear to be contained and not expressed during
potentially face-threatening situations. On the other hand, depending on the
situation, in particular what status considerations are present, direct strategies might
be more appropriately used by large-PD individuals.
While individuals from small-PD cultures do not mind if their use of direct
communication destroys the relationship, individuals from large-PD cultures, have
social solidarity needs, and, therefore, find the destruction of relationships to be face
threatening (Fu, Watkins, & Hui, 2004). In Zimmerman’s (1985) book about the
high PD Japanese, he suggests that Americans (low PD) negotiate conflict, a facethreatening context, by using both direct and indirect communication simultaneously. Specifically, Zimmerman suggests ‘‘to coax the Japanese into appreciating
one’s point of view . . . is to adopt a self-effacing and humble role while at the same
time being quietly forceful whenever necessary or appropriate’’ (p. 97). This
suggestion points out how both indirect and direct facework strategies could
be communicated at the same time. Therefore, it is possible that individuals from
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
155
large-PD cultures express both direct and indirect strategies simultaneously. Thus,
communicating directly and indirectly could act to lessen the blow of the direct
communication that needs to be used to get points across.
Limitations
This study employed self-reports which have limited external validity. While selfreports have the advantage of discovering cognitive intentions, they also have the
disadvantage of not representing an active relationship. Ideally, self-report studies
should have triangulated results. Future studies could test the relationships in this
study using a complementary method of analysis, such as behavioral observation, to
confirm conclusions arrived at in this investigation.
Differences between what a person reported and what a person might actually do
cannot be totally controlled. A social desirability check was undertaken to rule out
social desirability effects. The half-hour questionnaire used in this study was
considered somewhat long to administer and the entire data collection process from
start to finish took approximately one year.
Ideally, this study would have tested the scenario chosen with samples from many
cultures. Also, more than one scenario would have been tested to eliminate the
question that responses are due to a unique scenario (Jackson, 1992). However, given
the vast proportions of the larger study that this one was taken from and the
questionnaire’s length, this was not possible. On the other hand, the scenario was
based on a universal previously tested critical incident (Brislin et al., 1986), was pilottested, and three communication experts were consulted as to the representativeness
of the situation. Thus, strong attempts at attaining a representative face-threatening
scenario were made.
Finally, in this study the researcher did not personally control the administration
of the questionnaires. Professors administered the questionnaires in their native
countries. It is unknown if the samples used in this study could have affected results.
Possibly the respondents had hidden characteristics that could bias their responses.
Strong attempts were made in this study, however, to assure the most representative
controlled sample possible. Since participants completed the questionnaires in their
native country, they were more representative of their culture than, for example,
foreign students studying abroad, thus creating greater external validity.
Future Directions
This investigation serves as an individual level examination of facework employing
Hofstede’s (1980) PD based on data from a different sample, i.e., college students
than IBM employees and in a different context, i.e., a face-threatening situation.
Future researchers should go on to determine similarities and differences between
other cultures and other contexts such as requests. This study contributes to the
intercultural literature by identifying and supporting previously untested relationships between Hofstede’s (1980) PD cultural dimension and cooperative, indirect,
and direct facework strategies. Now that the cultural-based facework responses have
156 R. S. Merkin
been identified, such understanding can help people to improve future intercultural
interactions in this more global age.
References
Arrindell, W. A., Eisemann, M, Oei, T. P. S., Caballo, V. E., Sanavio, E., Sica, C., et al. (2004).
Phobic anxiety in 11 nations: Part II. Hofstede’s dimensions of national cultures predict
national-level variations. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 627–643.
Arrindell, W. A., Eisemann, M., Richter, J., Oei, T., Caballo, V., van der Ende, J., et al. (2003).
Masculinity-femininity as a national characteristic and its relationship with national
agoraphobic fear levels: Fodor’s sex role hypothesis revitalized. Behavior Research and
Therapy, 41, 795–807.
Arrindell, W. A., Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (2003). Higher levels of state depression in masculine
than in feminine nations. Behavior Research and Therapy, 41, 809–817.
Basabe, N., Paez, D., Valencia, J., Gonzalez, J. L., Rime, B., & Diener, E. (2002). Cultural dimensions
and socioeconomic development, climate, and emotional hedonic level. Cognition and Emotion,
16, 103–125.
Brew, F. P., & Cairns, D. R. (2004). Do cultural or situational constraints determine choice of direct
or indirect styles in intercultural workplace conflicts?. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 28, 331–352.
Brislin, R. W., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C., & Yong, M. (1986). Intercultural interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon.
In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–289).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Burgoon, J. (2005). Expectancy violations and interaction adaptation. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 149–171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Chang, H.-C., & Holt, G. R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as interrelational concern.
In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 95–132). Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Chi-Ching, E. Y. (1998). Social-cultural context of perceptions and approaches to conflict the case
for Singapore. In K. Leung & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia Pacific
assumptions and approaches in diverse cultures (pp. 123–145). New York: Wiley.
Cocroft, B. K. (1992). Facework in Japan and the United States: A cross-cultural comparison.
Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Fullerton.
Cocroft, B. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469–506.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Earley, P. C., & Stubblebine, P. (1989). Intercultural assessment of performance feedback. Group
and Organization Studies, 14, 161–181.
Edelmann, R. J. (1981). The state of embarrassment. Current Psychological Reviews, 1, 125–138.
Fernández, I., Carrera, P., Sanchez, F., Paez, D., & Cardia, L. (2000). Differences between cultures in
emotional verbal and nonverbal reactions. Psicothema, 12, 83–92.
Fetchenhauer, D., Jacobs, G., & Belschak, F. (2005). Belief in a just world, causal attributions, and
adjustment to sexual violence. Social Justice Research, 18, 25–42.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
157
Fiske, A. P., Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social
psychology. In D. Gilber, S. Fiske & G. Lindsey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology,
(4th ed., pp. 915–981). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Fry, E. (1991). Subtlety and the art of Japanese management. Business Credit, 93, 26–28.
Fu, H., Watkins, D., & Hui, E. (2004). Personality correlates of the disposition towards
interpersonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39,
305–316.
Furnham, A. (1993). Just world beliefs in twelve societies. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 317–329.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face work. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday.
Gross, E., & Stone, G. P. (1964). Embarrassment and the analysis of role requirements. American
Journal of Sociology, 70, 1–15.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective
communication: Making the net of the mesh finer. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about
intercultural communication (pp. 281–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2000). Cross-cultural communication theories.
In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural
communication (pp. 25–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996).
The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on
communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510–543.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and affective communication. American
Behavioral Scientist, 31, 384–400.
Hirokawa, R. Y., & Miyahara, A. (1986). A comparison of influence strategies utilized by managers
in American and Japanese organizations. Communication Quarterly, 34, 250–265.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Value Survey module. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Institute for Research on
Intercultural Cooperation.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed., pp. 79–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General
principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 246–256.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural
researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225–248.
Imahori, T. T. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of the interpretation and management of face:
U. S. American and Japanese responses to embarrassing predicaments. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 18, 193–219.
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1997). National character: A psycho-social perspective. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Iwao, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1993). Validity of auto- and heterostereotypes among Japanese and
American students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 428–444.
Jackson, S. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. New York:
Guilford Press.
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response
styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264–277.
Kapoor, S., Hughes, P. C., Baldwin, J. R., & Blue, J. (2003). The relationship of individualismcollectivism and self-construals to communication styles in India and the United States.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 683–700.
158 R. S. Merkin
Kim, M.-S. (1993). Culture-based interactant constraints in explaining intercultural strategic
competence. In R. Weisman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence
(pp. 132–152). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kim, M.-S., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A., Bresnaham, N., & Yoon, H. (1996).
Individual- vs. cultural-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred
conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63, 28–49.
Kim, M.-S., Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (1994). The relationship between individuals’ selfconstrual and perceived importance of interactive constraints. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 18, 117–140.
Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, S. F., & Westwood, R. I. (1991). Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating
behaviour: Cultural and psychological influences. Organization Studies, 12, 365–386.
Klass, E. T. (1990). Guilt, shame and embarrassment: Cognitive-behavioral approaches.
In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 385–414). New York:
Plenum.
Kublin, K. (1987). The Japanese negotiation style: Cultural and historic roots. Industrial
Management, 29, 18–23.
Kyratzis, A., & Guo, J. (2001). Preschool girls’ and boys’ verbal conflict strategies in the United
States and China. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 45–74.
Leung, K. (2001). Different carrots for different rabbits. In M. Erez & U. Kleinbeck (Eds.), Work
motivation in the context of a globalizing economy (pp. 329–339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Mann, L. (1980). Cross-cultural studies of low groups. In H. C. Triandis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 155–210). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., & Heimain, R. J. (1996). Culture and basic psychological principles.
In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of social principles
(pp. 857–913). New York: Guilford Press.
Marsella, A. J. (1985). Culture, self, and mental disorder. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos & F. L. K. Hsu
(Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 279–308). New York: Tavistock.
Martin, B., & Varney, W. (2003). Nonviolence and communication. Journal of Peace Research, 40,
213–232.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in
Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426.
Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Cultural influences on the perception of emotion. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 20, 92–105.
Merkin, R. (2000). A cross-cultural evaluation of facework communication: An application of
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Unpublished dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH.
Merkin, R. (2004). Long term orientation and facework. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12,
163–176.
Merkin, R. (2005). The influence of masculinity-femininity on cross-cultural facework. Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 267–289.
Miller, R. S. (1992). The nature and severity of self-reported embarrassing circumstances.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 190–198.
Modigliani, A. (1968). Embarrassment and embarrassability. Sociometry, 31, 313–326.
Morisaki, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States. In S. Ting-Toomey
(Ed.), The challenge of facework. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Oetzel, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural
empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30, 599–624.
Oetzel, J, Ting-Toomey, S., Chew-Sanchez, M. I., Harris, R, Wilcox, R, & Stumpf, S. (2003).
Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings: A cross-cultural comparison
of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, and U.S. Americans. Journal of Family Communication, 3,
67–93.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
159
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Matsumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001).
Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the
United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235–258.
Offermann, L. R., & Hellmann, P. S. (1997). Culture’s consequences for leadership behavior:
National values in action. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 342–351.
Ohbuchi, K., Sato, S., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Nationality, individualism-collectivism, and power
distance in conflict management. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 58, 36–49.
Olekalns, M. (1999). Negotiating with Australia: The individualist among us. In L. Kwok &
D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia Pacific: Assumptions and approaches in
diverse cultures (pp. 277–302). New York: Wiley.
Roongrengsuke, S., & Chansuthus, D. (1999). Conflict management in Thailand. In K. Leung &
D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia Pacific: Assumptions and approaches in
diverse cultures (pp. 167–221). New York: Wiley.
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1984). Toward an anthropology of self and feeling. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine
(Eds.), Culture theory (pp. 137–157). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scherer, K. (1988). Facet of emotion: Recent research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Shackleton, V. J., & Ali, A. H. (1990). Work-related values of managers: A test of the Hofstede
model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 109–118.
Shott, S. (1979). Emotion and social life: A symbolic interactionist analysis. American Journal of
Sociology, 84, 1317–1334.
Simmons, C. H., Tucker, S. S., & King, C. S. (1988). The cooperative/competitive strategy scale:
A measure of motivation to use cooperative or competitive strategies for success. Journal of
Social Psychology, 128, 199–205.
Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking
culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354–389.
Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 50–61.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., Peterson, M. F., Leung, S. P., & Mark, F. (1998). Individualism:
Collectivism and the handling of disagreement: A 23 country study. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 22, 351–367.
Steil, J. M., & Hillman, J. L. (1993). The perceived value of direct and indirect influence strategies:
A cross-cultural comparison. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 457–462.
Stohl, C. (1993). European managers’ interpretations of participation: A semantic network analysis.
Human Communication Research, 20, 97–117.
Sueda, K. (1995). Differences in the perception of face: Chinese Mien-tzu and Japanese Mentsu.
World Communication, 24, 23–31.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and
embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256–1269.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.),
Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory.
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 211–234).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S., & Nishida, T. (1991). Culture,
face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–296.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated
face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. (2002). Cross-cultural face concerns and conflict styles: Current
status and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international
and intercultural communication (pp. 143–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
160 R. S. Merkin
Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of
language and social psychology (pp. 209–226). London: Wiley.
Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Triandis, H., & Albert, R. (1987). Cross-cultural perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam,
K. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 264–295).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Vishwanath, A. (2003). Comparing online information effects: A cross-cultural comparison of
online information and uncertainty avoidance. Communication Research, 30, 579–598.
Ward, E. A. (1993). Factor structure of employed adults’ motivation for competitive or cooperative
strategy. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 741–743.
Weinfurt, K. P. (2000). Repeated measures analysis: ANOVA, MANOVA, and HLM. In
L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding MORE multivariate statistics
(pp. 317–361). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Westwood, R. I., Tang, S. F., & Kirkbride, P. S. (1992). Chinese conflict behavior: Cultural
antecedents and behavioral consequences. Organization Development Journal, 10, 13–19.
Zimmerman, M. (1985). How to do business with the Japanese. New York: Random House.